Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop

[John Bailo]

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.

[Scott M.]

The name came from the merging of the two words "micro software", but that
is not (nor, was it ever) the name of the company. That's why I asked you
why you keep writing it as Micro-Soft. Then you came back with some cryptic
reply that I should just understand why you use the company name
incorrectly. Hey, if you "like" to refer to Microsoft as Micro-Soft, that's
fine. But, you could have just said up front (when asked) that you like to
call it by the wrong name, instead of sending people on wild Google chases.
"Jeff_Relf" <[e-mail] > wrote in message
news:Je******** *************** @Cotse.NET...

Hi Scott, You asked me: << Is there something you want to say,
but are assuming we all know when you say " Micro-Soft " ? >>

Micro-Soft, short for Microcomputer Software,
was he original name for what is now called Microsoft.

I just like the name.

[chrisv]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

"chrisv" <ch****@nospam. invalid> wrote in message
news:2h******* *************** **********@4ax. com...

Be*******@hotma il.com wrote:

Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.

You are entirely misinformed.

Nope. You suffer from reading comprehension problems.
You confuse what MS donates with what the
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation donates. He has, in fact, pledged over 50%
of his net worth (over 50B) to charity. That is a FACT.

"Bill Gates has pledged" is not the same as "Bill Gates has donated",
genius.

[chrisv]

"JamesB" <bj****@james.n et> wrote:

Exumptly; they could easily invest it otherwise, but he's obvioulsy not a
bad fellow.
I'm not all that impressed by someone with his wealth giving-away half
of it. It's not like it will affect his standard of living in any
way.
He's a marvellous entrepreneur who's earned what he got, by whatever
tactics. People complaing about M$ stuff being shipped with PC's by
default - no linux distro could compete with the user friendliness of them,
and with the main selling point of PCs these days being their spec they want
to utilise this, linux doesn't do this in the manner most home-folk want, so
whatever beatches whinge on this newsgroup about MS, they're offering
something no other company do at the mo. We're making headway, SuSe,
Mandrake & RedHat are getting better all the time, but offer a child who's
used both for a few years, and they'll choose M$ because of the fact you can
play tonnes of games on it, do all sorts of stuff as well. Linux doesn't
offer this yet, but be patient, THEN start whinging when you can make a
justified argument.

You are obviously ignorant of what the M$ corp has done to get to
where they are.

[Dave]

Scott M. wrote:

The name came from the merging of the two words "micro software", but
that is not (nor, was it ever) the name of the company. That's why
I asked you why you keep writing it as Micro-Soft. Then you came back with some cryptic reply that I should just
understand why you use the company name incorrectly. Hey, if you
"like" to refer to Microsoft as Micro-Soft, that's fine. But, you could have just said up front (when asked) that you like to
call it by the wrong name, instead of sending people on wild Google
chases.

Just a tad sensitive about the name are we ? The name Microsoft is a
compound of three words 'Micro' 'Computer' and 'Software'. Drop
'computer' and we get 'micro' and 'software'. Drop the end off
'software' and append it to 'micro' and what do we get 'micro-soft'.
Drop the hyphen and we arrive at 'Microsoft'.

Micro-soft was the name of the company when first formed. On the Web
there are pictures of a sign on the wall at company headquarters that
has 'Micro-soft' on it. Gates himself refers to Micro-soft in a letter
to Allen. He also used that phrase in that infamous letter to the
hobbyist market.

"… As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your
software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share.
Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? …

One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. .

Bill Gates, General Partner, Micro-Soft (1976) "
http://www.computinghistorymuseum.or...lComputing.ppt
If it wasn't the name of the company then why would Gates himself say
'Micro-soft' ? And why is a little hyphen so bothersome to you that you
are compelled to jump to the defence of micro-soft against this
imaginary slight. Is it deep down you realise what a two-bit company it
really is.

'Microsoft Windows: A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a
sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for
a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that
can't stand one bit of competition'
.. "We are still called Micro-soft, not Macro-hard, Micro-services or
Micro-printers," Steve Ballmer

http://www.managementconsultancy.co.uk/features/1138030

[C-Services Holland b.v.]

Dave wrote:

Scott M. wrote:

Micro-soft was the name of the company when first formed. On the Web
there are pictures of a sign on the wall at company headquarters that
has 'Micro-soft' on it. Gates himself refers to Micro-soft in a letter
to Allen. He also used that phrase in that infamous letter to the
hobbyist market.

Who cares what it "used to be called". It's current name is Microsoft.
Look at the logo's. Windows's about box, or any Microsoft about box.
Look at the website (www.microsoft.com). Do you still call an Audi a DKW
or Horch?

--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.

[Scott M.]

> Just a tad sensitive about the name are we?

Not at all. Actually, I think you are making more out of this than anyone
else. I merely asked why the post referred to MS incorrectly and then I
asked what a cryptic answer and an obscure web search was supposed to mean.

The name Microsoft is a
compound of three words 'Micro' 'Computer' and 'Software'. Drop
'computer' and we get 'micro' and 'software'. Drop the end off
'software' and append it to 'micro' and what do we get 'micro-soft'.
Drop the hyphen and we arrive at 'Microsoft'.
You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about here. No one is
talking about "how" Microsoft joined the words mircrocomputing AND software.
My message was asking why "Micro-Soft" was being used. The reply was
cryptic and incorrect.
Micro-soft was the name of the company when first formed. On the Web
there are pictures of a sign on the wall at company headquarters that
has 'Micro-soft' on it. Gates himself refers to Micro-soft in a letter
to Allen. He also used that phrase in that infamous letter to the
hobbyist market.
Micro-Soft was never the public comapy name. It was the company name prior
to going public. That's all I'm saying here. You are making too much out of
it.
If it wasn't the name of the company then why would Gates himself say
'Micro-soft' ?
Oh, I don't know...to remind people of where the term came from?
An why is a little hyphen so bothersome to you that you
are compelled to jump to the defence of micro-soft against this
imaginary slight. Is it deep down you realise what a two-bit company it
really is.

I never said that it was bothersome to me. I asked why the term was being
used. And then I asked for clarification because the reply was cryptic.
You are the one that seems to be busting a nut over it.

[Scott M.]

> I'm not all that impressed by someone with his wealth giving-away half

of it. It's not like it will affect his standard of living in any
way.
I don't think he does it to impress you. By the way, what percentage of
your net worth did you give to charity last year?
You are obviously ignorant of what the M$ corp has done to get to
where they are.

And you are even more ignorant if you think that every large company on the
planet doesn't use the same tactics when they can.

[Scott M.]

> Nope. You suffer from reading comprehension problems.

You really know how to get along well with people, don't you?

You confuse what MS donates with what the
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation donates. He has, in fact, pledged over
50%
of his net worth (over 50B) to charity. That is a FACT.

"Bill Gates has pledged" is not the same as "Bill Gates has donated",
genius.

In this case it is. Although, I will not stoop to your level and
sarcastically call you names, I will simply inform you that with the dollar
amounts we are talking about, you don't just give it all at once. He HAS
already donated over 30 billion and has pledged over 20 more to be donated
from his pre-scheduled stock sales that routinely happen.

It seems clear that you are more comfortable slinging insults for no reason,
rather than educating yourself about the topic you are taking part in.

[General Protection Fault]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.a dvocacy.]
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:30:32 -0500, Scott M. wrote:

Nope. You suffer from reading comprehension problems.
You really know how to get along well with people, don't you?

You confuse what MS donates with what the
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation donates. He has, in fact, pledged over
50%
of his net worth (over 50B) to charity. That is a FACT.

"Bill Gates has pledged" is not the same as "Bill Gates has donated",
genius.

In this case it is. Although, I will not stoop to your level and
sarcastically call you names, I will simply inform you that with the dollar
amounts we are talking about, you don't just give it all at once. He HAS
already donated over 30 billion and has pledged over 20 more to be donated
from his pre-scheduled stock sales that routinely happen.

Not according to their own website. They haven't donated even a billion
dollars. When he dies, we'll see if family members contest his will to donate
half his net worth.
It seems clear that you are more comfortable slinging insults for no reason,
rather than educating yourself about the topic you are taking part in.

This is COLA. That's what people do.

--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
1:45PM up 16 days, 19:07, 2 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.31, 0.24

[chrisv]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

I'm not all that impressed by someone with his wealth giving-away half
of it. It's not like it will affect his standard of living in any
way.
I don't think he does it to impress you.

I never claimed that he did.
By the way, what percentage of
your net worth did you give to charity last year?

Like most people, I need to save my money A) guard against an unknown
financial future (e.g. job loss), B) to allow for a few years
retirement before I drop dead.

Bill Gates does not have these issues, hence, the lack of impression
his "generosity " makes upon me, especially considering how he obtained
his wealth in the first place.

You really needed to have that explained to you? Huh.

You are obviously ignorant of what the M$ corp has done to get to
where they are.

And you are even more ignorant if you think that every large company on the
planet doesn't use the same tactics when they can.

Oh, believe me, I am well aware of the evil businessman, and what his
greed and avarice does to our world.