The Microsoft OS Monopoly, Are you in favor or not?

[PCResources]

<< I don't think it is. MS has clearly had a good idea with Windows from the start, and that's what consumers grew onto. The reason most other operating systems aren't popular is because they can't hold a candle to windows. >>



Total BS, Windows 2000/XP is one of the worst server OS's i have ever seen, i like NT better but none of those can hold a candle to FreeBSD, Linux or just about any other OS i know of...

Windows was a good marketing deal, it is NOT as reliable as many OS's are, it is NOT as fast as many other OS's are and it surely isn't as secure as many other OS's are...

I think that the XP registration idea will backfire, many employees will either use pirated copies or use Linux instead, if Linux grows in the consumer market it is only a matter of time before the companies starts to provide a better solution for the employees to work with, something they are familiar with...

As long as bug fixes are released for versions that you have already bought you are nothing more than a beta tester who is not getting paid, you are getting screwed and you should feel sorry when a new SP sees daylight, because it just means that you got even more screwed than you thought you did...

MS held back the release of NT5.0 for a long time just to avoid the fiasco with NT4 and the seven service packs, well now there are two SP's for W2K (NT5.0) and i would not be surprised if there will be five more before all problems are sorted out...

Another thing about the SP's is that they contain workarounds for known problems, which produces the need for more memory and CPU speed, the do not solve the problems, they only make workarounds...

Patrick

 

[PCResources]

<< Ok, buddy. Let's see you try to support a company with a few hundred workstations to run entirely on Linux. >>



Eh, i do just that, i sell AMD/Linux solutions and provide support... The largest network contains more than 800 computers in LAN and thousands in WAN...

Patrick

 

[PCResources]

<< As for MS continually adding stuff to their system, people ask for it! >>



Actually, that is quite wrong, who ever asked for the animated start menu?? They just have to add something that makes every new version incompatiable or more &quot;user friendly&quot; (yes an animated start menu is more user friendly, i promise) to get people to upgrade to the latest &quot;wonderful&quot; version of Windows...

Until Linux is ready, most people will choose MS, but what if MS got too cocky and started to demand registrations which require you to re-register every time you change something? Maybe people will wise up and start using Linux, StarOffice, games for Linux and so on and so forth... Linux has come a long way already and i predict that it will become the current standard in the future...

Patrick

 

[Deeko]

My take:
Yes, Microsoft does have a monopoly. But, it should be that way. Having only one OS to write for makes things much easier on everyone. Computer-illiterate people have enough trouble learning one OS, they don't need more. Also, it is easier for software developers to only have to write for one OS.

 

[PCResources]

<< Yes, Microsoft does have a monopoly. But, it should be that way. Having only one OS to write for makes things much easier on everyone. >>



I agree, there should only be ONE company who makes all SW and only one company that makes all HW...

That way there would be no problem, the SW company would provide drivers in the OS for the HW, all HW should be the same, of course, it would be too expensive for normal people to buy so the people who can afford it have the money to spend on forced upgrades... So what do you all say, if you have a different setup than this one, please throw your components away, ok... Intel 80486 CPU, Nvidia TNT M64, Intel motherboard, Samsung EDO-RAM, SB card, Acer CD-Rom (no burner, it will only allow you to make illegal copies and is therefore not supported in the OS), no networking card as it could allow different configurations...

What do you think Deeko, it would make all people happy!

That comment was the most stupid thing i have read since the &quot;Netscape is dead&quot; thread...

Patrick

 

[Stark]

<< I think that the XP registration idea will backfire, many employees will either use pirated copies >>


And then the company will get audited, the company will have to pay a bunch in penalties, and the employee will get canned. Any network admin who encourages employees to use illegal software is a fool. Maybe they can get away with it at some smaller companies, but not in any large corporate environment.



<< Eh, i do just that, i sell AMD/Linux solutions and provide support... The largest network contains more than 800 computers in LAN and thousands in WAN... >>


Please describe this environment. A bunch of dumb terminals running on unix servers? Is is 100% MS free, or MS desktops and Linux servers? You may prove me wrong on this one. It would be nice if you could.



<<
My take:
Yes, Microsoft does have a monopoly. But, it should be that way. Having only one OS to write for makes things much easier on everyone. Computer-illiterate people have enough trouble learning one OS, they don't need more. Also, it is easier for software developers to only have to write for one OS. >>


No offense, but you're an idiot. Just kidding, but if you realized how much power MS has over the entire industry, you might be a little more weary. Just think, what would things be like if intel made the only processor? Does AMD help the computer world by its existence, or hurt it? What about alternative chipsets (VIA/Serverworks/etc)?

Competition helps an industry grow and develop. A monopoly doesn't.

 

[Deeko]

PC Resources, you are displaying your &quot;arrogant bastard&quot; side again. Please put it away and become normal again. Thanx. I realize that being a &quot;god&quot; like you, you might find it difficult to understand this, but there are people out there who don't understand computers. They find learning one OS difficult enough. So what if there were 5 or 10? How well do you think they would handle having know all of them, hmm? I guess they would all have to become gods like you, right? And about software developers, have you ever noticed that there is alot more software for Windows than anything else? If there were 5 OS's that everyone used, every program would have to be written for every OS. That would do one of two things, either make it take even longer to write the software, or take the same amount of time, but be of lesser quality. That's what we all want though, isn't it?

 

[Deeko]

I'm waiting.

 

[Deeko]

^

 

[PCResources]

<< <Please describe this environment. A bunch of dumb terminals running on unix servers? Is is 100% MS free, or MS desktops and Linux servers? You may prove me wrong on this one. It would be nice if you could. >>



I will, just for you, am i a nice guy or what?

No dumb terminals, a large network, 25 clustered servers running Slackware Linux, MySQL and a simple valto interface, 775 computers running a java enabled interface (using RH7.1).. StarOffice is the office application and Corel provides the vector graphics...

Oh, BTW, the companys name is PC Resources, i own it...

Patrick

 

[PCResources]

<< PC Resources, you are displaying your &quot;arrogant bastard&quot; side again. Please put it away and become normal again >>



Yes, i am the arrogant idiot... And you are jesus christ superstar who have come here to this thread to save all posters from my evil...

So, you think that your statement regarding monopoly and SW to be a good thing, but my statement regarding monopoly and HW to be stupid...

Sounds like you are bashing your own opinion...

Get off your high horses and get down here to the real world... Soooo, you think that a monopoly is a good thing, well, let's expand the idea and all of us can share the joy, even us hw developers...

I take it that you are a SW developer, well, i am a HW developer, the idea you described regarding SW sounds very promising, i just want to include HW as well, just to make my work somewhat easier... ok?

You think that a SW monopoly would be a good thing, and you call me arrogant??? Get real...

Patrick

 

[jeffmovietime]

they messed up our computers make them break up and have bill gates lose all of his money!

 

[Deeko]

<< Yes, i am the arrogant idiot... And you are jesus christ superstar who have come here to this thread to save all posters from my evil... >>


I'm not the only person to ever have pointed this out. Remember some of those GH arguments? I don't think all software should be made by the same person, where did you get that from? I was referring to OS's. All OS's should be the same. I stated my reasons why. You didn't read them, because you are god, and my lowly opinion doesn't matter, you will just mock me from above. Good call.

 

[joohang]

<< ya MS won't succeed with .net like OS but they will try and put a lot of money into it >>


.NET is probably the most misconceived computer term today.

It is nothing more than an updated version of the Windows DNA model with Web Services in mind.

It is true that Microsoft does use &quot;.NET&quot; for marketing purposes, which IMHO brings quite a bit of confusion among consumers and a bunch of CNet and ZDNet editors.

I'm a big supporter of .NET simply because I find quite a few improvement enhancements over &quot;traditional&quot; way of programming Win32 and web applications. I personally find it more than just &quot;software as a service&quot; initiative. .NET applications can be easily exposed as a service, but that doesn't mean that all .NET software will be a service. As far as subscribing to software goes, I find it a good idea as long as there is an option to fully purchase the license. And even this subscription issue is not yet finalized.

BTW, do you realize that Microsoft took the Internet seriously only in the past 5~6 years? And look at how many sites use IIS, COM, etc. Not to mention IE. (expecting flames from anti-MSers) I personally find this very impressive.

As far as Windows + IE goes, I think it did help MS to gain browser market share, but another big reason was probably developer support. IE offered what I wanted in the way I wanted (i.e. DHTML, XML). Netscape didn't and took some strange <layer> approach. I have seen very few web developers who preferred Netscape over IE and even those who did were very strongly anti-MS biased.

My 2¢. Hopefully some of you know better than directly flaming back at my post and actually posting some intelligent, supported arguments.

P.S. Microsoft does *not* have a monopoly, but their dominance in the OS market sure saves me a lot of headaches.

 

[Wedesdo]

hum... since i always get their stuff with out any &quot;cost&quot;, i don't care..

 

[Stark]

Patrick,

that's impressive. Do you know of any other companies with the same linux support?

Another thought that hit on my way home is the fact that while microsoft is making untold billions on windows, most linux distributors aren't even out of the red yet (link.)

Steve Ballmer (pres of MS) also called linux microsoft's biggest threat in a january speech. At one time they considered netscape a threat, and look what happened there. Most of us owe our jobs to the advances microsoft has made to the computing world. To ignore the threat they pose and the power they wield, however, is foolishness.

 

[sandorski]

Microsoft as a monopoly would be fine for me, if they were subject to the same regulation that other Monopolies have traditionally been subject too. Otherwise, split it up, short term pain, longterm gain.