Windows 7 and Microsoft

[Sean_W]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf_HK

Not going to lie eh? Ok prove it. Show me how it's "known" that microsoft is selling XP at a loss. In fact I'd like to know how it is even possible to sell XP at a loss. Even if they sold it for $10 per unit they'd still make a decent profit (which I don't even think they sell it for that low to netbook makers.)

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"

No, people just got used to microsoft, and eventually brought it home. Microsoft never even marketed to non-business related use until windows 95 came out, and at that time people had been using it in the home for years.

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.

We keep hearing every year that "this year will be the year of linux on the desktop" because it is going to get x improvement here, etc etc etc. Yet does it ever happen? These articles are basically making that same claim, only with netbooks instead.

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".

Well if linux was so great, how come it isn't ahead of apple even? Windows has a huge cost advantage over apple, and linux has a huge cost advantage over windows

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?

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.

[Rakeesh]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

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?)

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=216402927

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

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:
http://toastytech.com/guis/nt31.html

NT 4:
http://toastytech.com/guis/nt4welcome.gif

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

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

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

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.

[Sean_W]

This is a long drawn out argument which reaches into other areas. Microsoft is a known monopolist and which even Windows users find it hard to admit.

"Known" doesn't mean they do it or it's fact but there has been all sorts of suggestions that these sorts of deals are being done. You only need to look at what ASUS have recently done. A lot of these are question being asked, not as you think are in some why fact and I'm lying.

They're asking questions about such actions so try to see the difference rather than saying it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

[Rakeesh]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

This is a long drawn out argument which reaches into other areas. Microsoft is a known monopolist and which even Windows users find it hard to admit.

"Known" doesn't mean they do it or it's fact but there has been all sorts of suggestions that these sorts of deals are being done. You only need to look at what ASUS have recently done. A lot of these are question being asked, not as you think are in some why fact and I'm lying.

They're asking questions about such actions so try to see the difference rather than saying it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Guy you are just self deluded. The fact is, no matter how you look at it from a manufacturing and supply standpoint, it is better for them to include Linux. They can sell the netbook for cheaper, and at the same time have a higher profit margin IF that is what the customer wants. And in the beginning, they sold netbooks with the idea that they aren't the same as a desktop PC, and you mainly just use them for what the name implies - the net. This is why they pushed linux on netbooks. Linux for all intents and purposes had the upper hand, and had marketing provided by the OEM's.

The consumer didn't want that though. The consumer wanted it to be able to perform the same tasks as their PC, only with the accepted reduction in speed that a full blown laptop would have. Where there is a demand, a supply will come. So windows takes over the market. It's that simple. This is purely the result of consumer demand, not microsoft trying to push anything. They'd simply rather pay a little more for windows than settle for linux.

You can ignore that fact all you want, and pretend that microsoft somehow undercut something that is free. But it doesn't make it true.

This is pretty much the same reason why google pretty much has a monopoly on search engines right now. Yes alternatives exist, but most people don't use them. Why? They just like google better.

[XDanger]

The problem with linux netbooks is they just don't work.

[saturnotaku]

Originally Posted by XDanger

The problem with linux netbooks is they just don't work.

Unless you're willing to get down and dirty with the OS. WiFi using WPA encryption is a royal pain to get working on Linux.

[mailman2]

Originally Posted by XDanger

The problem with linux netbooks is they just don't work.

I couldnt wait to get that crappy Linux OS off mine and Windows 7 on it. Now it's a great machine.

[LydianKnight]

Originally Posted by saturnotaku

Unless you're willing to get down and dirty with the OS. WiFi using WPA encryption is a royal pain to get working on Linux.

No, that's not true... NetworkManager takes care of that, even DHCPCD has (or will have, not 100% sure right now about it) some form of WPA support.

Anyway, you talk like you have to compile the modules by yourself, and practically every distro, whether it's targeted for desktops or netbooks comes with their modules preconfigured and pre-installed... wireless-tools, wpa_supplicant and some form of module manager suffices (that's where Networkmanager or DHCPCD comes into play).

Excuse me for the question but... have you ever used a WPA/WPA2/WPA-PSK/WPA2-PSK network?

[Sean_W]

LydianKnight

I wouldn't bother, they're just trolling now and it's rather pointless educating them. You may as well be throwing darts at a inflatable dart board. In the end they're the ones that look stupid, saturnotaku making first class comments worthy of the stupid awards 2009..

It won't be long before they'll be needing their driver disks for Windows 7 anyway.

[LydianKnight]

Yes, you're right, of course I'm not taking their answers as something personal, of course not... but it's a pity to see many people just answer without even having a read about anything, sounds more like fanboyism and nonsenses than any other thing...

:P

[DiscipleDOC]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

LydianKnight

I wouldn't bother, they're just trolling now and it's rather pointless educating them. You may as well be throwing darts at a inflatable dart board. In the end they're the ones that look stupid, saturnotaku making first class comments worthy of the stupid awards 2009..

It won't be long before they'll be needing their driver disks for Windows 7 anyway.

They're trolling, but YOU come into a windows thread and start the "Linux is better than Windows" thread? riiiight.

[mailman2]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDOC

They're trolling, but YOU come into a windows thread and start the "Linux is better than Windows" thread? riiiight.

Exactly. Its funny all the Linux nerds I know love Windows 7 too. Looks like it wont be long till the linux dorks are reaching for their Windows 7 DVDs.