OSNews

Or maybe a strategy which makes sense for a regular player does not for a monopoly? Some people like to argue that it's unfair to hold a monopolist to more stringent rules than non-monopolist players. They claim that all players should be treated equally. This is an excellent example of *why* monopolists in *any* industry *must* be required to play by rules which insure truly fair competition. Companies which have achieved a monopoly status in their industry have the same aggressive instincts as any successful business, but they wield a deadly bludgeon, and as this situation demonstrates, their best strategy does not involve competing to give the customers what they want and are clearly asking for, as would be the case for a regular competitor, but to give customers what the monopolist feels is in *its own* best interest.

Current Windows users have little real choice other than to take what Microsoft decides to give them... or go through the pain of completely transitioning to a different OS. A major part of Microsoft's strategy has always been to ensure that doing what Microsoft wants is the path of least resistance, in the short term, for their captive user-base.

Let me give a short and not very accurate introduction of an important aspect in capitalism, because that's what software manufacturers with monopoly positions like MICROS~1 is about: The most important goal is growth. You get new hardware, you need new OS. New OS needs better hardware. Better hardware needs better OS, and a resonance effect develops that turns customers feelings into money - they are made believing they need to have it under all circumstances. Of course, there are customers that would be happy to be able to purchase "Windows XP", but will hardware vendors support it with working drivers for their new products? These kind of customers isn't the majority. The vast majority wants new and shiny products, not products that are several years old, no matter if they are "better" (in certain specific regards). Making money isn't about serving a minority that makes educated decisions, instead, it's about manipulating and convincing consumers they've made a good choice buying always the newest products.

Once, there way a saying: "I don't want a product that is declared 'the best' and that will fail soon, I want a product that will serve me well for a longer time."



I'm sure it will cost MICROS~1... not money, but as it has been pointed out, it would look as if they would admit that "Vista" is a failure. Why sell a product they've declared to be obsoleted, old, not versatile enough, not entertaining enough etc. when a product, declared to be much better, more entertaining, more versatile etc. is available?



You can't have enough of it. :-)

And finally, you will have to compensate today's computer power with some ressource hungry OS. :-)