Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 78742	2007-04-27 00:53:00	How Did We All End Up With Windows? ..(at least some of us)	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
544635	2007-04-28 01:11:00	I started with Windows coz thats what was on my flatmates new computer (this was a year or 2 before XP). When I bought my own computer, it had XP. Since then I've changed to Linux however	Myth (110)
544636	2007-04-28 01:23:00	will re post.	winmacguy (3367)
544637	2007-04-28 01:36:00	And if it hadn't been for Bill Gates, Linux wouldn't be where it is today. MacOS wouldn't be where it is today. Period. Not quite. It was the deal that Apple did with Steve Jobs who had the NeXT OS in 1997 where they turned the NeXT OS into Mac OS X and took SJ on as interim CEO as well as the other changes that SJ implemented on his return that put the Mac OS where it is today.	winmacguy (3367)
544638	2007-04-28 02:31:00	Not quite. It was the deal that Apple did with Steve Jobs who had the NeXT OS in 1997 where they turned the NeXT OS into Mac OS X and took SJ on as interim CEO as well as the other changes that SJ implemented on his return that put the Mac OS where it is today. You could argue that it's thanks to Linus Torvalds that Linux is where it is today. That's not my point. The point is that without the level of competition with Microsoft put into the OS market, and their tactics to get a PC into every home, other OS manufacturers would not have been stimulated into innovating and in some cases, copying ideas. When you have a monopoly, there is little incentive to innovate and do the best for your customer - think of Telecom and other organisations. Likewise, Microsoft Windows wouldn't be where it is today if it hadn't been for the competition it faces from the Mac/Linux camps, especially in the last 5 years or so.	somebody (208)
544639	2007-04-28 02:47:00	I could argue that Linus wanted to create an OS that was open and license free and I would be right. Lets just say that Microsoft and Apple are two different companies based on two different ways of thinking where Microsoft is more concerned about overall market share and Apple is generally more concerned about the over all look and feel of a product and the OS that goes with it. At the end of the day both OSes need to be able to interact with each other which has also been achieved. Microsoft didn't exactly put "competition" into the market. Back in the 90's they made it their business to smoother any company that presented a threat or a better product to one that they were already offering such as bundling IE with Windows to snuff out Netscape. As it stands today, they are being shown up by Google in the browser and online search war. Apple in the music provider and music player market (100 million iPods sold to date) - The head of the Zune dept was fired after an abysmal launch of the Zune. Sony and Nintendo in the game player market where the Xbox division is yet to show a profit. Vista itself has had a very mediocre reception by PC buyers despite a $500 million marketing campaign. That is not a sign of a successful innovative company. Microsoft is where it is today because it has $29 billion in the bank, and is currently worth $294 Billion US.	winmacguy (3367)
544640	2007-04-28 03:09:00	Microsoft didn't exactly put "competition" into the market. Back in the 90's they made it their business to smoother any company that presented a threat or a better product to one that they were already offering such as bundling IE with Windows to snuff out Netscape. As it stands today, they are being shown up by Google in the browser and online search war. I feel the same way about IBM/Big Blue and the dollars that they threw at CP/M systems too. It was a war of the dollars and IBM had the bucks. Funnily enough, the old C>64 had one of the fastest benchmarks of the time too...but they got outspent.	SurferJoe46 (51)
544641	2007-04-28 04:23:00	I could argue that Linus wanted to create an OS that was open and license free and I would be right. Lets just say that Microsoft and Apple are two different companies based on two different ways of thinking where Microsoft is more concerned about overall market share and Apple is generally more concerned about the over all look and feel of a product and the OS that goes with it. At the end of the day both OSes need to be able to interact with each other which has also been achieved. Microsoft didn't exactly put "competition" into the market. Back in the 90's they made it their business to smoother any company that presented a threat or a better product to one that they were already offering such as bundling IE with Windows to snuff out Netscape. Vista itself has had a very mediocre reception by PC buyers despite a $500 million marketing campaign. That is not a sign of a successful innovative company. Microsoft is where it is today because it has $29 billion in the bank, and is currently worth $294 Billion US. Let's have a look at how Microsoft managed to end up with $29 Billion in the bank - it surely didn't just magically appear out of nowhere! Competition means trying to make more money for me, and make my competitors not make money - however way it is done. If it means smothering competitors, then that's a valid tactic - all businesses do it, because it's the smart thing to do. Microsoft did that really well - they made sure they increased market share for their Windows operating system (note that this discussion is about Windows, rather than Zune - nobody is going to try and argue that point). They innovated by creating a destop operating system which beat the living daylights out of competiting products on the market at the time. They strategically positioned themselves, and their products, in such a way that they have managed to get their products into the homes of most computer users. As far as I'm concerned, the quality of the product is a moot point - we could have industry experts sit here and argue it all day, and we wouldn't have a definitive and correct answer. That's the nature of software. The fact is, Microsoft threatened Apple's position when it came to desktop operating systems. Microsoft has managed to build an incredibly large market share, and hence is reaping the financial rewards. Apple can be "more concerned about the over all look and feel of a product and the OS that goes with it" as much as they like, but at the end of the day, its the results and profits which speak louder than words. Microsoft has managed to absolutely kick them in terms of market share. And back to what I said earlier: Apple wants a piece of the Desktop OS market - who wouldn't? They were nearly pushed out of the market in the mid-late 90s because Microsoft out-innovated them. Simple. That's been an incentive for them to innovate, so they are able to compete. And a footnote: If you want to try and prove that a company's desktop operating system wasn't innovative, and wasn't competitive, because its consumer electronics products failed, then we might as well have a discussion about why Auckland's roading problem will be fixed if everyone ate bananas instead of pears. It'll be just as productive.	somebody (208)
544642	2007-04-28 05:22:00	Buy bananas today, and eat lots of them - we can have an easy ride on Monday.(r)	R2x1 (4628)
544643	2007-04-28 07:13:00	Microsoft's success is due to the fact that during the mid to late 80's and all through the 90's they had no competition from anyone. They licensed their OPS software to the likes of IBM and any other hardware maker that wanted to sell a cheap box with an "easy to use" OS. Between the late 80's and late 90's Apple was busy beating itself up, loosing users, developers and money. Microsoft also targeted the corporate market with its desktop and server system. That is something that Apple never wanted and still pretty much refuses to do. During the late 90's Microsoft was a $600 Billion monopoly with a $90 share price. Legal competition is good and generally promotes the company with the better product by way of natural customer demand. Illegal competition only benefits the company controlling the competition. If financial results of successful companies are anything to go by, Apple's just released results are looking very rosy for a company with only 6% world wide market share. Better still, they keep getting better each quarter whereas Microsoft, despite bringing in billions in profit, actually remains fairly flat in market value, share price, quarterly income and a slightly decreasing market share for their OS.	winmacguy (3367)
544644	2007-04-28 12:49:00	i actually still have the Windows 3.11 as well... just wonder what will happen if i installed on all of this new machine? haha	jackyht2002 (6606)
1 2 3