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.

[nev]

when I googled with "micro-soft" it replied with "Did you mean Microsoft?"
so what Jeff was probably trying to tell you was that when he types
"Micro-Soft" he means Microsoft ... cos there could be little else that he
could mean or want to say on this Microsoft forum debating Microsoft products
and Microsoft's competitors.
Maybe he pronouces it that way ...Micro-Soft :)
"Scott M." wrote:

What exactly is your point? I can get the wikipedia.org data by typing
Microsoft the correct way as well.

Why would someone who see's you write "Micro-Soft" inherantly think to try
to Google that, or better yet, think to go to some obscure web site and do a
search there?

Is there something you want to say, but are assuming we all know when you
say "Micro-Soft"?
"Jeff_Relf" <[e-mail] > wrote in message
news:Je******** *************** @Cotse.NET...

Hi Scott, You asked me: <<
You know that Microsoft is not hyphenated ( Micro-Soft ), right ? >>

You do know how to Google, Right ?

Try this: << Micro-Soft site:wikipedia. org >>

[sam f]

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole
idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart
built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with
everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart
and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[Moe Green]

Linux is like WalMart when it was a small single store, and all the big
stores laughed at it and it's low prices.

Then middle America saw the bargain and snapped it up in droves.

Then the intellectuals such as yourself embrace it.
sam f wrote:

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole
idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart
built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with
everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart
and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[Brandon Potter]

Wal-Mart rocks.

:)

Sorry,
Brandon

"sam f" <sam f@discussions.m icrosoft.com> wrote in message
news:93******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

You guys keep on thinking linux is mainstream. Linux is to software as
Walmart is to retail, except it hasn't built one "store" yet. And the whole idea that linux is cheap is crap. Using linux is just like having a Walmart built next door to you. Looks like cheap shopping until you have to deal with everything else that goes with having walmart as your neighbor. Yeah, Walmart and Linux, that sounds about right.

"John Bailo" wrote:

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.

People forget.

The reason these companies is successful are that they deliver low costs
to the consumer.

For every pissed off programmer, there are 1000 happy customers, making
$30,000 a year, who can afford cheap goods.

Now Linux/WalMart are taking on that role.

Linux does what Microsoft does -- but it doesn't have to pay a Bill
Gates.

That's why its better

[nev]

There are some people for Linux and then again some for Microsoft.
The pro linux guys argue that linux is better because its a better operating
system and its cheap/open source/free. While all agree that it is a better
server than Windows(those who feel windows is better, may respond
appropriately), not many will say the same for linux as a desktop ..yeah I
heard some saying that the new releases are good but are they windows XP good
in terms of ease of use.. maybe they will get there someday..but until then...
Linux is more secure ..its got lesser bugs ..yes it will have to .. cos it
was built from unix .. and unix has been around far longer than windows ..
many man hours have been spent testing it (some through normal usage) and
working on fixing its bugs .. and as we developers all know ..the longer a
piece of code is tested the more secure it gets. Also unix was built and
tested through the times when there wern't as many secuirty concerns
around... and by the time there were ..it had already gotten secure enough to
withstand most such security threats.. building a nice reputation for itself
as against windows that was just about getting itself together at that time.

The main thing that Linux has going for it is that its a good and cheap OS.
The only thing that will appeal here to the common man is the 'cheap' part...
good is what he sees in front of him... and windows does well there for a
first time user decieding between a windows and a Linux box on the shelf at
the computer store. Now what a developer/sys admin type of a person would
consider good is a system that doesnt have too many security flaws, doesnt
crash too often, etc. ..cos they are the kind of guys who are capable of
challenging the OS enough to do that. What windows has going against it is
it licensing and pricing system and its strong arm tactics in the market...
playing the big bully as people would call that.

Linux is what it is today because of unix(unix has had a ten year headstart
over windows) .. it hasn't made as many leaps and bounds as windows has since
its inception. The windows OS of today is no where close to the Dirty
Operating System it was in the 80's.. and it will get better with time.. with
every major release like from win3.1 to Win95... win95 to winXP.. winXP to
Longhorn there will be some serious flaws no doubt... but they will get fixed
too. Microsoft will just need to pay a little more attention to the way it
behaves in the market around and with its competitors and users... because
that in the end will deciede which one of the two is better.

Well these were just my thoughts... your comments/rants are welcome.

Thanks.

[nev]

"Pokeweed" wrote:

Only if one is an idiot and refuses to learn anything new...or in other words
'most M$ users' careful man

It costs money to make things 'dumb' for 'dummies'?

who is the dummy and how are things made getting dumb ..please be specific
with a few known examples... we would consider agreeing with you ;)

[nev]

"john bailo" wrote:

The point is that the code /can/ be changed -- it can always be tailored
to the man/woman's specific machine.

You can never do that with Windows

what kind of changes are we talking about?...or is it settings really?..
arent these being managed already by windows using the control panel
...without changin or recompiling the source code.

[nev]

"Renegade" wrote:

Oh come on! How many man hours of design and testing were required to
produce a suitable BSoD? Or a browsable exploiter...er. . exploitable
browser? Pre-installed spyware registry keys? NSA backdoors?

What about the expense to users and businesses for AV, firewalls, and the
constant removal of malware that keeps circulating?

lets talk about viruses ..these are written by groups of people who get a
kick out of breaking into some computer system and "owning" it .. they like
to brag about it too... they want to be known for their "skills" in being
able to crack into a computer system.. it makes them feel good about
themselves.
Spyware is written for/by people who want to get to your personal
information for their own ulterior motives.
Adware is written by people that want to, well, advertise their products.

For all of these groups of people it will be worth their time and effort in
writing such *ware only if they can get to as many other people as possible..
Now we all know that as far as desktops are concerned ..there is no rival for
windows as of today... if you do the math right it makes sense to write *ware
for the windows platform... more returns you see.. you think its impossible
to write adware/malware/spyware/viruses for Linux.. it isnt.. its just not
worth the effort.
What ? ..you didn't think about it that way.. oh come on!! :)

[nev]

"Slackware User" wrote:

You say linux is ten times the price of Microsoft. Well, lets assume that
is true (which it isnt, but anyway). You get your copy of Windows XP and
you're ohh so happy. Now, what do you want to do with it? Edit images?
First, go to the software store and BUY some software. Now, you want to make
a webpage, and you don't know HTML well enough to use notepad. Go back to
the store and BUY some software.

The fact is, everything you want to do, it costs $$$. These software
packages aren't cheap either, we're talkin about a hundred dollars each time.

hey microsoft would love to package all those into its windows operating
system so you wouldnt have to run to the store every time... but wouldnt
that invite some lawsuits like the onces its already going through??

[nev]

"Rick" wrote:

And AGAIN, why does the 'common man' nead to 'tweak the source code'?

so in that case the advantage/benefit/plus point/flexibility of open source
is lost to the 'common man'.. whats the ratio of the 'common man' to the
'technical man' again? :)