Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKPost by DFSWhat nonsense? The world gave them that monopoly based on the
quality of their software products.
No they didn't. It was because Microsoft offered vendors deals too
good to refuse.
But free is supposed to be too good to refuse. Why no Linux uptake by OEMs?
Why no new OEMs popping up to satisfy Linux demand?
Public mindshare, combined with Microsoft's exclusivity requirement for
the deals. If you want to be in the business of selling Windows boxes,
you have little choice but to sell *only* windows boxes.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKAfter 3.1, vendors had little choice but concede to Microsoft's demands.
Why? Were they somehow forced by MS.
Economically. If they shipped alternatives they would no longe rbe able
to compete price-wize with the competition. Microsoft required them to
ship Windows *exclusively* to get the price break.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKPost by DFSHow can they threaten an OEM?
Market the product properly so the public is clamoring for it,
Now you're getting nearer the truth: the public did in fact clamor for
Windows 3.0/3.1.
Yes, Microsoft is good at selling repackaged pig shit to the general
population. It's a talent, I suppose.
Post by DFSNot because it was so great, but because it was plenty
good enough,
No, it wasn't good enough. That's why people bought Windows 95, because
Microsoft promised them it would be better. It wasn't really, and so
they sold Windows 98 the same way. Then came XP (because the general
population ignored 2000), with the same mantra. They're now old enough
to force the market to upgrade via end-of-lifing a product.
Post by DFSfor users and hardware and software vendors who wrote drivers
and apps for it by the thousands.
Software and hardware vendors had little choice in the matter. They went
kicking and screaming.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKjack up the price to unsellable levels,
What you consider overpriced is very different from what the public
considers overpriced.
Hardly. An OEM can't survive if they have to drop $300 for the operating
system on a $400 computer. They have no choice but to do what is
nessesary for Microsoft to sell them Windows at OEM pricing. They don't
really have an option anyway because the majority of users are locked
into Windows software.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKthen offer OEMs a huge price break in
exchange for exclusivity contracts.
Good for them. Smart move, MS.
It's also unethical and choked out superior alternatives. Microsoft has
single-handedly set back the computing industry by 12 years. At least.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKSame thing they did with Internet Explorer vs. Netscape.
Now you're just revising history, ie acting the cola fool.
Not at all. Why do you think OEMs didn't ship Netscape with new
computers? Because Microsoft wouldn't sell them Windows at OEM pricing
if they included Netscape.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKPost by DFSI'm curious to see what happens in Munich. Hope I don't die before then.
Doubtful. That transition was held back because of the Software
Patents thing, which was recently struck down.
So, 2008 maybe? About when Linux busts through worldwide.
'busts through' is an overstatement. I've said 2008-2009 is when
GNU/Linux will see a veritable explosion in use (as in doubling
marketshare, or so). That doesn't mean Microsoft's grip on the world is
going to crumble overnight.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKPost by DFSI hope you're patient. That could take a while.
Less than 10 years before it'll break Microsoft's market domination
(which doesn't even require 50%). At current rates, of course.
10 years from now? So starting in 2008 and reaching critical mass soon
afterwards and capturing ~ half the market by 2015?
Probably, provided current trends continue.
Post by DFSPost by TheLetterKPost by DFSYou just don't like paying for it.
I have no problem paying for a superior product. What I have a problem
with is buying the crap typically produced by commercial Windows developers.
Which means you really don't like paying for superior products,
I pay Apple's premium, don't I?
Post by DFSbecause it's
widely known the superior apps of their kind exist on the Windows platform -
and often ONLY on the Windows platform.
Not in my opinion. There are *very* few Windows-only apps that are even
worth using. Let alone paying the developers what they think their
product is worth.
Post by DFSThat would be: MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, MS Project, MS Visio,
Uhh. No. Office is alright on the Mac, only because no decent
alternative runs natively.
Hell no!
I don't do computer aided drafting, so I can't comment.
Post by DFS3D Studio Max,
Nor 3D modeling.
Post by DFSTOAD for Oracle,
I'm not an Oracle database administrator.
Post by DFSAdobe Photoshop (also
on Mac),
Disagree very strongly. IMO, the GIMP is just as good. Though I'm not a
professional in this field so CMYK output isn't important to me. But I
have used Photoshop before.
Post by DFSand who knows how many hundreds of other business and personal
apps,
How many do you really need?
Post by DFSand dozens of utilities like SiSoft Sandra,
Dozens of alternatives exist on GNU/Linux.
Post by DFSplus untold numbers of
games.
There are a few, but most of the games these days are crap.
Post by DFSFace facts: it's a Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows world.
Not for me. Almost every app I use with any great regularity is fully
cross-platform between all three platforms. I could drop Windows
tomorrow and not suffer a loss of productivity. Though I'd likely get
bored without the games.