All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
I'm using Windows XPee
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
yes, Windows ME will run grate with a minimum of a 128mb of ram even if the prossessor is a p1!!!!
But the question here is why should the 'hardware' be at fault?
Personaly if you wanna use whatever OS you wanna use thats great! But as far as 'overzellous,' Linux/macs Nope I don't think so..........
Windows has cost the lives of admins evrywhere because it wasn't coded but stolen. Too many sleepless nights, too many lost days.......
[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
--- End quote ---
You know what they say. Business is war. You make your product succeed at all costs. Microsoft is not the only business who practices that typical business model. The only reason why Windows costed all of the jobs you mention is because it was able to win the OS war.
Microsoft Windows did not start out as the dominant OS. It became dominant as more people chose to use it over what was available back in those days. Once it became so popular that it was a demand of consumers is when OEM's decided to bundle it with all of thier computers.
Nothing was stoping people from buying Macs with MacOS. Nothing was stopping people from buying Unix systems(other than the fact the command line interface was ohh so icky compared to the Windows interface). Nothing was stoping people from buying OS/2 pre-loaded machines. It is plain and simple, the lionshare of people who purchased computers back in that day wanted Windows...not the alternatives.....OEM's knew this and slowly started bundling Windows 3.1 as thier standard OS.
When Windows 95 was released it took the OS market by storm. It's inteface was fresh, very easy to use and it was capable of running all of the existing MSDOS/Win 3.1 apps in existence. Windows 95 is when MS won the OS wars. Hardley anybody bought computers with any other OS(like OS/2, Unix, DOS, Windows 3.1, etc.) after Windows 95 was released. Windows 95 is when OEM's pre-installed Windows on almost all of thier consumer level computers because the consumers wanted it.
Come the time of Windows 98 Microsoft introduced thier strict licensing agreements for OEM's to turn the very popular Windows OS into the *Definate Defacto Standard PC OS* and if they didn't follow that license they would lose thier right to pre-install Windows on thier systems. Of course OEM's didn't want to lose that right because by that time most consumers expected Windows to be on thier newly bought computers due to the huge success of Windows 95(everybody was familiar with Windows after 95) and the OEM's would've lost alot of sells if their computers didn't have Windows pre-installed.
The popularity of Windows 95 is what triggered software makers to make thier software mainly for Windows(and in alot of cases only for Windows).
Windows would've never been deemed as the preferred by consumer OS if people would've chosen the other OSes in the past. Just like I said...back in the days of Win 3.1 and the early days of Windows 95 nothing was stopping people from buying computers with other OSes. Windows didn't make itself the preferred OS.....the consumers did.
If the alternatives were so damn great, people would've wanted them back in the days of the OS wars. Just keep in mind, most people did not buy Macs, most people did not want OS/2, hardly anybody wanted Unix, most people didn't want Amiga, etc. They wanted WINDOWS!!!! To this day, most consumers expect to have Windows pre-installed on thier PC when they buy it. Most consumers don't even know what in the fuck Linux or Unix is. Alot of the consumers don't even know what a Mac is.
Microsoft won the war fair and square about 10 years ago. Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage when they won the war...they did it fair and square...end of story.
(EDIT)BTW, Windows as we know it is not stolen(shit like Lindows is stolen). Windows 95 had no resemblence to any other OS. It was unique. Granted, Windows 3.1 had alot in common with MacOS... and Windows 3.1 was nothing more than a MS version of OS/2(released after MS and IBM went their seperate ways). Windows 95....the OS that won the OS war for Microsoft...had nothing in common with the other OSes. The start menu alone was not in any of the other OSes. It was a fresh, new idea. Microsoft was smart to abandon the MacOS-like look and they were smart to abandon the OS/2 way w/Windows 95.
[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
Faust:
quote:I'm willing to bet your school uses OEM computers. I guess shitty computers should have an old OS on it like Windows 2000.
--- End quote ---
Um... is it me or did you just say that Windows runs crap on the typical OEM computer that 90% of people have? No offense but Debian runs just dandy on the typical OEM computer I have, and Red Hat (his choice, not mine) runs quite well on my friends souped up computer... But I suppose Windows isn't the right OS for a typical OEM computer huh? Can't handle a bit of the OEM. :-P Pretty amusing that an OS (Windows XP) that you regularly tout as having the "best" hardware support is by your own admission quite crap on OEM machines. BTW I now have a Sun Sparcstation running OpenBSD - wanna see if it'll run Windows XP zombie? :-P
quote:Business is war. You make your product succeed at all costs.
--- End quote ---
And exactly where in that sentence do you outline why it was acceptable for Microsoft to do this? It's like a friend of mine trying to justify Downer using stand over tactics on the East Timorese to get there oil - "it's what countries do." Just because something HAPPENS doesnt mean it was RIGHT.
quote:Nothing was stoping people from buying Macs with MacOS. Nothing was stopping people from buying Unix systems(other than the fact the command line interface was ohh so icky compared to the Windows interface). Nothing was stoping people from buying OS/2 pre-loaded machines. It is plain and simple, the lionshare of people who purchased computers back in that day wanted Windows...not the alternatives.....OEM's knew this and slowly started bundling Windows 3.1 as thier standard OS.
--- End quote ---
The majority of people also like crap like Brittney Spears and the Backstreet Boys - it doesn't make them good bands.
quote:Most consumers don't even know what in the fuck Linux or Unix is.
--- End quote ---
Yes, this is known as "advertising" and "populism."
quote:(shit like Lindows is stolen)
--- End quote ---
No it just copies the theme of Windows - unless you want a horde of Mac users to laugh at you, I wouldn't call that stealing. Well I guess Lindows is shit so maybe it did steal something from Windows. :-D :-D :-D
insomnia:
quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Microsoft won the war fair and square about 10 years ago. Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage when they won the war...they did it fair and square...end of story.
--- End quote ---
They bought their monopoly in $'s.
...fair??? :rolleyes:
[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
Laukev7:
Sorry, Viper, but the truth isn't quite how you outlined it. First, Bill Gates took advantage of IBM's monopoly to preinstall MS-DOS on all PC's, so that when the clones came, they had to use MS-DOS to stay compatible. (BTW, MS-DOS was plagiarised from the OS of one of his good friends Gary Kildall, CP/M). Then, Bill Gates bullied OEM's with licensing agreements (since he was the sole provider of MS-DOS) into only loading MS-DOS or Windows on their computers (which, BTW, contributed to kill BeOS on the desktop).
So, the true reason why M$ is a monopoly today is because they took advantage of IBM's monopoly (only to screw them later) and illegally punished OEM's for installing anything else than Windows, which brought an antitrust lawsuit against them.
Refalm:
quote:Originally posted by Viper: I even managed to get it to run decently on a buddies Pentium II 233mhz(oc'ed to 300mhz) on i440BX chipset w/256MB of PC-100 SDRAM(a system I built for him a long time ago).
--- End quote ---
That's nothing. I got Windows XP running lagless on my parents' Pentium-MMX 200 MHz, 96 MB RAM, 16 MB SVGA (Voodoo 3) (except for WMP 8, Windows Video editor running like shit, but that doesn't matter, Winamp does the music and movies just file and my parents don't need to edit video).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version