- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Will Microsoft make Windows free to defeat Android?
|
|
|
Comments (34)
Left on the Platform
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:ridcully: isn't the problem having to support all the old APIs so that no matter how good the rewrite, they'd keep getting back to that same old mess?
Imagine if Microsoft became an actual contributor to Wine? I would think that even those bungling morons could solve a great many of the problems.
IMHO, Microsoft has three problems:
1) They can't imagine how to be a business where they don't dictate terms.
2) Their software is designed first around lock-in, and secondly around functionality (see #1).
3) They aren't cool anymore, and so nobody really wants their stuff for paradigm-shift tasks.
They're a lot like the Detroit automakers at the time of the first "fuel crisis" in the 1970s. They're still trying to come to grips with the idea that the world has moved on. Windows 8 is the equivalent of the Chevrolet Vega.
Microsoft did give away Windows, as part of their "settlement" in the antitrust case. Yes, we did scream about the giveaway only furthering the criminal Windows monopoly, but look where they are now.
Also, M$ "gave" away Windows in many developing nations, via non-enforcement of their copyright.
Making Windows "free" on any level, at this point, would be an exercise in futility for Microsoft.
Also, M$ "gave" away Windows in many developing nations, via non-enforcement of their copyright.
Making Windows "free" on any level, at this point, would be an exercise in futility for Microsoft.
Microsoft has a long history of "giving" Windows away by ignoring pirated copies. (sorry, I can't think of a better word than pirated.) That was their wink-nudge method of gaining market share and becoming entrenched. They didn't change their strategy and get seriously hissy about it until Win 7 and their goofy Genuine Advantage program, and you might recall the Secure Boot craziness with Win 8, which is just more lockin even though they pretend it's security. As if Windows could ever be secured, bwahahahahahaha.
> Imagine if Microsoft became an actual contributor to Wine?
Either that or ReactOS, which could be run in a virtual machine.
Either that or ReactOS, which could be run in a virtual machine.
> (sorry, I can't think of a better word than pirated.)
Copied.
Copied.
Quoting:Linux can read Microsoft data and it certainly isn't Windows based so it has to be possible.sure, but wine doesn't make all windows problems go away. what it does allow is to isolate them, at least in theory, but that probably loses a whole lot of functionality the users expect.
greetings, eMBee.
In other words, in Windows-land:
bug == feature
bug == feature
r_a_trip wrote:If they dared to be bold again, like they were with the creation of Windows NT in the nineties and let go of the albatros that is Windows, the technology and the brand, they might stand a chance.
The creation of Windows NT wasn't really a bold move. In fact, I can't think of a really bold technological move from Microsoft since they first became successful (well, not in their operating system business anyway).
Microsoft needed something to compete with Novell on the server. Originally they thought that OS/2 would be the basis for the server system they were starting to develop with IBM (since Windows 2.0 had no real traction in the marketplace modeling NT after it wasn't considered). However, when Windows 3.0 became highly successful, they decided to use the Windows API instead of the OS/2 one, and IBM split from the development efforts to create their own OS/2 based system (Warp). To make NT robust Microsoft hired members of the VMS development team. You can see that VMS and Windows NT are based around the same principles and type of architecture at low levels.
This wasn't bold on Microsoft's part because they had nothing to lose trying to enter the server market for the first time, because they imitated VMS for the underlying architecture, and because they leveraged their desktop success for the API and GUI. Technologically speaking, it was typical Microsoft.
Microsoft has a long history of being good at business and mediocre at technology. Their most innovative move was selling operating systems for personal computers to multiple vendors and the public rather than selling only computers with operating systems included or only to IBM. A combination of this with IBM's lack of foresight as to the success of the personal computer gave Microsoft the operating system market, and they've managed to hold onto it ever since by imitating successful competing products while leveraging their existing user base in every way imaginable.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Microsoft should write a WINE that works, call it "Microsoft Compatibility Layer", charge $50, and forget about Windows.
Ah, the mystique of wealth and ruthlessness...Gates has successfully cultivated a myth of brilliance. He may be smart, but he is far from the lone brilliant entrepeneur that the business press adores. He comes from wealth and connections, and exploited them to the fullest. His mother, Mary Gates, served with IBM's CEO on the United Way board back when Microsoft was still a baby. What a coincidence that the timing coincided with IBM hiring the unknown Microsoft, which had no actual products yet other than the the primitive Traf-O-Data to supply them with an operating system. From a simple traffic counter to a computer operating system is rather an astonishing leap, no? She also served on other influential boards, and dad's law firm Bogle & Gates is deeply-entrenched in the oldboy network. So it's no surprise that Microsoft's wealth comes more from tricksy licensing and litigation than technology anyone would actually want to pay for.
@CFWhitman, Microsoft vs. Apple is just VMS vs. Unix warmed over:
http://mindplusplus.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/old-war-new-gen...
http://mindplusplus.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/old-war-new-gen...
Quoting: Microsoft has three problems:
1) They can't imagine how to be a business where they don't dictate terms.
2) Their software is designed first around lock-in, and secondly around functionality (see #1).
3) They aren't cool anymore, and so nobody really wants their stuff for paradigm-shift tasks.
They're a lot like the Detroit automakers at the time of the first "fuel crisis" in the 1970s. They're still trying to come to grips with the idea that the world has moved on. Windows 8 is the equivalent of the Chevrolet Vega.
In a nutshell. Very nice.
Quoting:I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Microsoft should write a WINE that works, call it "Microsoft Compatibility Layer", charge $50, and forget about Windows.
For that matter just include it in the new shiny O.S. (which I dub "Portal") as a deprecated feature. Something reminiscent of Apple. Create a new O.S. based on a BSDish something or other, include a pumped up version of the current Wine which exists now, and basically state that from now on thou shalt not program against the Win API lest one incur the wrath of Wine. Instead thou shalt program against the Portal API.
And just throw the whole friggen mess they currently have in the garbage.
Anyone here familiar with the concept of ego?
Ego, like violence, is "bad for business".
'Tis true. But have you ever seen, read about, or met a business executive without an over-sized one?
Yes. The CEO of Whole Foods Markets.
Edit: Found it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/349-heroic-spirit-of-busi...
349. The Heroic Spirit of Business February 19, 2013
Lew Rockwell talks to John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods.
Edit: Found it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/349-heroic-spirit-of-busi...
349. The Heroic Spirit of Business February 19, 2013
Lew Rockwell talks to John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods.
Also, Craig Newmark (craigslist.com) isn't too proud to rub elbows with riff-raff.
> Anyone here familiar with the concept of ego?
<sarcasm> Who, us? </sarcasm>
<sarcasm> Who, us? </sarcasm>
They can't even if they want to
It might even be an anti-trust issue, if Microsoft wasn't already dinging Android over bogus Microsoft patents (apparently for more than they charge for their own mobile OS's).
But to be extorting those bogus "licensing" fees from OEMs over Android, while making Windows Phone available for $free would probably be too blatant a scam, even for the American DOJ.
(Of course, MS could always convert those "patent licenses" to $free as well... but somehow, I just don't see that happening...)
But to be extorting those bogus "licensing" fees from OEMs over Android, while making Windows Phone available for $free would probably be too blatant a scam, even for the American DOJ.
(Of course, MS could always convert those "patent licenses" to $free as well... but somehow, I just don't see that happening...)
Good points, Bernard. They are in a pretty pickle of their own making. They've been coasting on stale, inferior technology for decades, and their only real innovation is protection rackets.
Tuxchick, I'd like to frame your post above. What an elegant and succinct summation of Microsoft's development and ethics.
"They've been coasting on stale, inferior technology for decades, and their only real innovation is protection rackets."
All empires fall.
All empires fall.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I'd suspect the real problem would come with complex business or govt. software designed to run on Windows and for which there is no commercial substitute. There would have to be an enormous surge in porting previous software to the new OS......These are castles in the air, and frankly, I don't think it will ever take place.
And I too miss Groklaw very much.....it was almost my first port of call every day.