PDA

View Full Version : The end of an era - Windows 3.x



Rincewind
05-11-2008, 03:13 PM
Macphiles and computer historians (Adamski?) may be interested in the following article.

The end of an era - Windows 3.x (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7707016.stm)

Basil
05-11-2008, 08:26 PM
Macphiles and computer historians (Adamski?) may be interested in the following article.

The end of an era - Windows 3.x (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7707016.stm)
Thanks. Interesting.


They helped Microsoft establish itself and set the trend for how it makes its revenues, and what drives the company until the present day.
Yes, by tying punters by the goolies to the machine (built anywhere you care to mention for $5).


As it was updated the software started to make PCs a serious rival to Apple machines...
Shock! Apple was first! (out of those two anyway). It would be disingenuous to say that Windows was ever ahead of the game (according to me anyway) and so I can only repeat, "serious rival" yes, but by

"Yes, by tying punters by the goolies to the machine (built anywhere you care to mention for $5)." Certainly not on quality. Apple were making machines to a standard. PCs were made to a price and Gates' illegal master-stroke tying the software to the machines. Did anyone say anti trust? Who remembers the farce of trying to buy a box without Windows. That was Gates' genius - certainly not the substandard software offering that was and still is late, glitchy, boring, largely copied a millstone around the popular global compting fraternity. Trapped ;)


... as it could take advantage of much improved graphics, had a broader colour palette, and could use multimedia extras such as sound cards and CD Rom drives.
I'm assuming the writer meant to clarify much improved against its own benchmark.

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2008, 01:11 AM
Hey Gunner, perchance, are you a Macophile?

Basil
06-11-2008, 01:41 AM
Hey Gunner, perchance, are you a Macophile?
Out and proud (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=177424&postcount=156)

Desmond
06-11-2008, 08:07 AM
So if MacIntosh had the better product and had it first, why didn't they become market leader? :hmm:

Rincewind
06-11-2008, 08:35 AM
So if MacIntosh had the better product and had it first, why didn't they become market leader? :hmm:

Don't get him started on the Priory of Sion. :)

Miranda
06-11-2008, 08:40 AM
So if MacIntosh had the better product and had it first, why didn't they become market leader? :hmm:

Because Microsoft had better marketing
And Microsoft's better anyway

Rincewind
06-11-2008, 09:08 AM
Because Microsoft had better marketing
And Microsoft's better anyway

Keep repeating the mantra. :P

Basil
06-11-2008, 11:34 AM
So if MacIntosh had the better product and had it first, why didn't they become market leader? :hmm:
1. Price.
2. Tying the software to a cheap box. Did someone say anti-trust?
3. Apple's tactical and operational mistakes. Many of.

As I said before, Gates' genius was in the tying, not the software. The software, was and is crap.

I should point out that Apple is is still in business because of its many tactical and operational successes as well. Remember that once the world was:
-- hooked, and
-- tied
it was almost impossible for anyone to run a rival.

eclectic
06-11-2008, 12:04 PM
3. Apple's tactical and operational mistakes. Many of.


would one have been using the word "apple" as a brand/trademark causing market confusion with the "apple" associated with a certain pop group?

i understand there was litigation because of this but that it was "amicably" settled

Rincewind
06-11-2008, 01:28 PM
Apple OS may be cleaner with better integration, coherency and a whole lot nicer to use. However, that doesn't make it a better OS. Microsoft made the OS which won the battle to get itself installed on more desktops worldwide than any other. (Linux might be winning the next one.) Apple, by tying its OS to a propriety hardware platform, basically conceded the higher ground and most of their ammo before the first shots were fired.

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2008, 02:26 PM
Tying the software to a cheap box. Did someone say anti-trust?
But this is a furphy. Anti-trust should be applied to real coercive monopolies like the government educracy that runs public schools. At least Microsoft can do absolutely nothing to force Mackites to pay a dime towards them if they don't use a Microsoft product, unlike government schools that we are forced to pay for even if we use private schools, as Walter Williams points out (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=866):


Did Microsoft engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange — and on non-fraudulent terms — with its customers, or did it engage in fraud, violence or threats of violence?

...

For example, what would you think if Microsoft had the power to tell you: "I don't care if you don't like my operating system and want to use somebody else's. But if you do use someone else's, you still have to pay for mine even if you don't use it." That's precisely what the education monopoly tells parents who want to take their children out of rotten government schools and put them in private schools.

As "anti-trust" is applied now, it merely protects losing businesses rather than consumers who rather liked cheapness and free bundled software. See also The Department of Justice's Assault on Microsoft: Who is the Predator and Who is the Victim? (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=225)


As I said before, Gates' genius was in the tying, not the software. The software, was and is crap.
That I can agree with up to a point; I've been known to tell Microsoft jokes in talks when PowerPoint crashed. Years ago, a Mackite told me with some justification that the then new Windows 95 was basically Mac 88.

Basil
06-11-2008, 05:54 PM
Apple OS may be cleaner with better integration, coherency and a whole lot nicer to use.
Yes.

However, that doesn't make it a better OS.
I did say 'according to me'. The concept is of course subjective - I think Boris and I have proven that!


Microsoft made the OS which won the battle to get itself installed on more desktops worldwide than any other.
They did. Which equally doesn't make it better.


Apple, by tying its OS to a propriety hardware platform, basically conceded the higher ground and most of their ammo before the first shots were fired.
No argument. Did you mean 'lower ground'?

Basil
06-11-2008, 06:13 PM
But this is a furphy.
Yes it is. To a degree. The debate IMO is still largely unresloved as to what constitutes anti-trust. Anti-trust, anti competitive. The word (law) probably hasn't been invented. What Gates' did was a once in a millenium thing (without the benefit of knowing the future).


Anti-trust should be applied to real coercive monopolies like the government educracy that runs public schools. At least Microsoft can do absolutely nothing to force Mackites to pay a dime towards them if they don't use a Microsoft product
The anti-trust idea is not about the Macphiles, it's about Microsoft's conduct towards other business and a free market.

While I'm not privy as to whether a free market existed, I have very strong suspicions that thuggery and implied supply problems would have been made very clear to PC manufacturers (who required Microsoft on their machines to be able to sell them :wall: :wall:).

Microsoft had to simply build software (and sloppy software at that) and 'organised' for companies all over the world to build (low margin) machines for them :wall:. So Microsoft
-- had no manufacturing costs
-- no warehousing/ inventory costs
-- no hardware obsolesence costs
-- no hardware failures (if the machine was bad 'please refer no-name company')
-- simply just pumped out disks
-- oh, and did so late, oh and had mac do the creative thinking for it

Desmond
06-11-2008, 06:32 PM
Because Microsoft had better marketing
And Microsoft's better anywayMaybe they had better marketing in the 3.11 days (and I say maybe; I don't know), but there are those that argue that these days Apple does marketing better than anything else.

Basil
06-11-2008, 06:36 PM
Maybe they had better marketing in the 3.11 days. I don't know.
Nor do I. The book 'From Apple To Pepsi' by head-hunted John Scully provides among other things, a fascinating insight into the early days at Apple, including the inventory, distribution, manufacturing, roll-out and overhead problems which preoccupied the Apple company while Microsoft was largely concerned with pressing 'print' on the software duplication machine :wall:

Desmond
06-11-2008, 06:36 PM
1. Price.
2. Tying the software to a cheap box. Did someone say anti-trust?
3. Apple's tactical and operational mistakes. Many of.

As I said before, Gates' genius was in the tying, not the software. The software, was and is crap.

I should point out that Apple is is still in business because of its many tactical and operational successes as well. Remember that once the world was:
-- hooked, and
-- tied
it was almost impossible for anyone to run a rival.I reckon maybe it has gone full circle. First there was the proprietary days where every vendor had its own doodads that didn't talk to the competitors' wotzits. Then one of those vendors stood up and played nice with the others, and took the massive chuck of market share for their trouble, forcing most of those not participating either broke or at least to the sidelines. Now, things are moving to open source, where everyone can play nice together. Full circle? or maybe there is another step still to come.

Denis_Jessop
06-11-2008, 07:42 PM
So if MacIntosh had the better product and had it first, why didn't they become market leader? :hmm:

They did; they had something like 80% of the market. The real question is why did they lose that advantage?

DJ

Aaron Guthrie
06-11-2008, 08:04 PM
They did; they had something like 80% of the market. The real question is why did they lose that advantage?

DJ80% of what market? GUI's?

Aaron Guthrie
06-11-2008, 08:13 PM
Maybe they had better marketing in the 3.11 days (and I say maybe; I don't know), but there are those that argue that these days Apple does marketing better than anything else.In the 3.11 days wasn't DOS the OS of choice? If you have DOS you don't need a new computer to get 3.11. They also may have bundled DOS and 3.11.

eclectic
06-11-2008, 08:15 PM
They did; they had something like 80% of the market. The real question is why did they lose that advantage?

DJ

i once saw a quip attributed to churchill

perfectionism means p-a-r-a-l-y-s-i-s

was the problem perhaps that apple was simply too good?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2008, 09:21 AM
Microsoft had to simply build software (and sloppy software at that) and 'organised' for companies all over the world to build (low margin) machines for them :wall:. So Microsoft
-- had no manufacturing costs
-- no warehousing/ inventory costs
-- no hardware obsolesence costs
-- no hardware failures (if the machine was bad 'please refer no-name company')
-- simply just pumped out disks
-- oh, and did so late, oh and had mac do the creative thinking for it
Summary of the above:
Microsoft provided product that customers preferred.

Desmond
07-11-2008, 10:39 AM
They did; they had something like 80% of the market. I'd be surprised if that were true.

Desmond
07-11-2008, 10:43 AM
In the 3.11 days wasn't DOS the OS of choice? If you have DOS you don't need a new computer to get 3.11. They also may have bundled DOS and 3.11.In the early days, it wasn't a real OS at all. It was really just a GUI for MS DOS rather than a replacement for it.

Basil
07-11-2008, 12:13 PM
Summary of the above:
Microsoft provided product that customers preferred.
Preferred to purchase. Didn't make it a better product. Made it a better offering. There's a significant difference - one that has provided excellent modeling and planning for subsequent roll-outs and marketing in all manner of industries since. I've even drawn on some of the lessons myself.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2008, 12:25 PM
Preferred to purchase. Didn't make it a better product. Made it a better offering.
All true. But since customers still freely purchased Microsoft's inferior product, there is no cause for Big Government to persecute them with appalling anti-trust legislation.

Adamski
07-11-2008, 01:01 PM
Macphiles and computer historians (Adamski?) may be interested in the following article.

The end of an era - Windows 3.x (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7707016.stm)Thanks, RW. Interesting, as is the subsequent revival of the old MSoft v Mac debate on other threads but in briefer form that follows.

Basil
07-11-2008, 01:21 PM
All true. But since customers still freely purchased Microsoft's inferior product, there is no cause for Big Government to persecute them with appalling anti-trust legislation.
Jon, I really don't have sufficient and extensive knowledge to debate from a point of absolute certainty - I'm not sure anyone does, however I would question whether or not your suggestion is accurate in that

Did 'customers really freely purchase Microsoft'? Sure they had a choice as opposed to Apple, but as we have seen Apple were offering a separate solution which included the box as well. The real question IMO is whether someone could buy a box (one of the bazillions manufactured by independent box manufactures throughout the USA, Asia and elsewhere - remembering that Microsoft weren't in the box business) and NOT have Microsoft on it?

IIRC there was quite an uproar when as a test, a group of people tried to do exactly that,
-- "Hello, I see you sell computers. Do you have one without Microsoft installed"?
-- "No sir, all our computers have Microsoft installed."
-- "Oh. Well I'd like to buy your box without Microsoft. Would you mind erasing Microsoft and I'll be around to pay cash this afternoon?"
-- I'm sorry sir, but we're not allowed to do that {insert various reasons}.

No one could actually get pinned on it in much the same way it's difficult to extract evidence from da underworld. "I didn't see a thing officer/ I know nothing/ oh no we're not coerced to making our boxes this way" And in much the same way that we find it difficult to pin the slow to pass on fuel discounts on the oil companies.

Microsoft was up to its neck in it - and Microsoft was very worried - for good reason.

Desmond
07-11-2008, 01:26 PM
Just to add to Gunner's point, even if the clerk did remove a pre-installed copy of Windows from the box, it would still count as a copy sold.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-11-2008, 09:38 AM
Preferred to purchase. Didn't make it a better product. Made it a better offering.
Whether product is better or not is subjective (and price is a part of equation). The best test is consumers voting with their dollars. Outcome of that election was quite evident.

Basil
10-11-2008, 12:17 PM
Whether product is better or not is subjective (and price is a part of equation). The best test is consumers voting with their dollars. Outcome of that election was quite evident.
Igor, you seem to be surfing between concepts.
Did Microsoft 'win'? Yes.
Did consumers vote? Yes - between Mac & Microsoft solutions.

But the point ...

Did consumers vote between Microsoft and another OS for their cheap box ? :wall:
What was the name of the alternative for OS for their box that they bought independently :wall: Cha ching?

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2008, 12:33 PM
Igor, you seem to be surfing between concepts.
Did Microsoft 'win'? Yes.
Did consumers vote? Yes — between Mac & Microsoft solutions.
And since this was a consumer vote, the (in)Justice Department should desist with "anti-trust" kangaroo courts.


Did consumers vote between Microsoft and another OS for their cheap box ? :wall:
How is this different in principle from buyers of Mac boxes being stuck with Mac OS, which in turn needs a special expensive Mac box and Mac programs?

Basil
10-11-2008, 12:44 PM
Did consumers vote? Yes — between Mac & Microsoft solutions.
And since this was a consumer vote, the (in)Justice Department should desist with "anti-trust" kangaroo courts.
Now you're surfing between the issues. Your premise (mac and microsoft) has nothing to do with your conclusion (microsoft and the rest of the world).


How is this different in principle from buyers of Mac boxes being stuck with Mac OS, which in turn needs a special expensive Mac box and Mac programs?
Person A choses to buy a mac and mac software - a total solution provided by one source.
Person B choses to buy a box from one of a hundred suppliers. When they want to purchase an OS, there none on the market except for Microsoft.

I've made my point. I won't be re-stating it a third and fourth time. I'm quite surprised we disagree.

eclectic
10-11-2008, 12:54 PM
not sure of correct terminology but i'll ask anyway:

if one gets automatic updates for xp etc does the cessation of "maintenance" for win 3.x mean that win 3.x dependant programs embedded within xp or associated programs will begin to go awry?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-11-2008, 12:58 PM
Person A choses to buy a mac and mac software - a total solution provided by one source.
Person B choses to buy a box from one of a hundred suppliers. When they want to purchase an OS, there none on the market except for Microsoft.

So, there was a choice of two bundles (indeed, OS and PC are useless one without another)
First bundle - Mac PC and Mac OS
Second bundle - PC from anyone else plus Microsoft OS

Second bundle got a preference.
If Mac OS was available on other computers, we'd be able to compare with third bundle - PC from anyone plus Mac OS.

Why didn't Apple make their OS available on other computers?

Desmond
10-11-2008, 01:07 PM
not sure of correct terminology but i'll ask anyway:

if one gets automatic updates for xp etc does the cessation of "maintenance" for win 3.x mean that win 3.x dependant programs embedded within xp or associated programs will begin to go awry?I think 3.x was not able to get on the Net. My guess is that it would crumple into the faetal position at the first sign of an attack. I could be wrong though.

Adamski
10-11-2008, 01:58 PM
I think 3.x was not able to get on the Net. My guess is that it would crumple into the fetal position at the first sign of an attack. I could be wrong though.I agree, Boris. If 3.x programs run ok on Vista, say, I would say that you are lucky. I have not bothered upgrading to Vista as I have too much XP software (and some 3.x) that probably would not work. E.g. object oriented and data modelling tools which relate to my work as a Senior Business Analyst / Modeller. BTW I have never owned a Mac so don't know how much of my software would run on one.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-11-2008, 02:28 PM
I think 3.x was not able to get on the Net. My guess is that it would crumple into the faetal position at the first sign of an attack. I could be wrong though.
As far as I remember, 3.1 did not work on the network properly, 3.11 was alright.
And while 3.11 was not very internet friendly, it did the job.

Basil
10-11-2008, 10:46 PM
So, there was a choice of two bundles (indeed, OS and PC are useless one without another)
First bundle - Mac PC and Mac OS
Second bundle - PC from anyone else plus Microsoft OS

Second bundle got a preference.
If Mac OS was available on other computers, we'd be able to compare with third bundle - PC from anyone plus Mac OS.

Why didn't Apple make their OS available on other computers?
Igor, I think you're getting stuck on the Mac part of the argument. Let Macs go. Breathe deeply. :lol: As to why Macs didn't release software for generic boxes, I can't tell you. I can guess, but I can't tell you.

The issue isn't about Macs. The issue is about blank boxes and OTHER OS software manufacturers - or lack of them. Please don't get stuck on macs because they elected to go they're own way - that has nothing to do with your lifetime and inescapable financial contribution to Bill Gates.

Gazillions of users
Gazillions of blank boxes
Gazillions of blank box manufacturers
Gazillions of software programs/ utilities/ games

One Microsoft.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-11-2008, 10:45 AM
The issue isn't about Macs. The issue is about blank boxes and OTHER OS software manufacturers - or lack of them. Please don't get stuck on macs because they elected to go they're own way - that has nothing to do with your lifetime and inescapable financial contribution to Bill Gates.

Gazillions of users
Gazillions of blank boxes
Gazillions of blank box manufacturers
Gazillions of software programs/ utilities/ games

One Microsoft.

It means that the job Microsoft done was good enough. Few tried to create another OS but failed.
The only successful attempt (Linux) is not as successful as was expected. However, it served another purpose: starting from XP, Microsoft OS is quite reasonable.
Every year I am getting more and more content with Microsoft OS (and even other products). Of course it could be part of the process you identified in another thread:

Igor I do believe you're becoming a lefty, girly, sloppy wet in your old age ;)

Basil
11-11-2008, 11:42 AM
Few tried to create another OS but failed.
Failed to create or failed to establish in the market? Big difference. And it is the reasons for the failure to establish in the market that are important. Discussed above.


Every year I am getting more and more content with Microsoft OS (and even other products). Of course it could be part of the process you identified in another thread:
!!! Listen to yourself Igor! After 20 years of your having no choice but to use Miscrosoft, and your having no choice but to pay Microsoft for the privilege of it having you by the Goolies, you are becoming more content with their product ... hellooooooooooooooo! :wall:

Desmond
11-11-2008, 12:00 PM
It might be worth pointing out that open source operating systems are certainly underrepresented in market share analysis. While Microsoft can tell you exactly how many licenses they have floating about out there, it is harder for open source, which might be downloaded once and then installed on many machines.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-11-2008, 01:05 PM
Failed to create or failed to establish in the market? Big difference. And it is the reasons for the failure to establish in the market that are important. Discussed above.

Failed to establish, of course.
One of the articles by some economist gave a good example:
Can you make a better sandwich then McDonalds? Easily.
Can you make a better business sytem then McDonalds? Hardly.

Same here. Can you make a better OS then Windows? Definitely.
Will it be comparable to Windows in terms of cost? Hardly.



!!! Listen to yourself Igor! After 20 years of your having no choice but to use Miscrosoft, and your having no choice but to pay Microsoft for the privilege of it having you by the Goolies, you are becoming more content with their product ... hellooooooooooooooo! :wall:

Howard,
I am a hard man to satisfy, especially in my field of expertise. If I am becoming content, it's a ringing endorsement. :D
I dealt with different flavours of Linux, especially on the network. Linux is much more expensive then Windows, despite being free (if you take into account support time/cost).

If someone offered a better OS at a reasonable cost, I'd definitely look at it. Maybe it's too difficult to make?

Miranda
11-11-2008, 01:07 PM
We have Microsoft and Apple. That's the way the world is. Take your pick, and be happy with it! :)

MichaelBaron
11-11-2008, 06:23 PM
The fact is for now - Windows is still alive!

Basil
11-11-2008, 06:57 PM
One of the articles by some economist gave a good example:
That's the beginning of your problem! What many economists know about commercial reality, one could write on the back of their degree! See below.


Can you make a better sandwich then McDonalds? Easily.
Can you make a better business sytem then McDonalds? Hardly.
Entirely missing the point! How many boxes were shipped with Linux etc. allowing this free-market decision? :wall:

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 10:51 AM
Entirely missing the point! How many boxes were shipped with Linux etc. allowing this free-market decision? :wall:
Quite a few. Guess what? Majority still prefer to get Windows (even though having to pay for it) then Linux for free.

Desmond
12-11-2008, 11:03 AM
Entirely missing the point! How many boxes were shipped with Linux etc. allowing this free-market decision? :wall:Should be box manufacturer be free to choose what software they want to ship it with?

Adamski
12-11-2008, 11:06 AM
And since this was a consumer vote, the (in)Justice Department should desist with "anti-trust" kangaroo courts.The talk of anti-trust reminds me that there is a good movie called Anti-Trust. It has an IT theme (a Microsoft-like company and computer programmers as heroes - remember Milo and his Chinese friend who got murdered?) as well as an anti-trust one. The head of the Microsoft-like company was the bad guy! (BTW I do not see Microsoft as bad guys. I use their products after all!)

Miranda
12-11-2008, 11:37 AM
Should be box manufacturer be free to choose what software they want to ship it with?

Sure, they should be free to choose what software they want to ship it with. But a whole lot more people are going to want to buy a Windows system rather than Linux, and so it's just easier for everyone if the software is pre-installed

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 06:02 PM
Sure, they should be free to choose what software they want to ship it with. But a whole lot more people are going to want to buy a Windows system rather than Linux, and so it's just easier for everyone if the software is pre-installed
Sometimes you say pretty sensible things, I will admit.

Basil
12-11-2008, 07:05 PM
Sure, they should be free to choose what software they want to ship it with. But a whole lot more people are going to want to buy a Windows system rather than Linux, and so it's just easier for everyone if the software is pre-installed
And do you believe that each and every one of those manufacturers (hundreds), no matter how amazing the coincidence, elected of their own free will to ship with Microsoft, notwithstanding that microsoft charged and other OS were no charge?

Do you find it odd that not a single manufacturer (at least in the domestic market) elected not to ship with both Microsoft and the free one?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 08:03 PM
That's the beginning of your problem! What many economists know about commercial reality, one could write on the back of their degree!

Agree!!

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 08:06 PM
Do you find it odd that not a single manufacturer (at least in the domestic market) elected not to ship with both Microsoft and the free one?

Not really. Linux is not a first choice for normal computer user (and even IT professional). Having used both Linux and Windows I can attest to it.
My impression - Linux is not bad for a server if you know it well. Otherwise, you better of using Windows.

Basil
12-11-2008, 08:20 PM
Not really. Linux is not a first choice for normal computer user (and even IT professional). Having used both Linux and Windows I can attest to it.
My impression - Linux is not bad for a server if you know it well. Otherwise, you better of using Windows.
OK before I start listing anti competitive suits that Microsoft has settled prior to court*, do you have a comment as to why the box manufacturers don't supply open-source software such as text editing programs and utilities which are in abundance, free and are surely of interest to users?

* I reject in advance any counter-claim of 'commercial expediency' in that Microsoft genuienly believed it had no case to answer but it was cheaper to settle, because I will cite instances where Microsoft has held firm in the face of suits and not settled.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 09:06 PM
OK before I start listing anti competitive suits that Microsoft has settled prior to court*, do you have a comment as to why the box manufacturers don't supply open-source software such as text editing programs and utilities which are in abundance, free and are surely of interest to users?
Sometimes they do. But there are so many programs that can be easily downloaded and installed (unlike OS), it does not make sense.


* I reject in advance any counter-claim of 'commercial expediency' in that Microsoft genuienly believed it had no case to answer but it was cheaper to settle, because I will cite instances where Microsoft has held firm in the face of suits and not settled.
Because they decided it's cheaper not to settle!
Many antitrust laws are unjust. If you know you are right, but unjust law is against you, settling might be an option (which they use).

Howard, I am not going to idolise Microsoft, but I don't like it to be demonised either.

Aaron Guthrie
12-11-2008, 09:13 PM
Do you find it odd that not a single manufacturer (at least in the domestic market) elected not to ship with both Microsoft and the free one?What would the benefit of that be? It isn't that easy for your average joe to setup a dual-boot. It probably isn't even that easy for them to setup one OS. I'm not sure if it has always been a pre-install thing with most computers.

But as long as you are running this sort of line, you might try the point that microsoft was, if I recall correctly, pricing their software dependant upon how many copies were shipped. That is to say, not enough come pre-installed (or perhaps just sent with it, not sure), the distributor (or whoever it is) has to pay a higher price for windows.

edit- and for that matter I am guessing a pre-installed dual boot might be confusing to the user, and might cause more tech support problems.

Basil
12-11-2008, 09:34 PM
Because they decided it's cheaper not to settle!
Many antitrust laws are unjust.
Do you now this for sure or are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? I point out that of course I don't know for certain that your suggestion is wrong.


Howard, I am not going to idolise Microsoft, but I don't like it to be demonised either.
That's all good. I respect that. I don't want to demonise for the sake of it either. I simply believe that they were up to their necks in it (on balance) and you don't. All good.

Basil
12-11-2008, 09:38 PM
What would the benefit of that be? It isn't that easy for your average joe to setup a dual-boot. It probably isn't even that easy for them to setup one OS. I'm not sure if it has always been a pre-install thing with most computers.
I think it would have been acceptable to present a start-up screen (after unplug and turn on) that:

either said: 'welcome to your box. you've paid for MS so use it if you want (and pay for future upgrades) or 'if you know what you're doing, wipe using this friendly uninstall button and use alternative OS*

or said 'welcome to your blank box, chose one of these seemless software installs - either MS or Mr free.

or better still, at point of purchase have the retailer say
Here's a box for $500. Do you want to also pay $200 for MS? :doh:

You can bet your bottom dollar that bazillions of start-ups (companies) would have created free or low cost skins and interfaces (for Linux). Those companies were never born. They never had a chance. A right royal stitching.

Aaron Guthrie
12-11-2008, 09:50 PM
I think it would have been acceptable to present a start-up screen (after unplug and turn on) that:

either said: 'welcome to your box. you've paid for MS so use it if you want (and pay for future upgrades) or 'if you know what you're doing, wipe using this friendly uninstall button and use alternative OS*

or said 'welcome to your blank box, chose one of these seemless software installs - either MS or Mr free.

or better still, at point of purchase have the retailer say
Here's a box for $500. Do you want to also pay $200 for MS? :doh:I think its reasonable to say that less machines with either non microsoft OS, or just no OS were sold due to microsoft's business practices. But this two in one thing you got going on looks too complicated to me to be worth it to begin with.

Basil
12-11-2008, 10:13 PM
I think its reasonable to say that less machines with either non microsoft OS, or just no OS were sold due to microsoft's business practices. But this two in one thing you got going on looks too complicated to me to be worth it to begin with.
Kidding right?
iPods, bluetooth, blue ray, usb, back-up, system crashes, utilities, drivers, obsolescence, compatibility, upgrades and a plethora of other things the consumer has thrust upon it ... and you're saying "welcome to your box; chose your own install system" (press and forget) is too confusing? :hand:

Lucky for Microsoft that there are a few of you around.

Regardless, what about the people more tech savvy than you (chose your install disk people) who may have appreciated a choice? My point is that the choice never existed.

Had the choice existed and then 'your too confusing kicked in' (even with 'plan A' of MS alreday installed so no work for you), then there would have been true competition.

Adamski
12-11-2008, 10:55 PM
Not really. Linux is not a first choice for normal computer user (and even IT professional). Having used both Linux and Windows I can attest to it.
My impression - Linux is not bad for a server if you know it well. Otherwise, you better of using Windows.Agreed. Linux is only the best OS for programmers. Most of us don't need it and there's nothing better for us than a recent variant of Windows (for me still XP). I can't comment on Macs for programmers as I have never used a Mac outside my school days.

Miranda
13-11-2008, 08:43 AM
I've never tried programming on a mac either... but then again, I haven't programmed much :lol: . Macs just make me feel like I'm being wrapped up in cotton wool.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2008, 09:45 AM
You can bet your bottom dollar that bazillions of start-ups (companies) would have created free or low cost skins and interfaces (for Linux). Those companies were never born. They never had a chance. A right royal stitching.
They actually tried, both start-ups and established companies. Got a very small niche, but majority decided to keep using Windows. If my memory serves my right, about six or seven years ago quite a few manufacturers were selling their box with Linux.

Aaron Guthrie
13-11-2008, 12:08 PM
Kidding right?
iPods, bluetooth, blue ray, usb, back-up, system crashes, utilities, drivers, obsolescence, compatibility, upgrades and a plethora of other things the consumer has thrust upon it ... and you're saying "welcome to your box; chose your own install system" (press and forget) is too confusing? :hand: What I said was too confusing (I guess for a significant number of consumers) was a dual boot. I said in general this two in one thing was too complicated. (Who would write/support this installation software, who would check the legal implications? Why do that when you can just sell the options separately?)

Aaron Guthrie
13-11-2008, 12:15 PM
Regardless, what about the people more tech savvy than you (chose your install disk people) who may have appreciated a choice? My point is that the choice never existed.I'm not talking about what I would prefer.
Had the choice existed and then 'your too confusing kicked in' (even with 'plan A' of MS alreday installed so no work for you), then there would have been true competition.But you are arguing about the role microsoft has played in this, aren't you? My point is that this dual boot/dual install or whatever is not going to be worth it to the companies involved anyway.

Basil
13-11-2008, 01:36 PM
I'm not talking about what I would prefer.But you are arguing about the role microsoft has played in this, aren't you?
Yes.

Adamski
13-11-2008, 02:05 PM
I'm not talking about what I would prefer.But you are arguing about the role microsoft has played in this, aren't you? My point is that this dual boot/dual install or whatever is not going to be worth it to the companies involved anyway.I agree with Manga, here. Dual boots are almost pointless and a recipe for disaster. It certainly was not worth Microsoft investing time and money in offering them. I know from personal experience. I gave up trying to get a dual boot between Windows (NT then I think) and Red Hat Linux to work. And there ended my sortee into Linux. No loss, I think, as these days I am not a programmer.

Basil
14-11-2008, 03:33 AM
I agree with Manga, here. Dual boots are almost pointless and a recipe for disaster.
We all agree with Managa, I'm sure. I'm not aware of ayone who was advocating a dual boot. I was advocating an optional install. Regardless of whether it would be taken up, the option was never available.

Had it been offered, I'm certain workable freeware skins would have been made available in short order. Something to work towards. As it turned out, the birth of such freeware alternatives was murdered in the womb.

Aaron Guthrie
14-11-2008, 10:16 AM
We all agree with Managa, I'm sure. I'm not aware of ayone who was advocating a dual boot. I was advocating an optional install. Regardless of whether it would be taken up, the option was never available.I was never that clear on what you wanted. For example, that choice of install- if it works via having both pre-installed then you have a dual boot. If not I don't know what the advantage to that option screen is to the guy in the shop going "would you like this OS disk, or this OS disk?". (And it has the disadvantage of having someone write/support the software etc.) Also, to get to the point of having the computer ask you to make a choice the computer has to have some OS on it. (I guess DOS would do, though.)

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 02:45 PM
Had it been offered, I'm certain workable freeware skins would have been made available in short order. Something to work towards. As it turned out, the birth of such freeware alternatives was murdered in the womb.
Howard,
You might've missed it, but in the beginning of this decade quite a few machines were offered with choice of Linux or Windows. I was (and still am) doing a lot of computer purchasers and tried hard to be aware of the market development.

Basil
15-11-2008, 02:56 AM
Howard,
You might've missed it, but in the beginning of this decade quite a few machines were offered with choice of Linux or Windows. I was (and still am) doing a lot of computer purchasers and tried hard to be aware of the market development.
I did miss it. Thank you. Was this offering available to the domestic market, and widely available? I ask because a token and strangled offering is no offering at all.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 08:50 AM
I did miss it. Thank you. Was this offering available to the domestic market, and widely available? I ask because a token and strangled offering is no offering at all.
Majority of vendors still offered Microsoft, of course.

Denis_Jessop
15-11-2008, 12:30 PM
Majority of vendors still offered Microsoft, of course.

I have been a regular reader of junk mail advertising computers from all the usual suspects and I don't recall ever having seen one advertised with a Linux option. I think, however, that I recently saw that one of the little netbooks (?the HP) comes with a Linux plus 80GB solid state HD as an option for the standard Windows Vista Basic plus 120GB HD.

Now's the time to tell Gunner that I am not only a leftie in any sense of the term but also a renegade as I recently bought an HP netbook to run all my Windows chess software in the comfort of an armchair. It has Windows Vista Basic which has the usual Windows eccentricities. For example it runs all my Convekta programs bar CT Art which raises all manner of Access violation complaints. As a Macman they have always mystified me but never more so that when they are confined to one program for no apparent reason.

I still have the 24" iMac which is especially good for viewing cute girls and the like in high definition :) .

DJ

Basil
15-11-2008, 12:33 PM
Now's the time to tell Gunner that I am not only a leftie in any sense of the term
We've known for a while, Denis!


... but also a renegade as I recently bought an HP netbook to run all my Windows chess software
Hmmmm, OK we've had a think. This is all OK.

Denis_Jessop
15-11-2008, 06:55 PM
We've known for a while, Denis!


Hmmmm, OK we've had a think. This is all OK.

There's a bit more to it - I am not only left thinking but left-handed and, though it's not mentioned by Bill Hartston, thus prefer Queen's side openings with white and - wait for it - when I was at school and for a few years afterwards I played hockey (football with weapons) always on the Left Wing :D

But I would like to know why my CT Art won't run on Vista :doh:.

DJ

Basil
15-11-2008, 09:02 PM
But I would like to know why my CT Art won't run on Vista :doh:
Ummm, is it because Vista is crap?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 09:33 PM
when I was at school and for a few years afterwards I played hockey (football with weapons) always on the Left Wing :D
DJ

It just shows that how a small childhood mistakes can have such a life-long consequences;) :lol: :lol: