Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:33:28 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 14:32:26, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>On May 27, 2002 at 12:06:29, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>
>>
>>People will not switch for the pleasure of switching.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>>People will switch because they want to save money. Windows is becoming
>>extremely expensive.
>
>Are you sure they will? Why do you think is Windows becoming more expensive?
It's not that I *think* that MS software is becoming more expensive. It *is*
becoming more expensive, and for 3 reasons:
1) the prices are going up. Check out the price of Windows XP and compare with
the price of previous versions of the OS.
2) because of product activation, people cannot install their software on
several computers, like they did before. I cannot install one copy of Windows on
my 10 computers as I did before. So the price is up by a factor of 10 (at least)
for me. You are probably going to say that it is a subjective price, that is was
illegal to install several copies, etc, etc, but the net result is that people
will have to pay MUCH more money.
3) product activation implies indirect costs for companies and individuals.
Maybe not much, but that price must be taken into account.
>Because "everyone has it" and applications like M$ Office are the de facto
>standard. That's why.
I know that, and that's the problem.
>>Windows XP Home Edition here costs approximately 230€, or $200. If I want to
>>install Windows XP Home Edition on all my computers (because I want all my
>>computers to run the same OS for simplicity reasons), I have to pay 2530€, or
>>$2200.
>>
>>That's absolutely impossible. I will not pay that money to Microsoft.
>>Companies are thinking along the same lines.
>
>I wish they were. Sadly I don't see it happening.
Because there is no serious alternative, or no serious alternative has been able
to let people know that it is there.
>>>The Apple OS never tried to look like / behave like Windows. Yeah, they don't
>>>have that much market share, but at least "they're different", which also
>>>attracts people. (hint: Steve Jobs is quite happy with his market share, he's
>>>not really trying to get 50% or something, believe me ;) And I'm positive that
>>>they will still exist in 5 years - of course with similar market share. *smiles*
>>
>>
>>Come on! Microsoft had to invest nig money in Apple several years ago to help
>>them. They did it because if Apple and its OS disappears Microsoft would be in a
>>too obvious position of monopoly (well actually they have be found to be, so
>>that did not save them).
>
>:) True :) I still think Apple will exist in 5 years. Maybe M$ has to pay them
>each time they get to small. :)
>
>
>>From reports I have seen, there is no satisfying solution to this problem.
>>Sooner or later you will get a document which does not display/print well and
>>that's going to be a problem.
>>
>>I hope it will get better, but you can count on Microsoft to add very nasty
>>quirks in their documents format so it gets very difficult to clone MSOffice.
>
>Agreed 100%. And that's the reason that you will (have to) buy the next version
>of Windows and the next version of M$ Office again.
I'm using Office 97 and I'm not planning to change anytime soon.
>What will you do if the next version of Windows or M$ Office will be 400$? You
>say you don't want/can't spend that much money. But if you don't do exactly
>that, you won't be able to read the Word documents you receive from your
>customers or partners and you will be out of business.
This is not happening. So far I have not noticed by problems with my outdated
(by 5 years) version of Office.
>Lindows looks promising, but, I wouldn't be surprised if M$ will find a way to
>screw Lindows users. AFAIK, OS/2 also could run Windows applications and was
>overall the better system back then. (Maybe the situation with OS/2 is different
>than Lindows, please correct me if I'm wrong)
The comparison of Linux and OS/2 is very much to the point.
I believe that the way for Linux to make it to the desktop is to disguise itself
as a free Windows clone (at least for a while).
The WINE project is the key to do this. But the WINE project does not move fast
enough.
WINE is a compatibility layer that allows to run native Windows applications
(Win16 and Win32) under Linux. It is not fully functional yet. Some programs
work, but many don't.
What happened to OS/2 Warp (that has been my OS for several months) is that it
was able to run DOS and Windows 3.1 applications. There were problems sometimes,
lack of drivers, but it worked well. I remember playing Doom under OS/2, it
worked very well.
This has been possible because of a very old agreement between Microsoft and
IBM. MS was allowed to use and sell OS/2 (which MS had designed for IBM
initially and that was supposed to replace DOS), and IBM has access to the
source code of Windows.
The agreement ended somewhere before 1995. As soon as it has ended, Microsoft
has given up OS/2 and IBM has suddenly discovered that MS had never planned to
make OS/2 the successor of DOS. The successor of DOS was Windows.
Then Microsoft killed Windows 3.1 with Windows 95 (different APIs).
Developpement of Windows 3.x applications stopped and OS/2 and its Windows 3.x
compatibility has been turned into a multi-million dollar... toy.
That's how Gates f****d IBM, in a nutshell.
I'm afraid that something similar can happen to WINE. When WINE will be ready
(who knows when) and able to run most Win32 applications, I'm afraid that
Microsoft will have already switched to a different API (possibly a 64 bits API,
I don't see anything else).
But the switch to a new API (like what happened between Win3.x and Win95) is a
"soft spot". It takes several months before the new system gains momentum (from
experience of what happened in 1995-1996).
At that time it is vulnerable, and many people can decide to keep the old
system, or to switch to a compatible free system.
WINE must be ready before Microsoft does again the "switch to new API" move. If
not, WINE will follow the steps of OS/2.
>Do you see a way out of this vicious circle? I don't.
>
>Sargon
>
>PS. If you're no longer interested in discussing this subject (with me), please
>let me know. :)
I am interested... As you see.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.