The Microsoft antitrust settlement is to be reviewed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, this week. But lawyers at the Department of Justice and the settled States have already been indicated that they’re not altogether happy with Microsoft’s compliance to the arrangement they signed 14 months ago.
Microsoft Gets Green Light to Punish OS-less PC Vendors
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
hmm you know that settlement was nothing more than a slap on the wrist lol. Microsoft still holds 90% of the desktop market share and that doesnt suprise me. Everyday it seems I cant help but laugh at the things they get away with. Oh well, just because its used by the majority doesnt make the OS great, and Im glad I am smart enough to try different oses and pick what is the best.
A slap in the wrist actually hurts!
…this could be an encouragement to sell PCs with Linux pre-installed, since then they wouldn’t be considered OS-less. People would be able to install their Windows copy (legit or no) over Linux if they wanted, and manufacturers wouldn’t expose themselves to Microsoft’s convenient loophole. Not to mention that it wouldn’t cost them a dime in licenses!
I know most poeple would probably install Windows over it, but at least they would be exposed to Linux. Linux-friendly vendors could even have the Linux desktop load up some explanation web page that gives an ide of what Linux is, how to install Windows (or how to dual-boot!
Deals made between U.S. companies and the courts are not at all what they appear to be. The U.S. needs a core group of strong companies to keep the economy flowing. MS, IBM, Cisco, Dell, and a host of others fill that need within the computer business. Those same companies also pay a ton in taxes every year, offer a lot of jobs, that feed other companies. Cutting them to bits by legal means doesn’t make good sense from the “current” U.S. government prospective.
While I wouldn’t say anyone with MS’s current market share is a good thing, it’s not a bad thing in the eyes of the federal government. Keeping the software industry within the U.S. is far more important from their point of view. In the eyes of the bean counters, they would love to have a U.S. automaker hold a 90 percent market share.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a U.S. or EU court to do serious damage to MS, it’s highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
None of this is about a monopoly, unfair business practice, or predatory means… It’s all about $$$$$$$$$
True in some sense. The US Government has its own interests to look out for(go figure), and Im sure a lot of people who get paid to fix Windows problems would grumble over if everyone switched to something else haha. Still though, I think MS windows is kind of over priced for the os that it is, and not including a word processor is worst of all. Theres a difference between being healthy to the economy and detrimental to it. Competition is actually good for the economy and standards, especially for the consumer since it means lower prices and hence more money to spend on other taxable items.
I agree with “Ironically” that it could be a good thing if OEMs actually follow through with pre-installed alternative operating systems. Somehow I think MS would come up with another way to punish them in an abusive manner, though.
But the argument from “Economics” is the classic “What’s good for GM is good for America” angle, and it is a short-sighted fallacy at best.
“Keeping the software industry within the U.S. is far more important from their point of view.”
And thats why Microsoft is shipping jobs overseas? They seem to get away with a lot, to me they are like that bad guy in some movies who should be defeated or hurt sometime but never is. Maybe some day we’ll fast forward to the end and Microsoft will finally get their just punishment. Apple, Linux and Open Source Software are starting to give Microsoft a run for their money. In time people will hopefully wake up and make the smart decision for once.
You mean companies negotiate prices on products and tie pricing to the terms that were negotiated ?
Paint me red! I had no idea!
Hasn’t business run this way since the beginning ? This is new ? wow. Where the hell have I been ?
means supporting users with linux. not something small oem’s want to do.
Or they could sell it w/o a support contract. If they don’t want to have os-free PC’s and don’t want to suppoty Linux there is always freedos (which has been used for this in the past by Dell)
selling pc with linux means supporting users with linux.
Uh, no. No more than selling PCs with Windows means supporting users with Windows. You think I can just go to my PC Clone vendor and tell him that I have problem with my NVIDIA card rebooting my Windows PC?
MoronPeeceeUsr
Are you familiar with anti-trust laws? There are some things a monopoly, or even a quasi-monopoly, just can’t do. It’s the law. Usually it has to do with abusing your monopoly position to blackmail smaller companies. One of the conditions in the MS settlement was supposed to prevent this particular kind of behavior, but it seems that MS’s high-priced lawyers have found a loophole.
Glad to know you’d rather side with lawyers than independent vendors…
When I read the title at first I thought you copy pasted out of the Register. But it seems that only the title was copied.
I would have been dissapointed if the article itself wasn’t reworded. Good job!
osless computers, meaning, box makers.
strict box makers.
They target small business.
They want people to show they’ve had enough with their shenanigans.
Annoying me no-end wherever you go, that O/S is pre-installed. Even on my laptop I had no choice whatsoever here in my area. I literally had to buy a laptop with XP on it. That my friends is not good in any language when one company has such a stranglehold and when Politicians are standing right behind it. That’s really bad for everyone concerned in the long-run, but we all know that the US, only sees short-term, like each quarter………..
Josh: hmm you know that settlement was nothing more than a slap on the wrist lol. Microsoft still holds 90% of the desktop market share and that doesnt suprise me. Everyday it seems I cant help but laugh at the things they get away with. Oh well, just because its used by the majority doesnt make the OS great, and Im glad I am smart enough to try different oses and pick what is the best.
Without splitting Microsoft’s Windows department into two, there is no sure way of reducing Microsoft’s monopoly immediately. The fastest way is outside of court. How, you may ask? Linux. I believe by the end of the decade Linux would have broken Microsoft’s monopoly. Without the court’s help. In fact, the further the courts stay away from Microsoft, the more faster the process would take. The current settlement actually forces Microsoft to be more long-term competitive to Linux than it previously would have.
For example, in punishing OEMs. Since the courts barred it, Linux has no advantage of getting OEMs to load Linux exclusively in business PCs; and if they get loaded on a machine anytime in the future, it would be loaded alongside with Windows.
A nun, he moos: ..this could be an encouragement to sell PCs with Linux pre-installed, [..] Not to mention that it wouldn’t cost them a dime in licenses!
You seriously think that the cost of choosing an OS is limited to the license fee? Not quite, actually. For example, for support – an OEM would have to retrain its support staff to handle problems regarding Linux; and the sad fact is that every free Linux is much harder to use than Windows, you can see the support cost skyrocket (Xandros, Lindows, Lycoris and the likes do have licensing fee).
Josh: Still though, I think MS windows is kind of over priced for the os that it is, and not including a word processor is worst of all.
Overpriced? Find me a company that makes money from their OS sales yet charges far less for a OS license. The average OEM license within the US for Windows is $40, big OEMs due to their volume have it cheaper. Secondly, remember the big fuss when Microsoft integrated a web browser into Windows? And you’re suggesting a web browser? What’s stopping Sun, and maybe Corel, from suing Microsoft?
Besides, if you buy a Dell, you get WordPerfect. More OEMs should follow suit.
akumaX: And thats why Microsoft is shipping jobs overseas? They seem to get away with a lot, to me they are like that bad guy in some movies who should be defeated or hurt sometime but never is.
The last I check, Microsoft isn’t laying off American staff and giving it to the Indians. Heck, Microsoft still hires Americans. And they have yet to have a massive layoff in recent years.
akumaX: Apple, Linux and Open Source Software are starting to give Microsoft a run for their money.
I may agree to a certain extend regarding Linux, but Apple? Apple sells expensive machines (in comparison with PCs made with “overpriced” operating systems) to high end niche markets. Certainly not a run for their money.
Blah: Or they could sell it w/o a support contract. If they don’t want to have os-free PC’s and don’t want to suppoty Linux there is always freedos (which has been used for this in the past by Dell)
In some states and countries, an OEM technically can’t do that. And even if they could, it is bad business – successful businesses have returning customers, and returning customers come back because of the good after-sales support.
A nun, he moos: Are you familiar with anti-trust laws? There are some things a monopoly, or even a quasi-monopoly, just can’t do. It’s the law.
Under antitrust laws, what a “monopoly” can’t do is very vague. How you define the laws differ from lawyer to lawyer, from judge to judge, from case to case. Under antitrust laws, there aren’t a clear right or wrong. I could define antitrust laws to be applied to just about any major company -including Apple (but then again, it depends on the judge).
So define what a monopoly can’t do in clear words. Don’t give vague stuff like “crushing competition” because every successful business crushes competition and the moment they stop doing that, they stop being successful.
A nun, he moos: One of the conditions in the MS settlement was supposed to prevent this particular kind of behavior, but it seems that MS’s high-priced lawyers have found a loophole.
The whole law is filled with freaking loopholes. Compare American antitrust laws with European ones – European antitrust laws are much more defined, although politically disagreeable, it lists out clearly the right and wrongs in the conduct of a company.
Anonymous: Annoying me no-end wherever you go, that O/S is pre-installed. Even on my laptop I had no choice whatsoever here in my area. I literally had to buy a laptop with XP on it. That my friends is not good in any language when one company has such a stranglehold and when Politicians are standing right behind it.
If you don’t want Windows XP, don’t buy the laptop. Simple, aint it? Just like if you don’t like the harddisk, you have two choices – buy the laptop and replace it, or don’t buy the laptop. The same with Windows XP – if you don’t like it, either buy the laptop and replace it, or don’t buy the laptop. So, you don’t like Windows XP on a laptop, buy one without Windows – like Apple iBooks and PowerBooks, or one of those Lindows laptops.
Nobody has to force OEMs to load Windows. If you want to stay in the business and be competitive you have to load Windows. Try linux and meet with the angry customers who are frustrated over getting things done in Linux. Not being able to play the games you see in the store or not being able to run software. These are the reasons why everybody has to go with Windows.
Look at developers, better documentation, bigger market, better tools on Windows. In addition, on the Linux side, buggy libs, breaking-the-old-code updates etc… It is a no brainer, despite the money you are going to spend for Windows, people who can will choose Windows.
Linux becomes a serious threat only on the server market. But actually I should say Microsoft become a serious threat, cause Microsoft traditionally wasn’t in the server market. But look at it now, it is a powerful player who is challenging the unix market. Unix market is linux market btw. Microsoft gaining share from the unix market means, it is taking away future opportinities of the Linux.
The whole idea behind the rulings against Microsoft is not to break the monopoly, this would be incredibly stupid and get us absolutely nowhere.
The idea was to level the playing field so Microsoft didn’t have such a grasp over the OS market (grasp =! market share).
“Overpriced? Find me a company that makes money from their OS sales yet charges far less for a OS license. The average OEM license within the US for Windows is $40, big OEMs due to their volume have it cheaper. Secondly, remember the big fuss when Microsoft integrated a web browser into Windows? And you’re suggesting a web browser? What’s stopping Sun, and maybe Corel, from suing Microsoft?
Besides, if you buy a Dell, you get WordPerfect. More OEMs should follow suit. ”
True but reffering to non OEM editions. example buying it in a store like frys the full version. Hello anyone? This especially sucks when you buy a pc from some company and they dont give you a restore cd when you format your hd, hence making one have no choice but to buy a new copy of Windows.
“If you don’t want Windows XP, don’t buy the laptop. Simple, aint it?”
Eh? Is Windows XP an absolute requirement for using a laptop? Or OS X or Lindows, for that matter? What if a DON’T WANT Windows XP / OS X / Lindows on my laptop? WHY THE HELL DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING I WON’T USE? Microsoft won’t refund me this money, that’s proven by numerous cases, although they say they I’m entitled to a refund in their own EULA. But who cares what’s in the EULA, as long as it’s inconvenient for Microsoft, right?
It’s it odd to look at it this way….
Microsoft took the desktop world by storm, without going near the server market. Now they enjoy a good chunk of the server market as well….
Linux takes the server world by storm, and isn’t likely to see a good chunk of the desktop market anytime soon.
hmmm, might be a pattern here…….
Get the desktop market, get exposure, get customers….
Get the server market, get geeks, get ignored….
This situation also involves a statistics side effect.
At least where I come from the best computer deal you can get apart from building a box from scratch is an OEM with Windows. Most Linux people I know therefore buy PC”s with pre-installed Windows, wipe the harddisk and install Linux on it. I do this myself and this practice will of course show one more Windows user in the statistics.
Well, Windows installation and recovery CD’s tend to have nice colours so they can be used for interior decoration purposes
.
I suppose that would depend a good deal on THE laptop….
For some, that just might be the case….
Not at all certain of the options with the Intel Centrino systems……? Looks to me like a “slam dunk” for Windows.
What I’d really like to see is all the major OEMs offer identical hardware but with the OS being optional – for OEMs who don’t want to support Linux, the OEM can offer Windows XP or no OS installed (the latter clearly then having no OS or software support from the vendor and should be much cheaper).
OEMs, probably quite rightly, don’t want to offer a choice between two OS’es (Windows or Linux) on their hardware because it will double the support costs for them. What’s most annoying is that it *is* possible to get servers from OEMs with the choice I mentioned (in fact, Dell will offer their Poweredge servers with Windows, Linux or no OS pre-installed – a choice of 3 !!), but they won’t do it for laptops or desktops.
The closest I can get is “special” business desktops from OEMs [e.g. HP] that include (a usually old version of) Linux running on a hardware spec that’s always slightly different to the Windows model so that you can’t easily do a price comparison. HP in particular are guilty of having “special offers” on the Windows models, but not on their Linux models (so the price difference then become negligible).
When it comes to laptops, none of the major OEMs seem to offer them without Windows (i.e. with Linux or with no OS at all), which is a shameful state of affairs. I’d like to buy a laptop, but the OEMs won’t even “certify” them for Linux use (I don’t necessarily need OEM support for Linux, but I’d like to know that Linux will boot and be able to use the laptop hardware).
“Microsoft took the desktop world by storm, without going near the server market. Now they enjoy a good chunk of the server market as well.”
MS didn’t take the desktop “by storm”, they took it by a series of OEM deals that guaranteed that virtually every PC would ship with Windows installed. At the time (~1991) the DOS “IBM” PC was quite solidly entrenched with many home users and businesses, but they (we) were envious of the Mac GUI, as well as getting away from the maddening 640K memory limitations of DOS. Windows 3.x was touted as making your computer as easy to use as a Mac, and the DOS-using majority ate it up. Even though Windows 3.x actually blew chunks, it rapidly became a must-have feature for the PC industry, and since then, no PC user has been able to touch a computer without some form of Windows (without some special effort).
Anyway, the rise of Windows was arranged by MS and PC OEMs; the “user” had virtually nothing to do with it. I would doubt that more than 1% of PCs run any version of Windows other than what came with the machine, and I also would doubt that more than 1% of Windows users have ever installed any OS, Windows or otherwise. There probably are about as many individuals who have installed Linux as those who have installed Windows themselves.
they should better support topless PC’s
“Those same companies also pay a ton in taxes every year,”
No my friend, the more money and power you have the less taxes you pay – if any.
“offer a lot of jobs, that feed other companies”
… whose employees pay taxes.
“Cutting them to bits by legal means doesn’t make good sense from the “current” U.S. government prospective”
Goverments are puppets controlled by the big boys. Who do you think runs the US, Australia, Europe or Japan? The goverments?
Goverments do whatever they are told to do.
Anonymous: True but reffering to non OEM editions. example buying it in a store like frys the full version. Hello anyone? This especially sucks when you buy a pc from some company and they dont give you a restore cd when you format your hd, hence making one have no choice but to buy a new copy of Windows.
The only Windows version that had a substantial amount of retail success was Windows 95. The truth is most Windows sales happen either through OEMs or mass licensing (for large organizations). As for OEMs not providing restore CDs, they are legally required to give you one of those CDs. In any case, even downloading or buying a pirated version of the same version of Windows should in theory be legal, as long the OEM computer came with a legitimate license.
If it didn’t, sorry to say, you’ve got screwed – not by Microsoft, but by your OEM.
Artem: Eh? Is Windows XP an absolute requirement for using a laptop? Or OS X or Lindows, for that matter? What if a DON’T WANT Windows XP / OS X / Lindows on my laptop? WHY THE HELL DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING I WON’T USE?
If you are a DOS user and you have a floppy drive, is an hard disk an absolute requirement for using a laptop? Or a graphics and networks card, for that matter? What if you DON’T WANT a hard disk / sound care / network card on your laptop? WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING YOU WON’T USE?
Before you reply, the fact is that most people want Windows XP. If not, they want OS X. If not, they want one of those Linux laptops. Regardless, it suites most of their customers, why do they have to bend over their backs to help a arguable extremely tiny minority? Yeah, Mr. Artem, why should they? Certainly, an OS is not required to sell a laptop, but the same can be said of most of a laptop’s components. Just say I don’t use a trackpad or one of those pointers on a laptop – I really have no f*cking choice. They come with all modern laptops (except for some laptops I haven’t heard of)
Anonymous: Microsoft took the desktop world by storm, without going near the server market. Now they enjoy a good chunk of the server market as well….
Linux takes the server world by storm, and isn’t likely to see a good chunk of the desktop market anytime soon.
Wait, if Microsoft taking the desktop world by storm meant that they got about 95% of the market share, does this mean that Linux has around the same market share for servers? Hardly. With that said, I doubt that Windows would maintain its legally-defined monopoly in the world market, where opening markets are favouring more and more Linux. All empires fall, and they don’t need the courts to push them.
Besides, Microsoft took a big chunk of the server market initially because NetWare dropped the ball, making Windows NT seemingly a much better choice (at then a much cheaper price than commercial UNIX). It wasn’t that it got exposure from dumb clueless customers.
Anonymous: What’s most annoying is that it *is* possible to get servers from OEMs with the choice I mentioned (in fact, Dell will offer their Poweredge servers with Windows, Linux or no OS pre-installed – a choice of 3 !!), but they won’t do it for laptops or desktops.
Support for servers are much more cheaper and software plays less of a role. Why? Who runs server? Grannie? Nope. It is trained system administrators. Some are clueless. Others are bright. But they generally don’t need much support to install CD XYZ they got at BestBuy. And Linux customers are even cheaper on that regards than Windows, becaue generally people who order Linux know what they are doing.
David Bruce: MS didn’t take the desktop “by storm”, they took it by a series of OEM deals that guaranteed that virtually every PC would ship with Windows installed. At the time (~1991) the DOS “IBM” PC was quite solidly entrenched with many home users and businesses, but they (we) were envious of the Mac GUI, as well as getting away from the maddening 640K memory limitations of DOS. […]
Anyway, the rise of Windows was arranged by MS and PC OEMs; the “user” had virtually nothing to do with it.
Quite one-sided I shall say. You forgot to mention that IBM OS/2 which had a great potential and initial Microsoft backing, was marketed very badly towards OEMs. The pricing was terrible and made it extremely difficult to choose OS/2 and remain competitive with IBM. So what’s the next best thing? Amiga isn’t exactly around at that time, and Apple wasn’t that negotiable in licensing Macintosh. There were other solutions too, but they were all inferior to Windows, mainly either they couldn’t run the majority of applications, or restrictive hardware requirements.
OS/2 was screwed further by the fact that most software houses were unwilling in writing OS/2-only applications. Since OS/2 was a one company show (hardware-wise), it was much better just to write Win16 apps – they still run on OS/2!
As for the PC OEMs, they wouldn’t have succeeded against competitors like Apple, if weren’t for their target market – low-end corporate market. Certainly, if I were living in the late 80s, I wouldn’t consider buying a PC over a Mac, but a lot of businesses would. This drove up PC shares, and in effect, Windows shares. And with Windows, PC makers like Compaq and HP could claim the price advantage over IBM. And IBM didn’t really have much of a marketing team for OS/2 – they hardly made any initiative to get businesses to use OS/2 instead of Windows.
Another factor was the cozy relationship Microsoft had with software developers. When OS/2 was first released, hardly any OS/2-specific applications came from the third party. But when Windows 3/3.1 came out, and to the larger extend, Windows 95 came out, many applications came out for Windows specifically, incompatible with OS/2.
What I’m trying to say is that there were many factors to Microsoft being successful in the desktop market. Not just a single factor.
mythought: Goverments are puppets controlled by the big boys. Who do you think runs the US, Australia, Europe or Japan? The goverments?
Goverments do whatever they are told to do.
Since policies change from each government to each government, I would expect the answer to be: government. Compare the policies of the previous Labour goverment and the current Conservative goverment in Australia, for example – their economic policies are very different. I’m not saying that businesses don’t play a role in politics, but they certainly don’t control it.
good post. people in general are very naive about who runs the show. educate them.
Me: “Eh? Is Windows XP an absolute requirement for using a laptop? Or OS X or Lindows, for that matter? What if a DON’T WANT Windows XP / OS X / Lindows on my laptop? WHY THE HELL DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING I WON’T USE?”
rajan r: “If you are a DOS user and you have a floppy drive, is an hard disk an absolute requirement for using a laptop? Or a graphics and networks card, for that matter? What if you DON’T WANT a hard disk / sound care / network card on your laptop? WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING YOU WON’T USE?”
Speaking about laptops, sound/video/network are mostly onboard now, which makes somewhat difficult to rip them off
But I don’t think we should restrict our argument to laptops — the whole topic was about PCs in general, after all.
So what is the difference between a non-essential piece of hardware and a preinstalled MS OS? Oh yes, it actually seems very subtle, so it’s understandable that you’ve missed it. But in reality, it changes everything. IT’S THE EULA, my friend. As simple as that. Got a hard disk with your PC that you have no use for? Excellent, you can sell it and buy yourself a whole lot of floppies and DOS software. But what if the thing you ain’t going to use is MS Windows XP? Looks like you’re stuck here. You won’t get a refund from Microsoft, though they will lie to you in their EULA that you can. Then maybe you can sell it? Oh no, sorry, that’s impossible, it’s an OEM version. If you try that you’ll be committing a crime, and you’ll be called a pirate. So should it surprise you that this is called “Microsoft Tax”? No, because it is indeed a tax — an illegal tax imposed on you.
And before you call me OSS zealot — no, I’m not. While I support OSS, I have nothing against proprietary software as such and do use and like both kinds of software. It’s just the specific terms of some EULAs and illegal practices of some monopolies that disturb me.
if you only can buy hamburguers and hamburguers doesn't like you… you must die? i believe that “then don’t buy a laptop” isn't any answer to any question, but…if you think that windows isn't overprized… (40$ for an OS whith any application and for oem’s?an OS wich can read only fat and ntfs?an OS that isn't free like in freedom? and..yea,40$ is a low prize for let microsoft look inside your computer… o_O)
billi the kid raids again…
if european laws are better defined than the US…i believe that you must change that law, don’t use it for make the strong stronger.
well my english is too bad, but there`re a lot more of things that i can say about that, but…like microsoft, i dont believe that you understand me if I speak another language..and really are you surprised about ms monopoly?
The easiest solution would be if M$ was obliged to refund all the clients who don’t need Windows on yours laptops/desktops (those that don’t agree with EULA).
OEM partners could remain selling Windows preloaded with your computers and not give support for those with non-windows OSes installed on your PCs.
It would be fair to everybody and easy to implement, not ?
Pricewatch has a category “laptops with no os”.
This page is also helpful:
http://mcelrath.org/laptops.html
…the fact is that most people want Windows XP. If not, they want OS X. If not, they want one of those Linux laptops
What about people like me that had bought a retail version of Windows XP, and later wanted to replace the PC. It’s very irritating when you have to buy a product you already have, just because a company controls the main manufacturers.
Has already been pointed out this doesn’t work. The reason MS wants this is flawed, but it partly does work, i think.
The only _VIABLE_ reason where Microsoft has a disadvantage is when one wants to run MS Windows on a system but does not want to pay for it. The reason which does not count, is when Microsoft wants to sell MS Windows with a PC, but the user doesn’t want to run it.
In the case a person can buy a PC without MS Windows, or with an older version of Windows, getting a/the newer version for “free” (beer, illegal) they have disadvantage but such option is not made impossible with this action. If more OEMs have to put an OS on it and this be MS Windows, it is harder for them to do their trick. But the same counts for those who want to run an other OS than MS Windows.
In short, it is a self-fullfilling prophecy. The effect is more MS Windows versions are sold; but not necessarily more happy users^Wcustomers. Which, i believe, doesn’t benefit Microsoft in the end.
Instead of shipping an OS-less machine, if you are forced to install at least SOME OS, why not just using a free version of DOS and install something that just boots to a command-line? Technically, that *IS* an OS.
Also:
Without splitting Microsoft’s Windows department into two, there is no sure way of reducing Microsoft’s monopoly immediately
Ummm, well … you could force MS to open up ALL of their APIs and file formats for like the next 7 years. I think competing operating systems that were 100% compatible with Windows software would do well. If Linux could do that, I’d probably be using it by now
Goverments are puppets controlled by the big boys. Who do you think runs the US, Australia, Europe or Japan? The goverments?
Goverments do whatever they are told to do.
Yeah! And did you catch the secret mesage in the final episode of The X-Files? Freaky stuff, man!! The truth is out there, regardless of what proof we might have!
“…the fact is that most people want Windows XP.”
Most people either don’t have a choice or don’t know they do. When they go to buy that computer and they’ve decided they’re not going to spring for a Mac, that only leaves them with one choice. Most people either aren’t able to install an alternative OS on their computer because the OEMs are too lazy or too cowardly to supply drivers, or they simply don’t know how. What most people want is apparently irrelevant where computers are concerned. They’ll be using Windows whether they like it or not.
Most people either aren’t able to install an alternative OS on their computer because the OEMs are too lazy or too cowardly to supply drivers, or they simply don’t know how.
What he’s trying to say that even if people knew about Linux and had drivers for their hardware, they’d still choose to run Windows. Not necessarily because Windows is better, but because it is the defacto standard – like everyone they know is using it. Not to mention that most people are already somewhat familiar with it. If there’s one truth about Linux, it’s that most people don’t want it … at least not yet.
If there’s one truth about Linux, it’s that most people don’t want it
Well, that’s debatable. To “not want” something, you have to meet a couple of prerequisistes:
a) you have to know it exists
b) you have to know what it is
c) you need to ask yourself the question if you need it or not
It’s true to say that most people aren’t actively seeking to install or use Linux, but as more people know what it is and what are its advantages (especially in cash-strapped environments, such as developing countries), its market share will increase.
It will take a while before Linux has a greater market share than Windows, if ever. But that doesn’t matter – global domination isn’t really the goal. I’d be satisfied with a market share of 40% Windows, 30% Linux, 25% for other *nixes and 5% for the rest (until a totally new and revolutionary architecture comes out!). That way, software developer would support multiple platforms (which would be a big boost for cross-platform toolkits, such as QT), there would be less stress on the economy by removing a large, predatory monopoly, and people would be able to choose according to their preferences!
There would still be flamewars, of course. I mean, the console market is much more competitive than the OS one, yet you should see the flamewars between console owners. Personally, I don’t care. We develop for all consoles, and I own both an Xbox and a PS2 (though I’m much tempted to buy a GameCube just to play Zelda, Metroid and the Resident Evils – damn you, Nintendo!!)
Let’s just all get along. Both Windows and Linux are great OSes – they deserve similar market shares! Don’t you agree?