Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Jul 2007 22:45 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has reiterated its commitment to the desktop. Building on its co-founder Bill Gates' vision of a PC on every desk in every home, Microsoft will continue to focus on delivering desktop products. And in this context, nothing will change when it comes down to the development of the company's main cash cows. Windows Vista and the 2007 Office System will be followed by Windows Seven and Office 14. Kevin Turner, Chief Operating Officer, present at the Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference 2007 in Denver on July 10 emphasized the fact that Windows Vista will neither be the last of its kind, nor the last big operating system release from the Redmond company. The same strategy is valid for the Office 2007 System.
Thread beginning with comment 255207
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Tangent
by twenex on Fri 13th Jul 2007 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Tangent"
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

partially correct, but after Compaq cloned the IBM bios and started selling IBM compatible 286 and 386s, the price for PCs started to drop, and continued to drop to as the pc market opened up and competition and economies of scale continued to lower the cost to build a pc.

True, but whilst I wouldn't know the situation in the States, IBM PC's and compatibles weren't affordable for kids (or rather their parents) until well into the 1990s. So the perceptions that either Microsoft or Apple were the ones who got computers into every home is wrong, at least in the UK, because here, as I said, it was Commodore, Atari, and Acorn.


Because of this, as well as the adoption of the pc by the business world, drove the price down where "an average-earning family, let's have one or two of them in the house for the kids" could afford one, which didn't happen to apple until later. This coupled with the desire to have the same software at home as at work, is what put a pc in almost every home.


Which would have happened with or without Microsoft. That this is true is obvious when you see that you can now get a PC (and I'm not just talking about OLPC's, or their Intel rival) for less than the cost of some versions of Windows. And yet most versions of Linux come with software whose value, if they were developed by traditional means, has been estimated to be in the billions.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Tangent
by BluenoseJake on Sun 15th Jul 2007 11:40 in reply to "RE[9]: Tangent"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"hich would have happened with or without Microsoft. That this is true is obvious when you see that you can now get a PC (and I'm not just talking about OLPC's, or their Intel rival) for less than the cost of some versions of Windows. And yet most versions of Linux come with software whose value, if they were developed by traditional means, has been estimated to be in the billions."

I agree, and you wouldn't be able to buy a pc for that price without the process I described in my last post. Also, without cheap, near universal hardware to run on, Linux still may have developed, but would not have a chance of reaching the masses, as there would be no "monopoly" OS to want an alternative to, it would have been just one OS among several, and without a common enemy, I believe that the Opensource movement wouldn't have been able to gather the momentum that they now have.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Tangent
by twenex on Sun 15th Jul 2007 17:54 in reply to "RE[10]: Tangent"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Well I tried to mod that comment up, but the story is too old. So just pretend I did it ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 2