PC Makers have already begun taking orders for Windows XP machines, though without much fanfare. Even before the terrorist attacks, the weak economy and dismal PC sales numbers have dampened expectations for the XP roll-out, and analysts have not been particularly ebullient about Windows XP’s technical prowess, though it has received favoriable reviews. Analysts note that the PC market is very saturated, and that Windows XP is unlikely to spur huge PC sales. Of course, revenues from sales of Windows XP upgrades to existing Windows users are sure to be a boon to Microsoft, but not to the struggling PC industry. An eWeek article has more information.
Grim Mood in U.S. Likely to Deflate Windows XP Launch
2001-09-18 Windows 17 Comments
Many huge companies let themselves completely owned by Mickeysoft. MS has them by the balls, and is squeezing tight. Do GE, Wal-Mart, Ford, IBM, Nokia, etc. have any choice?
Choice is LINUX
How does MS have Ford or some of those other companies by the balls? Yeah so they pay for their OS, big deal they have much more expensive things they pay for. MS and computer industry doing bad doesn’t mean much to them other than they can do cheap upgrades right now. They (ford) is more worried about car sales. Cars don’t run windows or linux (its against the law) so versions of ether play no part in their product. Linux is not free for a company. They have to find Tech people who really know what there doing since there are no help lines for linux(or not to the same level) this cost them money. and the bizzillon employees have to ajust(retrain, learn, put up with) which is not pretty. Plus what they use isn’t supported by Linux, things like Pro/E or other CAD FEA pakages. They have millions invested in this software and arn’t going to change to save 100 bucks per computer when the software on each one has a several thousand dollars of software. Some of this may be on unix machines like some suns or RS/6000s but its not in linux, and other tools may be avalible but they allready have paid for and have the support for software they own. LINUX does not equal free, even if they were to switch the accountants would still probly budget around a copy of redhat for every computer, they probly wouldn’t go with “we just download it of the net and install it on everything”. I’m sick of this open source/free is so much better bullshit, I don’t support MS in anyway, but alot of this LINUX is the answer heres our bullshit reasons have to stop. Linux doesn’t do everything they need, and when this happen productivity drops. Linux is good for somethings for somepeople, but running linux on their computers changes nothing for companies like Ford, saying this brake pedal was spec’d out in a document created in Abiword not MS word is not going to sell more cars.
MS has computer companies no doubt, they don’t have all corps, corps are just concerned with having everyone being on the same page, and everyone being able to use it. Also not everything gets upgraded, Ever been to labs where there newest computers are 286 running dos , they don’t need upgrades, computer slump doesn’t mean much to them.
Companies worry about their product selling. Yes if computer sales are bad that might be a sign of consummer buying for other things. But we know why computers are down. ALMOST NO BODY NEEDS HIGH PERFORMANCE LATEST GREATEST COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE! most are fine with a low end PIII and win 98, If soft/hardware companies want to pull out of this they have to come up with something big that will get consumers to change. Win XP is a big who cares for most.
Companies don’t need to update to XP, win 2000 was released only last year.
And win98 doesn’t give to much problems either on slower machines.
Windows XP gives a fatal error when installing on my (reasonable recent)machine, all the other OS’s don’t complain…
MS most certainly does not have Ford by the balls
When evaluating the most efficient asynchronous architecture Linux comes out about 30% better than Solaris with Windows 2000 trailing behind. This and the fact Linux is very reliable open and free is difficult for the big IT decision makers to ignore. Most large companies have there own IT department anyway so there is no additional cost in support, only initially, but that is the same with any new rollout. Why use RedHat? just compile yer own binaries.
With IBM supporting OS/2 again and making their server compatable with Linux would suggest there is more going on behind the mighty blue doors. So many organisations are shifting to Linux, we have seen the big M burger outlet move 3000 machines to Linux, the Scotish Police Force go to StarOfice and the US Dept. of Defence getting 25,000 copies as well. Not a lot you might think but Ford may be
considering moving their European operations over to Linux. That’s 33,000 machines with the likelyhood of moving their global operations, some 100,000 – 300,000 machines to Linux. I will not do the maths but I know it’s quite a few golden underpants Billy won’t be able to buy!!
I’ve heard all the hype and MS can’t compete against open and free. Linux isn’t quite ready for the mass desktop yet, it needs standardisation first, and that’s being worked on now. We still need Windows for games, but in the world of corporate IT the engine room will always be Unix/Linux and thin client.
Thank goodness there is a choice, thank goodness sense is getting to the Director level.
I work for a web agency that does a Ford sub-brand and I can assure you
that Ford’s relationship with Microsoft is SO MUCH more simple than any of
your armchair execs seem to understand. Here’s how it works:
As the development shop that builds the site for this sub-brand we have to
comply with Ford’s development policies. So we deal with all manner of
insanity that their IT department throws out. For example, the current
rumor is that the CIO of ford had lunch (or something) with Bill Gates and
got Bill’s personal assurance that their new Content Management System
would be exactly what Ford needs and that they had the support of MS to
make it all work together. So we have a conference call to discuss this
….we find out that this product is so new that they don’t even know what
it’s full capabilities are and won’t until the site launches with it in
the 4th quarter.
So, they mandated that ALL brands move to this CMS eventually while they
said themselves that it wasn’t going to be really up-to-speed for 18
months. They dropped a solid full spec for a flimsy half spec JUST
BECAUSE OF A DRINK AND A HANDSHAKE. We just sat there looking at each
other and asking how much money must’ve passed under the table for THAT
decsion to get made. Thankfully, the client executive at the sub-brand
that we work with said “That’s all nice, but I’m moving forward with the
established plan and we’ll make it look better than we would with your new
Don’t lie to yourselves, kids… MS has fat and happy customers because of
the good ol’ boys club. Period. Until that changes then inferior technology is going to continue being shoved down peoples throats.
Was that before or after you woke up?
It’s not anti MS, it’s just common sense.
Choice is LINUX
Uh, yeh. I choose not to recompile my kernel and use a bloated, cryptic piece of crap with origins before I was born. Can someone offer me a choice?
Surely this isn’t the pinnacle of computingdom. Linux my arse.
Computers suck no matter what OS you use. Choice is turn it on or turn it off.
Do us all a favour, use pen and friggin paper.
MS FUD. IBM and the GPL gang of followers must be wrong ‘cos Bill and his low IQ narrow minded followers say so.
you fools must realise what ease of use is. MS has the stability now, and they have ease-of-use. Computers exclusively for the “nerd” crowd is the wrong approach. Most of the computing is done by Average Joe, and MS has the market sewn up, with the money to match. BeOS was (is) a damn cool alternative, with new technology and new levels of performance, yet all you clowns do is promote rehashed linux crapola like it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Its design, ease-of-use and repsonsiveness sucks major balls. There’s no way I’d wish that torture on anyone trying to get their work done. You obviously self-proclaimed “higher intelligence”, non narrow-minded Linux zealots can have it tho. Keep struggling with a crap OS to get basic tasks done..
My guess would be that many companies hava *themselves* by the balls. At the company where I work (hopefully a little while longer before more layoffs) there’s still people that want to be using dos. DOS! Just getting them to switch to NT4 was tough.
Many folks can get by with Winblows and they’re not motivated to learn anything new.
I wanted to write telling my story of what happened at my small business. I am part owner
of a small business, and have an interest in Linux. After using Linux for fun at home, and
reading all the hype about how business are converting some users over to it, I decided
to install a dual boot configuration our main computer at work. I wanted to see if I could
find equivalent software to our Windows NT WS 4.0 setup, and was basically interested
to see if the Linux software would be better suited and more productive for work. We
installed the latest version of Mandrake, which went without a hitch, and StarOffice, and also looked for either Linux versions or direct replacements to the software we were using.
Basically our verdict is that the only software we were able to use in Linux that was
productive was internet applications like Netscape and AOL IM and Licq, which we
use to talk with our customers. We felt that StarOffice was definately not integrated
enough to run the business on, and are not sure why the government is going to this
package if not for security reasons. We noted that StarOffice was basically unresponsive,
and in our machines (2) it crashed an awful lot. For other software, we had basically
no equivilent or no equivilent to which could easily pick up and use quickly. There
were cases were the software we used was available for Linux but that meant buying
another license, which does not make sense when we were not sure if we were going to
use linux or not. Programs like CadKey and PageMaker come to mind. In addition,
we found that other design programs like Microchip Technologies MPLAB was really not
as good. Most programs in Linux use completely different interfaces and do not
really support common stuff between each other like OLE (for cutting and pasting) which
basically can not be beat in Windows. Lastly, most of our employees did not understand
the permissions needed to run certain programs which provided a real headache for us.
Some programs seem to need to be run as root and some need to be run as a user; just
configuring permissions seemed to really slow us down. We don’t need all the detailed security
since we are a security products manufacturer, we have real world security in place to
control computer access. And their is no way to turn those features off it seems. Basically,
we dropped the whole linux business and ran some new fixpacks on NT 4.0. Since moving
back, everyone has been productive with the applications they grew up and and are thanking
me for not forcing Linux on the company. I found out one good use for Linux and that is
for little print servers. Seems linux works best for us in areas where desktop users are not
involved. Please forget the hype that Linux is faster on older machines, this is no longer true
considering how bloated the distributions have become. Recompiling of the kernel takes
too much time and configuration know-how, to lighten the load on old machines.
Also, why the hell do most distributions have like 11 desktop managers and 5 different programs that perform the same function with different interfaces? Its a pain in the ass to remove all software that has a common function, or to pile through a list of 1100 pieces of software (most of which are useless). Also, we can’t figure out why most of the software that is installed on the Linux machine does not show up in the K start menu? Configuration is a huge obstacle.
Let’s parse down the software list and not just give everything because it is written!
Standards people! One thing people don’t mention is that when you buy a new PC, you
basically get a copy of Windows with the machine, which makes the cost of upgrading
cheap, since the actual hardware is upgraded every few years anyway. Our experience
tell us that Win NT and Office 2000 is basically a pretty damn tough combination to beat.
Thanks for reading,
I enjoyed the read Dano. And I agree with what you said.
But in a debate you first make a statement and then qualify it with a verifyable example, as you have done.
But what I am talking about is the fact that businesses are moving to Linux
and XP is not shipping as well as MS would have liked, that is not my opinion
it is reported and a well documented fact.
Linux as a server has found its place, I am talking about the large scale
operations that spend millions on licensing, per seat licenses. I work with
networks of users in the hundreds and thousands where lincesing runs into scary
figures. I know that many high street outlets use Linux in the background, you
may not see it but it’s there. Have a look at the EPOS next time you go into
MVC, it’s Linux. Again not my opinion, it’s there in living proof. I’m not
suggesting Linux replace MS, that’s absurd. But Linux has found it’s place and
that’s the backbone of business not the desktop of every user. When evaluating
alternatives you must be open minded and see products on there merits. For most
companies upgrading to XP is expensive and brings no benefits when producing
company documents, we still us Office 97, to upgrade to 2000 to continue
writting letters, spreadsheets and presentaions is not worth the £21,000 it
would cost us, it’s better used elsewhere like training users to tell the
difference between a *.DOC and a *.PDF. A well trained staff member is a better
resource and benefit to the company. Companies need cross skills, not single
It’s nice to see you have applied sense to your evaluation of Linux, you have
found the solutions for your business and if your using Linux as a print server
you’ve still saved a license fee. Large businesses do it on a larger scale that’s all.
And I agree there is no standards in Linux, the idea is you mould the system to
your needs or preference that is its nature. Ford has a very capable
programming team, they have been using embedded systems for decades now. I find
it hard to believe without a verifyable example how a billion doller companies
board level strategies are steered by drinks over lunch!
I can only presume and associate an unreachable anonymous poster of hearsay not facts as a user with a pirate copy of Windows from his mate down the road and a
wealth of quality application from a Warez CD. Businesses don’t have that
anarchic ability of cost cutting.
We too use Windows 9x on most workstations, servers are FreeBSD where possible, and Windows NT when we have no other choice. It is impractical for us to use anything else on workstations. Tech support needs it to supply meaningful advice to customers who ring in with questions & admin staff need it for most of the other stuff. Face it, most applications in the business world won’t run over anything but Windows, except perhaps Apple computers.
Having said all that, given that we are a highly connected (as in Internet) company, I do have serious concerns about keeping those machines secure, both from the outside world, and also concerns about possible MS back doors. I also wouldn’t say that the support costs of Windows machines is low either. To keep up to date with software, hardware upgrades are usually required which all adds to the costs – I feel that the cost of hardware upgrades for XP/2000 is a significant factor in moving to them. We still use 95 on a lot of machines because the hardware cost of upgrade to 98 is a hassle too. And when the workstation configurations break, often for no perceivable reason, the support costs grow.
Having been a windows user for > 10 years, I will add my thoughts as a developer.
Being constrained to 16 bits by DOS & Win 3.x in the late 80’s, early 90’s was excruciating. Developers were screaming for something better. Win NT came along but didn’t promise the performance that we all hoped for. As news of Chicago (Win95) emerged, we started to breath a sigh of relief, but were somewhat disappointed to find out it was just a hacked up version of Win3.x. Improvements came, but only incrementally, while NT was also improved. NT 4.0 value for machine capability was probably the best I’ve seen from MS – all the rest have either been incremental design or have required quantum leaps in machine performance to be useful. In general though, I have felt that the Win9x range has been hack upon hack and that the WinNT range has been bloat upon bloat. Either way, MS hasn’t been able to produce something that runs well and is stable over a wide range of machine capabilities.
There have been rare times when I felt MS supported developers, but most of the time I have felt let down & disappointed. They have certainly had the resources to produce something of world class quality & they would have our support if they cared more for their customer & developer base. Instead they seem to be content to just siphon off money and allow development and innovation to trickle at a slow pace. Whenever they have tried to forge something new, it has been at the developers peril and always to preserve their precious revenue base. Basically, the IT world is addicted to Windows like a drug. There are few companies willing to risk going cold turkey. There needs to be a way to take away the pain of going cold turkey but I haven’t seen it emerge yet.
All this has left a vaccuum which other OS’s have tried to fill – but with limited success mind you. We are but one of hundreds trying to fill the void – only time will tell if we can make a difference.
Someone mentioned Ford being locked into the whole Microsoft monopoly. I don’t think this is the case at all. I was reading an automotive trade magazine “Automotive Design and Production” and there is a cover headline “The Story Microsoft probably Won’t Like: A Look @ Linux”, from Aug. 2001. I worked at Chrysler a year and a half ago, and Microsoft products were only used for MS Office, email, and terminal to access the mainframes . I did the real work on a Sun station. In another journal, I think InfoWorld, there was an article how Ford was setting up a test group of Linux desktops with StarOffice, to assess how easily a complete change would be.
I really like hearing stuff like this. Things are changing. Big companies change slowly though, but its starting.
I love this stuff, people keep saying you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And then it comes in the form of an email to me from an IT news site, quote.
“Analyst house Gartner has strongly advised companies against using Microsoft’s web server software because the security risks involved are so high”
And you’ve only just realised?