An Economist.com editorial examines the OS lay of the land on the eve of Vista's release, and makes an interesting case for why Windows "rules the world". Do you agree? We report, you decide.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
The problem is that business is charged to make the most amount of profit for its shareholders. If that means taking the exclusive contract, then so be it. Absorbing costs is not what businesses do - to do so means that you are effectively running at a loss, or subsiding the losses with a profit from elsewhere (but still running on an overall loss).
So why blame Microsoft for a business decision made by the respective OEM? Microsoft has come forward, offered them a deal which has some strings attached, the OEM has decided that it is in their best interests to go for that offer - so why blame Microsoft?
So, if you're going to run off to punish Microsoft, do you also advocate punishing Coca Cola for offering deals to the likes of Foodstuffs and Progessive/Woolworths for prime positions on the shelf, and the likes? I mean, if you're going to punish Microsoft for offering a sweetener, why not punish Coca Cola?
As to applications, you can't make vendors port. There's enough users worldwide to justify the porting of Autocad, Photoshop, etc etc, but software vendors will not do it. Why? Because they forsee that the Linux (and freeBSD) desktops will not grow to a substantial level, at least until key applications like Microsoft Office are ported. I'm sorry, but MOST people will not touch an office suite other than MS Office. It's nothing to do with features, reliability, stability or cost. It's simply that MS Office is the de facto standard for office suites from a mental perspective of the average user. Anything else is an unknown and far too risky to introduce to a system and use.
I don't want to go into this any further, because it seems to me that that the majority of people here have never actually used all the features of office as part of a larger work flow system; the whole Microsoft system glued together and used in an enterprise environment.
How about this; look at what Microsoft offers in terms of collaboration, office, and server technologies - and where are the open source equivalent? where is the equivalent of share point for example?
Member since:2005-07-12
So, if you're going to run off to punish Microsoft, do you also advocate punishing Coca Cola for offering deals to the likes of Foodstuffs and Progessive/Woolworths for prime positions on the shelf, and the likes? I mean, if you're going to punish Microsoft for offering a sweetener, why not punish Coca Cola?
Coca-Cola isn't a monopoly even in its strongest area, which completely changes the rules. The fact that you (apparently) don't understand this elementary distinction amazes me, as it's one of the most central reasons why Microsoft is treated the way it is by the US government and the EU (amongst others).
Edited 2006-12-28 18:00
Member since:2005-07-06
And why do companies break Linux(Wine) compatibility? Photoshop7 works almost perfect, Photoshop CS does not run at all.
BTW CodeWeavers crossover supports MS Office quite well, see yourself:
http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/rank/
Member since:2005-07-12
Even worse, back in the Photoshop 3 days versions 3.0 through 3.04 worked just fine under OS/2's WinOS2, while 3.05 broke compatibility completely.
Why? It used Win32S 1.30, that's why.
Same basic version of the same program, very few changes (if any) to features, but completely different results (one runs perfectly, the other not at all).
Member since:
2006-12-16
The problem is that business is charged to make the most amount of profit for its shareholders. If that means taking the exclusive contract, then so be it. Absorbing costs is not what businesses do - to do so means that you are effectively running at a loss, or subsiding the losses with a profit from elsewhere (but still running on an overall loss).
As to applications, you can't make vendors port. There's enough users worldwide to justify the porting of Autocad, Photoshop, etc etc, but software vendors will not do it. Why? Because they forsee that the Linux (and freeBSD) desktops will not grow to a substantial level, at least until key applications like Microsoft Office are ported. I'm sorry, but MOST people will not touch an office suite other than MS Office. It's nothing to do with features, reliability, stability or cost. It's simply that MS Office is the de facto standard for office suites from a mental perspective of the average user. Anything else is an unknown and far too risky to introduce to a system and use.
If the US DOJ had forced Microsoft to port MS Office, Windows Media Player and MSN Messenger to Linux and FreeBSD, then we'd have seen usage levels on the uptake, and we'd seen a much better and competitive operating system market. I'd say that as many as 40% of current PCs would probably be running Linux if that had been the case, probably higher in the business segment of the market. There's no real reason for Microsoft not to port Office etc, they port it to OS X, an operating system that has as many, if not less users than Linux worldwide.
Instead, we had a US DOJ that really wasn't interested in punishing Microsoft, or creating a true and fair market for operating systems. It basically rubberstamped Microsoft's monopoly.
Oh, and tell me why Bill Gates was not sanctioned for lying under oath in court? Any normal person would have been charged with perjury in such a scenario I suspect.
When governments are owned by business, it's a serious worry for the average constituent imho.
Dave