|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Life after Microsoft?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Null Actor
I figured I'd start this thread in a more noticeable place. It's intended to continue this thread:
http://www.opentechsupport.net/foru...=&threadid=2381
Personally, I think microsoft's days are numbered, despite some of the awesome software they make. I also credit microsoft almost entirely with how widespread PCs are today. Lot's of the software they make is among the absolute best, and it will suck to see it go.
But what will replace them when they're gone?
BeOS would be my favorite pick, but I think Be is probably going to die even before microsoft does. There is a rumor that Sun Microsystems might be buying them out, and if that happens, maybe BeOS will get the boost it needs. But right now there is zero software for BeOS, and it doesn't support a lot of newer hardware. It doesn't support any old hardware (which I like), but they need to get on top of current hardware to make it take off.
Linux... man where do I start here?
I think that linux has the potential to be a truly great end user operating system, but before that can happen, a company has to sit down and remake X-Windows. Right now it's a bloated unfriendly piece of crap, and isn't compatible with anything else. There are a billion different window managers, and most of the X-Windows programs out there are dependant on certain ones.
I think if a company were to start up, and take a year to sit down and work with X-Windows, they could turn it in to an easy candidate for MS Windows replacement. Of course, the catch here is that for a company to do that, they'd need cash. Except they'd never be able to make money off their work. Bad situation.
What are your thoughts?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Look at it this way...
The only thing that can replace an 800-pound gorilla is another 800-pound gorilla...
Posted by: Bishop
...except an 800 pound pregnant gorilla.
Posted by: Null Actor
I'm not talking about the company... I'm talking about windows. The OS that's on like 95% of the computers out there.
What do we do when MS is gone, and there is no new windows?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Well, there is always the good ol' Mac, hehehe 
Seriously, I'll probably switch to a flavor of Linux, since some games will work on it ... which flavor depends on which company is bold enough to make the first step to fill in Microsoft's shoes...
Posted by: JANNA
ill just keep on using winme and w2k
Posted by: uh...ok
Win98SE is good for me.
Maybe one day I'll get off my arse and learn some REAL computer software stuff and then switch to Linux. But for now, I still sux0rz too much to understand Linux. 
-uh...ok
Posted by: Chako
Because of the number of people using some variant of windows, and also because most software out there is made for it...I can't see Windows going the way of the dodo bird. If Microsoft goes bankrupt (I don't ever see that happening), or the US Govt does something stupid (a more likely event), then another company will step in and buy/steal the code and continue the work. WinOS is now a standard for 90% (possibly more) of PC users out there. Linux is nowhere near user friendliness for the majority of users. It is popular with a small minority of anti Microsoft and tech geeks, but lets face it...who wants to play around with driver support hell. BeOS is nice, has a small footprint, and is awesome for working with large graphics etc...but nobody is developing for it, a serious problem. Maybe this will change in the future....
And yes, both BeOS and Linux are better OSs, but as I see it, there is very little incentive for the majority of users to switch over to them right now.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
I think MS will obviously see the big decline in sales and rethink how they want to reduce pirating. Right now, they have the ability to gamble a little bit since there aren't any competitors.
To beat MS, it would take a giant company who is willing to go all out into a new OS venture. Sun would be a good choice if they push for it a lot but I doubt they invest in it enough for BEOS to be a daily desktop name.
As it is now, Linux is the only one that has a shot. And it's too divided to have set standards which is important for wwidespread software and hardware support.
I'm just going to ride it out on Windows 2000. Hopefully the Windows after XP will be toned down.
Posted by: JANNA
im upgrading our server to win2k within the next 8 months and we will probably be keeping that as our standard for the next 5-6 years
Posted by: Null Actor
It isn't going to take a big company to take down microsoft... they are eventually going to kill themselves.
And really... if MS were to poof, then you could only really continue using windows for so long... as technology advances, the most anyone could do would be to make drivers. They wouldn't be able to add support to the OS for bigger, better things.
Posted by: Xoncide
xp is evil
Posted by: Auruspex
Windows rocks.. plain and simple.. i think the goverment should listen to the people. Does any consumer not want windows? I surely havent seen any person with a computer that hasnt used, and liked, windows. Therefore i think the goverment should get theyre noses out of MS's ass and look at something more important like murders and such.
This is my opinon and if anyone doesnt support it please explain why.
Posted by: Null Actor
There's about a million linux zealots who'd disagree with you.
Posted by: Auruspex
they disagree but why? why is windows so bad? did they do anything? all they do is make a simple operating system that any idiot could use.
Posted by: uh...ok
Cause they're anti-idiots, duh!
-uh...ok
Posted by: Kdr Kane
We could solve this very easily. Split Microsoft into three companies that cannot cooperate or interact with each other.
Give the first company the non-operating system products including Internet Explorer, Programming languages and Office products.
The other two companies get identical copies of the source code for the operating systems. They CANNOT communicate with each other.
Competition is good for the consumer.
Posted by: Null Actor
That won't do anything. Because the lack of competition would still be there. The reason MS is a monopoly is that no one can match the quality of their software.
Posted by: JANNA
thats why they being sued Nova cuz it isnt "fair" that they dont suck and the competition does heh
Posted by: Auruspex
my point exactly Nova.... why punish someone because they did something good... it all goes back to the famous quote:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Well Nova,
You think Microsoft is gonna die anyway. Nova Z says, "What do we do when MS is gone, and there is no new windows?" This sounds like a wish more than anything. Personally, I hate dealing with Microsoft products. It's a requirement for me.
There are plenty of companies and projects still trying to knock them off of their pedestal. So, don't feel that the idea about investing some money to replace Windows is unique.
Look at Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP). This has the potential to supplant a slew of application servers. I'm thinking about installing this on a server at home and letting my family surf to their hearts content from their computer without the risk of downloading malicious code.
The problem is that X-Windows does not have the same look and feel as Windows. The Linux afficionados won't make their IDE look and feel like Windows. It's pretty close. Why not? It's such a simple solution. If it feels the same, but has a different label on it, users won't care. Then the developers will be required to develop games and applications to run on Linux also.
I didn't post the story, but Dell has just discontinued the option to buy a desktop with Linux installed instead of Windows. Why? Because no one bought them.
If two Microsoft companies are in competition with each other, you don't think prices will come down and the code will become lighter and better? It seems obvious to me.
why punish someone because they did something good Because they used illegal marketing and tactics. The end does NOT justify the means. If that was so, I would lock you into your room until your SAT scores reached 1500. 
Posted by: Null Actor
 Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
Well Nova,
You think Microsoft is gonna die anyway. Nova Z says, "What do we do when MS is gone, and there is no new windows?" This sounds like a wish more than anything. Personally, I hate dealing with Microsoft products. It's a requirement for me.
|
I'm not sure if it's a wish or not. I know I've gotten to the point where I'm skilled enough at programming that if something in the OS bothers me, I'd like to be able to go change it. I haven't done that to linux yet, but I can't do it to windows.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
The problem is that X-Windows does not have the same look and feel as Windows. The Linux afficionados won't make their IDE look and feel like Windows. It's pretty close. Why not? It's such a simple solution. If it feels the same, but has a different label on it, users won't care. Then the developers will be required to develop games and applications to run on Linux also.
|
I dunno man, KDE is trying pretty hard to become windows. Only catch is that they are really far away from being done.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
If two Microsoft companies are in competition with each other, you don't think prices will come down and the code will become lighter and better? It seems obvious to me.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
We could solve this very easily. Split Microsoft into three companies that cannot cooperate or interact with each other.
Give the first company the non-operating system products including Internet Explorer, Programming languages and Office products.
The other two companies get identical copies of the source code for the operating systems. They CANNOT communicate with each other.
|
You are wrong about how the government wants to split up MS. They wanted to split it into MS/Programs MS/9x and MS/NT.
If this happened... how would they compete with each other? 9x and NT target totally different user segments.
MS/Programs would continue to make good MS software. MS/9x will continue to make unstable crappy windows 9x, and MS/NT will continue to make bloated NT.
This wouldn't benefit anyone.
But you couldn't give two companies the same code and tell them to go in different directions... won't work. They are still microsoft people at heart, and they'd still have the same kind of vision. All they'd do is sue each other over the similarity of their products for the first five years.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
I never said the government wants to split Microsoft up that way. It is my recommendation. And if the court gives ownership of the code to both companies, they can do with it as they please. They couldn't sue each other. Hell, one could make it open source if they wanted. It's my opinion that this could work just as easily as someone saying it couldn't work. Can't never could.
KDE is finished other than some added touches to it. I've used it. And it doesn't feel like Windows, it feels like X. It would take a major rewrite of the X component to make KDE feel like Windows. KDE just resides on top of X.
Posted by: Wargasm
MS is lucky
it supports a shitload of hardware and is (like it or not) very user friendly .
and then there is the factor that alot of companies provide drivers for MS since it is so large ..
i like linux i think it is a good OS . but in the state it is now they are lightyears behind on MS.
i am runnin a linux server now .. well running ... i still need a 3com ethernet card coz that card gives me the only documentation on how to get @home working on linux and that card ..
oh and swell i need to type in 2 pages of instructions somewhere to get it working . gotta love command lines .
i loved the amiga 500 coz it had a kickass gui called workbench .. i laughed back then at those poor users with their ega vid cards ..
i started to learn to run some heavy stuff on linux and it is so stable ..
it however annoys the hell outta me it is so complicated ..
i think the best way to learn linux is to have some linux freak at your side and go :"how do i do this and how this works , and how .. etc etc "
going to get a crash course in linux soon thank god ..
Posted by: KickingBird
Couple things that bother me about this whole Linux/MS windows thing.
First, as much as I dislike MS as a company, I use their products because they WORK.(mostly.)
I can go to the store, buy a piece of software with a Windows logo on, stuff the cd in the system and Bobs yer uncle. Assume that the software itself works with minor patching.
Yes, windows needs to be rebooted, poke, bribed, threatened etc. But mostly right out of the box it functions.
Linux is not so easy. Which version do I buy? Based on what Kernel? What version of X windows or whatever GUI is around do I use? Do I even BOTHER with a GUI and go for Command line?
Some of the better Linux packages come with damn near any piece of software the average user needs. Spread sheets, word processors etc. Lots of crap most people WON'T use as well. TRY to find something on a store shelf that runs on any version of linux right out of the box though.
And that's what it really boils down too. I can walk up to any PC made in the last 7 or so years, whap just about any copy of windows 9X on it (Just make sure HD and Ram is there in big enough amounts, everything WILL work with minimal fuss. fire the boot disk in there, type setup and wander off for coffee content in the knowledge that 99% of the time windows will be functional enough to get online and update itself when I get back bloated with roasted bean-juice)
What I *REALLY* want out of an OS is JUST that. The OS. I want to pick my own browser. I want to choose what *I* want to run on my system. I don't need some idiot in a suit deciding that if a developer did not pay a license fee, the software won't run or spit out bogus error messages.
I want NOT to have to reboot my system to install a piece of simple software. Windows should NOT share DLLs. Each piece of software needs to live in it's OWN folder and bloody well STAY there. There should be NO way to hide something running on the system.
I look at some of the crap being sold to me and wonder what the hell the software developer was thinking...
Posted by: Auruspex
Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
why punish someone because they did something good Because they used illegal marketing and tactics. The end does NOT justify the means. If that was so, I would lock you into your room until your SAT scores reached 1500.
|
well let me out then because i scored a 1524 
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
I never said the government wants to split Microsoft up that way. It is my recommendation. And if the court gives ownership of the code to both companies, they can do with it as they please. They couldn't sue each other. Hell, one could make it open source if they wanted. It's my opinion that this could work just as easily as someone saying it couldn't work. Can't never could.
|
Okay, but I still don't think that would help. You'd still end up with two bloated pieces of crap. And no one would want to look at 40 million lines of open source windows. True, maybe one side would reimplement it from scratch, but I doubt it.
KB- You have some great points in there. And you are right too, you hit all the main points about why MS Windows is mainstream, and linux is a niche OS. But you also hit exactly why Linux users use it.
Really, all linux needs is someone to write a good widget set, and modify X to make it more user friendly, and do some work with how drivers get installed.
Maybe a few other things, but it wouldn't take much to make linux good. Or at least, make it useable by the end user.
One thing you missed though KB, is the fact that you don't have to buy any linux. You can download them all for free. (Mandrake 8 is the best so far, so if you are looking for one, this could be your start). Also, you can't buy linux software, because most linux software is based on other linux software. And because of the GPL (Gnu Public License) the resulting software has to be released for free, and open source. So there is no point in putting it on a shelf.
Most linux software you get for free. Of course, since it's free, it also tends to be unpolished, unfinished, and have a distinct 'beta' feel to it. And it is very not-friendly.
Posted by: TotalRecall
Quote:
|
Because they used illegal marketing and tactics. The end does NOT justify the means. If that was so, I would lock you into your room until your SAT scores reached 1500.
|
Microsoft did nothing wrong. Windows is in the place it is because of the actions it's made. A great OS which has brought computing to where it is today.
Before you break out saying "Microsoft illegally forced users to use IE and their services...", hear me out. Let's compare this to something in the real world:
Let's say you want to go to the movies. You get in there, and are thirsty. What do you do? You buy a drink there, even though it costs you $5, it's much easier than walking to the local Burger King and picking up a drink cheaper.
Does this mean the movie theater has a monopoly over the soft drink and refreshments business? I don't think so...they are just advertising their products. Sound familiar?
If your still not convinced that integrating features is legal, let's go to the fair. Ok...at this fair, you're having a good time and want something to eat along with some cheap souvenirs. Err, wait a second. If you leave, you can't come back in. You are forced to buy the products at that fair!
Microsoft has a monopoly because it's user friendly and the best all-around OS out there. The recent court cases have been brought on by the government, because they lost out. They can't tax computers as easily as everything else...they want money.
Posted by: Null Actor
99% of everything microsoft has done is pure business. It's just on a larger scale, so it seems worse, but most of what they have done, any company would have done in a similar situation.
It's called getting ahead.
Posted by: JANNA
the only reason various versions of windows both NT and 9x and office are so overwhelming in the marketplace is that all the competition just plain sux. ever try using star office?? heh. linux and beos are friken jokes. cant run even a small business on em. with windows i can tke a person who knows absolutely nothing about computers and in half a day have em using the comp like theyve been doing it for months. microsoft gets no extra money from people using IE over netscrape since IE is free to anyone who cares to download it. Explorer is a great tool since it is integrated and unlike netscrape it actually works. i look at MS' competitors and get a good laugh because the root the of their lawsuit is that they are suing MS because it isnt right that MS should have such a better product than theirs.
Posted by: Chako
Yes...Microsoft is being attacked for being too successful. An irony of sorts. The lesson here is that if your too successful, then others will drag you down because you are clearly the market leader and thus have an unfair advantage over your competitors. Got to love capitalism. Quite the conundrum isn't it. A primary goal for any business is to make profits. The way to do this is to make a very good product so that people will support you in buying your stuff. If you corner a market because of either a good product, or lackluster competition, then you run the risk of becoming a monopoly. Today, monopolies are bad...just BAD. If you become a monopoly, then the Govt will take you to court and try to either break you up, or pass some legislation that will hobble your performance. Looks like to be very successful, the business cannot be very successful, nor unsuccessful. This is akin to high wire walking. Creditors on one side, lawyers on the other. Just take a look at the California power crisis. The local Govt decided to pass a bill to allow more competition, with invariable results. My point in all this: Large monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes there are benefits to having them around. Standardization, the ability to have a large infrastructure that may be a necessity to provide viable services, among other things. Yes, the little guy will always complain about unfair competition, probably because their product is inferior and less people will move towards it because the people have the choice to select products....I haven't seen Microsoft hold a gun to someone’s head and say "buy this or else". If such was the case, then Linux, BeOS and others would not exist. Am I pro Microsoft...no way! I dislike them like most people. I keep thinking that their OSs could be more stable or at the very least, better products. Yes, I know that if they had more competition, it would drive them to better their products..and I agree, but that is not the point of this general blathering.
Posted by: Null Actor
Yeah. MS got where they are today by making software that was good, and that everyone could use. It took them a long time too.
They've been in business 25 years this year. And companies that are 2, 3, 5, 8 years old complain because Microsoft has better products.
Well, when these other companies have been around that long, I'd imaging their products would be that good too.
Posted by: Auruspex
Have we come to a conclusion.. That Microsoft is a good company? If we have any opposers please post some reasons why
Posted by: Chako
Microsoft is no Saint, and that is for certain. I would not go that far Auruspex.
Posted by: Jess
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
That won't do anything. Because the lack of competition would still be there. The reason MS is a monopoly is that no one can match the quality of their software.
- I think it's from the quantity, more then quality.
I don't mean the quantity of Microsoft Products, I mean the Quantity of Microsoft Employes...
Take for example 'Macromedia'. Give them a project to make something with a bunch of useless features.
Macromedia will put every programmer, writer, QA's and designers they have on this project.
Yet, at the same time, give Microsoft the same project.
Lets say Macromedia finishes the project in a year (It's a big project, or something hehe)
In that time, Microsoft would have released a 10, or 15 different versions of the product, and it would by then be so developed that Macromedia's version couldn't stand up to it. Because they' don't have enough employe's to keep up with Microsofts production rate.
If you ask me. Microsoft was mearly toying with Netscape that whole time. Every feature and version update Netscape released, it took MickySoft half a quarter of the time it took Netscape to develop that new version, to develop a new version of IE, with the same features, plus a few hundred other useless ones, that worked better, and was twice as stable.
Why? Because of their ammount of employes is so high their production rate cannot be matched. By any company.
That is why Microsoft products are realeased with so many useless features.. They've already acheived the goal that they were givin'.. And want to add, and improve it.
|
Posted by: Auruspex
never said it was a saint.. i just said they were a good company
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Microsoft is a good company for it's stock holders.
It enforces a standard in the industry by bullying, stealing and/or buying up other companies. Microsoft seldom made anything on their own.
I haven't personally been affected. But, I am sure there are plenty of people out there that were destroyed or maybe at least hurt by Microsoft's business practices.
There is a reason Microsoft was found guilty of anti-trust practices. This isn't under dispute, however some may feel.
Has anyone been reading the lastest papers Microsoft is putting on their website? They are directly attacking Linux and the open source movement with - dare I say - lies. This is their old operating mode. Nothing has really changed.
Can anybody really believe the lie Microsoft is currently circulating which states Microsoft created the first application server?
In contrast, I will state that Microsoft has done much to advance the state of the personal computer. The end does not justify the means.
It depends on what you call good.
Posted by: Jess
I also don't think Microsoft uses bad tactics either..
Sure they buy, sell and puther companies under, but that's business... Everyone knows that. It's part of the 'game' if you ask me.
Does it hurt the consumers? Heck no. It's better for the consumers, and i'll try and tell you why..
When 3dfx was baught out by nVidia I thought "Well.. What's gonna happen with my vooodoo 3 2000 when I want to upgrade to Windows 2000, or ME, or Windows XP?"...
When I installed Microsoft's Windows 2000 Professional, and whent to Windows update, Microsoft had better drivers then the ones 3dfx could have produced..
(It's just a dumb example, hehe I know it wasn't Microsoft that baught 3dfx. But it was Microsoft that signed with Intel, who was already signed up with nVidia, hehe so it's all good:P)
Posted by: Jess
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
One thing you missed though KB, is the fact that you don't have to buy any linux. You can download them all for free. (Mandrake 8 is the best so far, so if you are looking for one, this could be your start).
- Well, damn I got so much to say about Linux...
For one, Mandrake sucks.. The only reasson people think it's the 'Best' is because it's so commercial.. *Caugh* AOL ring a bell? *Cough*
SuSE is the best distro.
- The thing about drivers I guess is right, for beginners. But take LinuxNewbie.org for example. There, you'll find their "NHF's" or "Newbieized Help Files", hehe. Which even a Monkey could understand.
Their NHF's are an older project, so they have an NHF for pritty much any complex task, with any distro of Linux.
Linux is also well known for being able to grab better drivers for your devices then the producers supply for Windows
Okay, and last but most importantly...
The reasson why Microsoft's Windows isn't overwhelmed by the hundreds of Distro's of Linux, isn't only about the UserFriendly-State of Windows...
If you wanna find out the most important part.. Install a distro a Linux. Look at the brand of your.. Say for example, sound card..
Call them, and say "I'm having problems with my sound card drivers, i'm running a distro a Linux. What do I do?"
If they don't just hang up on you. They'll say "Sorry, we do not support this Operating System. Find somewhere else to get Drivers / Technical assistance." - Or, they'll give you the buggiest driver you've ever seen in your life. That most likely doesn't even work...
:-\
Every first few steps into the world of Linux are scarey and doubtfull.. But once you're settled, you'll love it
|
Posted by: Mancini
well its like this
Microsoft has enogh money (lawyers and conseilers too) to survive a long time to any market change and anny atack but my guess is that they will drop on second place as soon as Linux is took over by an company who wraps their exquisite kernell and os into an well balanced shell
Linux is like an car with solid gold engine but without chassy or wheels while
Micro$oft win is like an coroded stell engine with new wheels and chassy
That is why linux will overcome it after some time because eventually the win os wont be able to develop further without coding it from scratch while linux is only in need of money to make hardware drivers for *nix and develop some userability
But the baseline is that userability is on the same balance with quality .....what will need to be done is strech userability as far as it si posible without throwing away quality
what windows has done is focus on userability and only put as much quality as the os will boot and stay up for maximum one hour
|
|
|
|
|
