Microsoft's Monopoly

[ElderKingpin]

> If microsoft wasnt efficient, people wouldnt be using it.

Ever heard of Windows Vista? (Yeah, I went there.)

how many people used vista? not many. proving my point, people back installed to xp

 

[tom_mai78101]

how many people used vista? not many. proving my point, people back installed to xp

Just wondering...I thought people went straight to Windows 7.

 

[Miz]

Just wondering...I thought people went straight to Windows 7.

He means before Windows 7, people who didn't like Vista went back to XP and those who had Vista, if I remember correctly, were allow to upgrade to Windows 7 for free. So eventually yes everyone went straight to Windows 7.

 

[Slapshot136]

Also, last I read, Ubuntu has over 1 million desktop-based installations, and has LOADS of documentation.

:thup:

linux as a whole is still under 5% of the market, ubuntu included - it just doesn't make sense to write programs for linux from a corporate standpoint, especially if you consider that the people who like linux are less likely to pay for software in general and that you would need different versions for different distros - macs are different, even though they have a similar market share, the people who have macs are people who are willing to spend/waste $$

@ miz - only those who bought vista (or a computer that came with vista) in the time just prior to the win7 launch, and companies got greedy and started charging for it (well charging for S&H/etc.)

@ ToolTipError - so the CEO of a company has a grudge that ends up hurting the consumer, doesn't that mean that the consumer should boycott companies like that? atleast until they change their very restrictive policies?

I don't get what your trying to talk about here - it's like you just made a statement, yet didn't offer any (better) alternatives, or maybe im just not understanding it - so let me ask, what do you want to see happen in the future? MS to continue loosing ground until it's even with mac/linux? programmers to work 5x as hard and charge 5x as much for software to compensate so that mac/linux users have access to the same programs, and then have people pay that much as well?

 

[Zakyath]

You've got a point. For most people - this is a tech support site, face it, th-members doesn't count - Windows is the absolute certainty. People have Windows because of the brand, not the differences between Windows and other OS. Everyone who has taken a few economy courses and just a slight knowledge about the matter will without doubt accept this. Therefore, it is true that if it becomes easier to use the other operating systems; as if you could use about any program on any OS without complications, people would probably start drifting away from Windows even more. This would eventually lead to a more open market where the consumers would chose more after their needs.

 

[Whitesock]

Apple does support Windows though, which you can't say in reverse. A lot of Apple software has PC versions.

That's because apple doesn't want to give up 80% of the market. Deep down it's really so they get more profit.

 

[sqrage]

Apple does support Windows though, which you can't say in reverse. A lot of Apple software has PC versions.

What about Microsoft Office, which has been on every Apple computer I've ever used in my life?

 

[SerraAvenger]

Both microsoft and macintosh do take advantages of their "monopoly".

Trusted computing is just _one_ of many. DRM falls under this category.

Therefore, it is true that if it becomes easier to use the other operating systems; as if you could use about any program on any OS without complications, people would probably start drifting away from Windows even more. This would eventually lead to a more open market where the consumers would chose more after their needs.

Not true. A huge part (probably the majority) of Windows users never chose an operating system.
They bought a PC or a Laptop.

"Mainstream" Linux distros like SUSE or Ubuntu (I don't like Ubuntu) are equally easy to use, have the same learning curve, but usually aren't preinstalled on mainstream devices. This is the top reason why IE is used; Why people prefer Windows over other Systems (Macintosh abuses its hardware monopoly and can hence get a 5-8% marketshare) and why open source, secure and friendly to use software is always lagging behind.

Another fun fact: Nuremberg spends a shitload of money on maintenance and software license fees for proprietary windows software. If schools (eg) would use free software alternatives (and with free I mean free like in open source, not like in free beer), no license fees and lower maintenance costs would be the result. But if schools did that, the city would no longer pay for maintenance - the schools had to do that!
Malware, a missing access control, and shared file systems all add up and make using those computers a vivid horror trip. And no, that's not just a fantasy of mine - it is reality.
Due to this policy, Nuremberg had to spend lots of $$$ to fix malware infested computer clusters.
At least the servers run on squid under unix.

Really. Just using SUSE on those computers would fix so many problems.

The huge advantage of proprietary MS software on those computers is that there's no updates.
Those computers often have free software alternatives installed, like vlc and OOo. But that software is usually very old. Downloading a new OOo package takes like for ever.
However, that nice and petty ms office from ante 2008 is still as valid as back then. It's still as buggy, still as awkward to use, still as malware prone - but at least it does still 'work' the same.

sigh... Now I've written much more than I wanted. You see, there's lots of open source alternatives, some are not usable at all. There is, however, a fine group of FOSS that is at least as shiny as the proprietary pendant. And in those cases, not using the FOSS variant is something that I just can't understand.

EDIT:
btw, I don't make software cross platform compatible anymore.
Whatever I develop, it is compiled for Linux. Using golang helps me there.

 

[Zakyath]

>Not true. A huge part (probably the majority) of Windows users never chose an operating system.
They bought a PC or a Laptop.

I was hoping I would get that point across. Now, don't deny my statements if you won't read them through.

 

[SerraAvenger]

>Not true. A huge part (probably the majority) of Windows users never chose an operating system.
They bought a PC or a Laptop.

I was hoping I would get that point across. Now, don't deny my statements if you won't read them through.

I interpreted your post such that they do decide between windows, linux and mac; But then they go for windows because of the brand.

What I was saying is that windows is simply preinstalled. Often when someone comes to me (not from a tech site) and asks me for help with computers, I ask them "Which operating system do you use?" and they can't even answer it.
They seem to think that the operating system is integrated into computer and whatknowI.
Amongst gamers, Windows is chosen due to DX. OpenGL is equally good, but cannot be supported "perfectly" by mainstream Graphics Card developers due to dedicated hardware.

 

[esb]

If people didn't buy the laptops/computers with Windows pre-installed, then the computer manufacturers would choose another OS to provide. But since peopel aren't willing to try out these "Open-source" OS because they don't need them, and because they don't have the same support as Microsoft, they stick with what they know.

It's all business.

I agree however, that schools would save much more money on say, simply switching over to OpenOffice.org.

 

[Zakyath]

I interpreted your post such that they do decide between windows, linux and mac; But then they go for windows because of the brand.

What I was saying is that windows is simply preinstalled. Often when someone comes to me (not from a tech site) and asks me for help with computers, I ask them "Which operating system do you use?" and they can't even answer it.
They seem to think that the operating system is integrated into computer and whatknowI.
Amongst gamers, Windows is chosen due to DX. OpenGL is equally good, but cannot be supported "perfectly" by mainstream Graphics Card developers due to dedicated hardware.

I must have expressed myself unclear. What you're saying was kinda my point. Most people don't even chose. And those who know the difference don't even bother with getting another OS. If, however, you wouldn't lose the ability to use any programs if you changed OS, more people would most likely do it. This would most likely lead to the worlds nerds helping their relatives and friends to pick an OS more appropriate for them

 

[SerraAvenger]

If people didn't buy the laptops/computers with Windows pre-installed, then the computer manufacturers would choose another OS to provide. But since peopel aren't willing to try out these "Open-source" OS because they don't need them, and because they don't have the same support as Microsoft, they stick with what they know.

That's so untrue. Just like I said. Many pals just buy a notebook/computer, and don't even think about the operating system.
I've seen peeps looking at a mac and wondering why everything looks different from what they are using.
The term "operating system" probably isn't even a part of their thought process.

 

[esb]

That's part of their ignorance. Nothing to do with the company.

 

[SerraAvenger]

That's part of their ignorance. Nothing to do with the company.

Wrong and true. While it is partly due to their pure ignorance, there also is a reason why computers come infected with windows. And that problem can probably found in how hardware manufacturers like ideas of trusted computing, how they are, themselves, dependant on the OS and how they made themselves dependant on DX due to dedicated hardware.

Just punishing microsoft will do no good. Coding a third, open source GL/SL which is platform independant might fix a huge part of the problem. But only if hardware devs jump on the train and push that library.

 

[sqrage]

Wrong and true. While it is partly due to their pure ignorance, there also is a reason why computers come infected with windows. And that problem can probably found in how hardware manufacturers like ideas of trusted computing, how they are, themselves, dependant on the OS and how they made themselves dependant on DX due to dedicated hardware.

Ha, it's now Microsoft's fault that Apple doesn't allow Mac to be installed on anything but their own hardware? And who the hell really wants to use Linux when it comes to every day people?

 

[SerraAvenger]

Ha, it's now Microsoft's fault that Apple doesn't allow Mac to be installed on anything but their own hardware? And who the hell really wants to use Linux when it comes to every day people?

Sq, please read my post again. Where the hell did I say anything of Apple?
And just like I said a few posts earlier, Apple is evil too.

And for the "every day people", where is the difference between Linux (I'm talking about mainstream distros, not about Archlinux here!)?

I understand that SuSE is much safer, much harder to mess up (unless you are browsing as root), uses YAST2 such that software management is much easier. I understand that SuSE requires an internet connection to install software easily. I understant that SuSE is free.

I understand that Windows supports all type of classic software that is quite much mainstream (and expensive or obtained illegaly). I understand that Windows supports directX, while wine is no alternative for "every day people".

Apart from that, where's the difference?
Both need to be learned; Both are equally "intuitive"; Both have about the same day-to-day experience (I feel SuSE is a lot nicer here); And both have their problems every now and then.

My second pair of parents (I call all of them my parents, although ofc only one of each pair really is) uses Linux on a day-to-day basis. And no, they are not Linux geeks or anything; They are what you'd describe as "every day people". Same is true for a huge part of my mates. They are not "into" it. They don't hack or anything. They use linux for their everyday working experience. I've seen Ubuntu, SuSE and Linux Mint installed on these PCs. Those of my pals who like to play computer games are just having Windows on a second pc (this just shows how little they know about computers - every second class geek would've simply dual booted).
Still those "every day people" want to and do use Linux.

And for the very same people, some of them have problems installing stuff under windows using msi.

 

[sqrage]

>>Sq, please read my post again. Where the hell did I say anything of Apple?

"Come infected with Windows." What do you expect when there are no alternatives?

 

[esb]

The other "every day people" choose Microsoft. Some others choose Apple. As we can see, it's the customer's decision. If someone really wants to use Linux, or Apple, or Microsoft, he/she will.

 

[SerraAvenger]

The other "every day people" choose

They don't!
They often don't even know what an "operating system" is.

If someone really wants to use Linux, or Apple, or Microsoft, he/she will.

Yeah. But only a small percentage, I'd say 30% max, actually ever make such a choice. And due to the dependency on DX, most chose Microsoft, but not by affiliation, rather than by constraint.

"Come infected with Windows." What do you expect when there are no alternatives?

There are alternatives - at least for the end users. For the hardware devs, it's not that easy. And this is where the problem lies.