[IceFire]

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/02/03/1524250.shtml


One a somewhat related note a bunch of MS private internal PMs and emails got published on the web.

Hence the argument against why MS is a monopoly.

The fact that Macintosh can be that good is enough to draw away MS users, but MS's widespread reputation and presence alone guarantees it a strong fanbase.  If Macintosh were able to get their word out better, then MS would face some increasingly stiff competition.

Which is where the Mac users come in... if Macintosh can't spread the word, it's up to its users then.

Mac has something like 2% of the home PC market and maybe 5% of the total OS market.  As far as home use goes, Windows is at 98% or better penetration.  Microsoft can release whatever it wants, publish whatever standards it wants, and everyone adopts them because they have no choice.  Either they can be interoperable with Microsoft or doom themselves to their own little corner. Linux has made huge strides in the server and development areas but as far as home use goes, the thing that keeps Windows where it is, nobody has made any serious or threatening inroads.

Regardless of definitions or not...Microsoft has the market by the neck and can do whatever it wants.  Imagine the kind of OS we could have if the competition in the OS market was between two rivals like nVidia and ATI or AMD and Intel.  We have amazing hardware and software features at very reasonable prices.  Granted that its hardware and not software...

I think that back in the 90's MS should have been split apart, the OS market should have been opened up, and Windows clones should have been arriving by the bundleload.  Everyone would have to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility because nobody would control the whole market and as long as that balance was maintained and developers were innovating we wouldn't be in this nasty situation that we are.

Its a tad bit pie in the sky but workable.

So far every indication is that Vista is a bit of a flop technically but adoption rates will be high anyways because they have total control of the market.  Businesses and servers on the other hand are likely to stay put. Most businesses run Windows 2000...it does everything they need it to and its a very lean OS.  Servers are more interestingly split between Windows Server, Linux versions, and other more specialized servers using Solaris, etc.  But the average consumer is stuck.  Is that a monopoly or not?  Its bad either way.

[aldo_14]

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/02/03/1524250.shtml


One a somewhat related note a bunch of MS private internal PMs and emails got published on the web.

Hence the argument against why MS is a monopoly.

The fact that Macintosh can be that good is enough to draw away MS users, but MS's widespread reputation and presence alone guarantees it a strong fanbase.  If Macintosh were able to get their word out better, then MS would face some increasingly stiff competition.

Which is where the Mac users come in... if Macintosh can't spread the word, it's up to its users then.

Monopolies aren't based on quality of product, but the strength of the product manufacturer.  It doesn't matter how good OS X is - or anything else - if MS can afford (for example) to offer big discounts or other perks to the people who, say, buy the OS' for the school systems' computers.

[SadisticSid]

I think the only thing that would elevate Linux to a threat to Windows would be a full implementation of the Windows/DirectX APIs. Once people can run their Windows software on a free and technically superior (which Linux is in just about every respect) alternative OS, Microsoft loses their biggest advantage.

[Kosh]

I think the only thing that would elevate Linux to a threat to Windows would be a full implementation of the Windows/DirectX APIs. Once people can run their Windows software on a free and technically superior (which Linux is in just about every respect) alternative OS, Microsoft loses their biggest advantage.

It's biggest advantage is its ability to strong arm the major OEMs into putting Windows on their home PC line ups. I do recall Dell did something like that a few years ago, but MS forced them to stop doing it.

[SadisticSid]

I think the only thing that would elevate Linux to a threat to Windows would be a full implementation of the Windows/DirectX APIs. Once people can run their Windows software on a free and technically superior (which Linux is in just about every respect) alternative OS, Microsoft loses their biggest advantage.

It's biggest advantage is its ability to strong arm the major OEMs into putting Windows on their home PC line ups. I do recall Dell did something like that a few years ago, but MS forced them to stop doing it.

That's only a consequence of Windows' popularity though. If some version of Linux could natively run every Windows application, it'd gain popularity in short order, Windows' would decline, and Microsoft would no longer be able to risk alienating OEMs with those tactics.

It's all academic of course - Linux will never have a full, native Windows API so none of the above will happen.

[MarkN]

Of course Linux would never have a full native Windows API, just as Mac OS would never have a full native windows API, as the Windows API is part od Windows, a Microsoft product, and Microsoft will keep it to themselves to maximise the financial gain of having developed said API.

As for Linux, it's great, but with the much larger number of programs written for Windows (especially games), Linux has a uphill struggle to be adopted by the average user. Add to that the suprisingly large number of open-source projects that have no Linux installer and expect Linux users to do their own compiling, and you soon have a situation where most people are put off it. As for the other altenatives, most of them are unheard-of outside specialist circles, and the one the is, Mac OS, is locked into Apple hardware. (remember, as well as trying to get computers with Linux, Dell also tried to get them with Mac OS, but Apple told them to get lost).