" More specifically, Microsoft has sold 90 million copies of Windows 7 to date, making it the fastest-selling operating system in history."
I'm sure we all know that is a misleading statement. We can't forget that most people skipped vista.
>> "We're now having conversations with the majority of our enterprise customers who are making plans to deploy Windows 7,"
"Nice company youse got here. Be a shames if your CIO were to get an XP virus now that we've stopped the mainstream support . I wonder if he would blame youse for our insecure operating system... or if he would blame youse for not upgrading to the newest version of our insecure operating system."
Microsoft has sold
90 million copies of Windows
7 to date
Actually, it's "licensed" 90 million
"machines" for Windows 7. Microsoft customers are purchasing a license,
which the Windows EULA makes invalid once you upgrade to the
license for a newer version of Windows. Long story short: forget
dual-booting any boxed 'copy' of Windows 7 after upgrading to Win8 when
not all your hardware has drivers available for the fabled 128-bit
kernel - you weren't sold Windows 7, and will no longer have a license.
The best part of this "sold" accounting number for Microsoft is
that the 90 million number goes up almost every time someone buys a PC
for use with Linux due to vendor pre-loading of Windows.
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
These statements are very true 3vi1. However; I am kind of getting tired on the Linux end. Why does no one really innovate. Yes there is some, but in comparison even the general user base is very low. In the end it is a custom build of Unix which tries to emulate Windows at least to the greatest extent.
What I am saying is M$ however they did it, and however they continue with there monopoly of the world, still did it by introducing something new to the general public, and of course developing on it for decades now.
Therefore for something open source to truly succeed we need something new, that is different in at the least it's methodology. This also need to be true in the way it works, looks, and interacts. Until that happens we are, or the world is to the largest part stuck where it is, as followers of the M$ movement.
>> In the end it is a custom build of Unix which tries to emulate Windows at least to the greatest extent.
Therefore Windows is a custom build of CP/M which tries to emulate MacOS at least to the greatest extent.
>> is M$ however they did it, and however they continue with there monopoly of the world, still did it by introducing something new to the general public, and of course developing on it for decades now.
They bought DOS from Gary Kindall for $50,000, included it with every IBM PC, then used their omnipresence at the OS level to break compatibility for anyone who attempted to enter the market - while copying the products of everyone they perceived as potentially creating anything that could become an OS-independent layer for developers. That's how they did it and how they continue to do it.
People keep talking about Microsoft innovation and development, but ask yourself: What's the new thing that Microsoft invented that wasn't a copy of some open source software or a product already on the market? Windows? Office? MSN? Internet Explorer? Windows Messenger? Windows Media Center? Zune? Bing? Nope... all copies. It's as if the whole world has Stockholm Syndrome.
No 3vi1 you have taken my statement the wrong way, I meant it literally. Much like the video you can get about Steve Job's when he was younger talking about buying or using others idea's to his and his companies advantages, for free or however it is accomplished. At that time especially software and hardware development was very cut throat. I am not condoning it in any way. As I said "is M$ however they did it, and however they continue with there monopoly of the world, still did it by introducing something new to the general public, and of course developing on it for decades now."
I am not saying it was right, and as far as Gary Kindall goes I thought they bought it from him for 10k after IBM refused to buy it. They then repackaged it minimally and sold it to IBM for 50k.
I also know they repackage and buy up developers left and right. As said before I am not saying it is right. I am saying they take it strip it repackage it as well as many times make it more user friendly and GUI (easy like P&P) user by a general user.
I am not saying it is right I am saying when someone gets a package that is innovative in the desktop environment, not emulative as is every OS now (either simulating of Windows or Leopard however you want to see it), and not anything new, but old hat, and therefore nothing new.
When someone makes something new in every way to the general public like Apple's original OS package, or M$ original package was the market will shift. Little singular people like me and you do not in any way represent anything but a very small market sector. Anything under 10% of any market gains no influence at all. Nothing under 20-25% eventually will influence it in any large way.
Right now Linux or any other OS besides A$ and M$ controls a 5% market cap, A$ only controls a debatable 5-9%, M$ carries almost entirely the remaining market percentage. I think in a large way things like the Google OS package and Android with their inter operations will in a large way influence the future.
No worries... I like discussing this stuff - so I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way either. Just picture us having this discussion in a bar over a pitcher. :)
>> as Gary Kindall goes I thought they bought it from him for 10k after IBM
refused to buy it.
I was remembering the wrong name before: I should have said Tim Paterson. You're right that IBM and Kindall had spoken (about using his CP/M), but there was some brouhaha over NDA's and the deal never went through. QDOS was Tim Paterson's CP/M-API-compatible version of DOS.
MS bought a non-exclusive license for QDOS from Paterson then got him to make all of the changes IBM requested (while never telling him about the IBM deal). They then bought QDOS outright for $50k a month before the IBM PC was to be release - screwing Paterson over royally. Paterson's company later got a one million dollar pittance when they sued Microsoft for concealing the IBM deal (while MS would go on to leverage their position for billions).
MS then turned around and "convinced" IBM to let them have a non-exclusive agreement where MS could retain the ownership rights to DOS. I'm sure it went something like "You only have a month until you PC goes on sale, you have no Operating System, and we're not demanding a lot of money, so sign this."
So... that's the sad story of how Microsoft got their original OS monopoly: They were just middle-men with ruthless business practices.
Of course Windows 7 has sold in record numbers; think of what it's replacing! My ad slogan, "It doesn't suck as bad as Vista," seems to have taken hold. (At least with Apple, who used it as the basis for one of their "I'm A Mac" commercials. I forgive them because they have Mark Mothersbaugh writing their background music.)
Someone here-- Mentaldisorder perhaps, or 3vi1, or one of the other sharp pencils-- noted that every other Microsoft operating system bites and is replaced by one that seems way better: Windows 95 was replaced by Windows 98; Windows ME was replaced by Windows XP. And, of course, Vista was replaced by 7 (having run out of two-letter abbreviations for their products).
"I didn't cry when Bambi's mother was shot... but I cried when HAL was turned off."
I'm rather certain, pained as I am by a good memory, that if HH searched its archives, it would find articles reproducing MS press releases on what a fantastic success Vista was, and how license sales were record high and well ahead of those for XP at the same stage of the game (period of time elapsed since release). Personally, I'd be more impressed if those sales were more closely coupled to OS innovation and reliability than to lock-in. Yesterday, while helping a pensioner couple a Vista dator purchased a half year ago to the internet for the first time (he had been using it exclusively as a typewriter !), I got further insight into the way MS deals with its customers - and regulatory authorities - the here in Europe mandated «browser window» turned up on the screen (the first time I've encountered it), but when I clicked to install Firefox 3.6, the install didn't complete, as Internet Explorer crashed. I repeated the procedure several times, and even rebooted the box, but no joy ; selecting Firefox from the menu crashed IE every time, thus rendering the choice of browser the menu was supposed to promote void. Way to go Microsoft ! I got 'round the problem by installing FF directly from the Mozilla site and everything worked like a charm, but if I encounter such tricks with the mandated browser menu on a second machine, the European Commission will be in receipt of a long and detailed letter from yours truly....Henri
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms