View Single Post
Old 06-12-09, 06:46 PM   #86
Rakeesh's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,884
Default Re: Windows 7 and Microsoft

Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
I didn't post those links to backup my argument, I just eluded to them as to what people are saying about the situation., hence why I said this. "There are all sort of questions being asked out there about Microsoft like"
So in other words you don't really know anything, you are just making arguments based on rumors. Look, you can't just go around saying "its known that microsoft sells it at a loss" when you really don't know anything.

Let me re-quote you here:

It's known that Microsoft are selling XP at a loss just to gain market share. I'm not going to lie to you like some sort of Linux/ Windows fanboy would, it's a big blow to what was a great start for Linux with netbooks.
Basically you are lying, just like a fanboy would. Here's a fact, and I am not just going to sidestep it by claiming that it is somehow "known." Windows is doing better than linux because windows is the OS that the consumer prefers. It's not because they are somehow undercutting linux (how do you undercut free anyways?)

Linux was initially pushed for netbooks because they could be made so cheap by sidestepping the software costs, and the OEM's had a bigger reason to push linux over windows (because they can sell more units while making a larger profit.) READ: LINUX HAD THE MARKET(ING) ADVANTAGE. The consumers decided however that they wanted it to work more like a desktop, and they wanted that better desktop experience. The result? Windows takes over the market.

Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
Ever hear of Windows NT? That was going before Windows 95 and enterprise businesses were using it. Windows 95 was massively different to it's predecessor so no they where not used to it, NT users were.
If you are trying to argue that windows NT 3 (which was the first version of NT) was somehow very different from a user perspective than windows 3.1, or that NT 4 was somehow very different from a user perspective than windows 95, then you are wrong on both counts. The dos based derivatives have always had a UI that is functionally identical to their NT counterparts.

NT 3.1:

NT 4:

Basically if you knew how to use NT3, then you knew how to use Windows 3. If you knew how to use NT 4, then you knew how to use Windows 95. And vice versa on both counts.

If you are trying to argue that the transition from windows 3/nt3 to windows 95/nt4 would have killed windows without the marketing, then you are also wrong. I remember that transition myself, if anything it was pretty easy from the user perspective when moving up. The main difference was that you could put basically any icon you wanted on top of your desktop, and we moved from having our launcher icons in program manager group windows to one big start menu. Everything else was basically the same, with a lot of new features added on top of it all (e.g. the search tool, long filenames, etc.)

It also sounds like you are trying to argue that no enterprise level businesses ever used windows 3.1 on a large scale and they all used windows NT, which is also wrong.

Furthermore, NT wasn't the only OS used in a business environment, be it small business or enterprise level. The dos based derivatives were heavily used as well.

Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
Yes so do I, since Linux has 1% desktop share(officially) , it seems that people are making up this moving target for "Year of the Linux desktop".
These articles you linked are basically trying to make that same "year of linux" argument. And none of it is anything more than wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
Linux doesn't have it's own store where people go and buy computers with the OS on preinstalled, are you so short sighted you can't even see the marketing power here?
There are places where you can buy computers with linux installed, and furthermore have you ever heard of installfest? I mean they do that for free, and you can get the OS for free too, yet hardly anybody exactly runs out to go do it. Why? Because nobody wants it.

And linux does have decent marketing, the marketing linux gets is from word of mouth. I personally know many who were told how great linux is, installed it, and then ditched it after they had to spend a whole weekend trying to get their sound to work, another weekend trying to get unreal tournament to run, another weekend after that trying to get quake3 installed, etc. Then they just get fed up and ditch it.

Also, there is no "microsoft store." Maybe they might have a kiosk here and there, but they don't actually run a retail chain, and to the best of my knowledge they never have.

Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
Apple and Microsoft have such marketing power, linux has still managed to get 1%(that's a lot of money lost by them). Considering the tactics Microsoft have used over the years, it's no surprise.
If linux was truly a great destkop OS as you say it is, and being liberated from microsoft was such a great thing that everybody felt the need to do it right away, I am sure installfest would be a lot more popular. Even if it was true that OEMs wanted to include linux but microsoft bully's them out of it, that wouldn't stop anybody from buying a new computer and then taking it straight to their local installfest for the low low price of zero.
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote