Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2009, 05:49 AM   #31
Usquanigo
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
 Several viruses avoid detection by not running as processes, the are merely threads. The can also run as interupts. Either way they don't show up in the task manager. I often have to deal with people who have set up there own small business network, and thes people get all kinds of funny things. Yes, that's largely due to bad practices (employees surfing porn, etc.), but it happens.
Doesn't have to. Restrict local admin rights and set up blocks and logs on the firewall. Then again, could always get mature users too. I don't have such locks (but I easily could), and I don't need them. My users are there to do their jobs.


Quote:
No you don't have to "pay to play". You simply need to have a system that works, without making excuses for it's failures.
There's that mythical linux 286 that can stream full screen video at 1280x1024 res at 30fps and relay it with a USB web-cam again. I hear it even runs without the power cord.



Quote:
I can retrain someone to use Linux (KDE) in half an hour. Training them to use OpenOffice instead of Word can take longer, but most people can pick it up on their own in a couple days. It's just not that different from a user's point of view.
Yeah.... this is why we can't get the sales staff to change their practices to take better advantage of the tools they already have, even though the "difference" would be minimal and yeild greater results.

If you're talking about a mom'n'pop with 5 users, that's one thing, but I'm talking about Inc.s in the high 6 figure to low 7 figure dollar a year range. Those are small to medium buisnesses.



Quote:
The point was that they don't need more power, they already have enough. They shouldn't be forced to get more power to run software bloated with features they'll never use.
And the old super heavy luggables that masquaraded as laptops with tiny screens and few interfaces simply aren't going to cut it when the sales force demos to a client. Nor can you cram a DVI-out PCI-E video card into a P1.

Even when you CAN retro fit the upgrade, to spend the cost on the hardware, plus calculate my time for training, and their time for training, and factor in the lost productivity during that, as well as the overall slow-down from the change.... yeah, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to spend $1400 and get a stacked Core2Duo 3.16GHz with 3GB of RAM, moster hard drive AND an included 22" widescreen LCD, not to mention an OS and Office suite they already know.

See, when I first started as an on-staffer (rather than consultant), I was like you. I thought, why not go to pricewatch and get the cheapest everything, I can assemble it, and we can save a few hundred. That was without even having to train any of the other staff on anything new. But the simple act of going to multiple places to buy stuff made it too expensive (purhcasing and recieving dept's costs), not to mention ANY potential issue with ANYthing at all, took longer and more money to deal with. Going to an OEM was cheaper, even if it appeared more expensive.



Quote:
I take it you have a tin foil hat, you are paranoid. There was nothing in my comment that even comes close to suggesting anything of the sort.
I understand these things. I am far from paranoid, but I AM a student of history, and I know what has happened, and also study a bit of psychology and anthropology as well. Humans are predictable, history follows cicular patterns, and wise sages have already warned us about all these dangers and nobody listens to them and we fall right down that well, time and time again. It's really not that hard to see if you choose to open your eyes and look.



Quote:
I simply said that there is no good reason I shouldn't be able to find a file simply by knowing what folder it's in, and not need to know what actual drive it's on. That's pretty much what MS is trying to do with the "virtual folders" or whatever they called it that was supposed to be in Vista. The ability to mount a drive or partition anywhere in the file tree is handy, and I'm sure MS would be doing that if they weren't stuck trying to be backwards compatible with the older DOS based versions.
This is my point about that, a location is a location, virtual or not. I can move things around just as much as you can. Do the paths change for me? Sometimes, but it's never a problem either. Even in the rare case where an application expects something somewhere, I can edit that. You talk about not wanting to have to know a "location", a folder or directory IS a location, regardless of whehter it's virtual or tied to a disc, you still have to know it. So it's really no different, you just want to think that it is.

(and for network paths, it's always worked like that, I can move a share anywhere and users have no idea, it just works for them, they don't even know drive letters, they know share names)



Quote:
Not all websites are critical. For critical websites, a small business should be using a third party hosting solution with 24/7 techs, not hosting it themselves. The one I was talking about is used by a local school for inter-office E-mail and scheduling AV resources. In the event the host computer goes down, it can be hosted on another machine in minutes. Plenty robust for theirneeds, and leaves more money for actually teaching kids. That IS what schools do. For most small non-profits, $2000 is a significant portion of the annual budget. It's money that isn't being spent accomplishing the goal.
If a web-site is worth having, it's worth running on a box that isn't USED as a desktop. Doesn't mean you have to dedicated it, double it up. Make it the file/print server, make it the DHCP or DNS box, make it the FTP server, etc. That's why that extranet/intranet/FTP server I mentioned has those things, they all are related in function, and run off of one app. None of it is exactly "mission critical" like the file or mail sever, but close enough that it's worth mirroring the drives and dedicating the box to server-type functions only.

We are a FOR proft, but we are a TINY company that was bought 2 years ago for 3 million dollars, and we are on the rocks right now with the economy like it is, because we are a niche market. We DO have large company problems though, like a world-wide customer base and manufacturing issues to deal with.

Speaking of which..... now that I think about the shop.... we have a Hendricks 5-axis router (cost well into the 6 figures), it's run by a desktop PC. For something that expensive, and that important, you'd think that the OEM would have used Linux on the white-box they supplied. They didn't. It was initially 95. Never had any problems with it. Now it's on 2K Pro, still no problems. Had it for years.



Quote:
So shoplifting makes me a better shopper? You seem to have no respect for the law, perhaps that's why you are paranoid enough to see "big brother" where he doesn't exist. Are you perhaps an anarchist? Running a business illegaly is not running it well - just ask Arthur Anderson. Competion leads to innovation. By stifling the competition, MS has likely reduced the advancement of these "wonderfull toys".
I have no regard for "the law". I respect the Constitution. That is the ONLY valid law in this land. I obey other ones just because they either aren't technically illegal, or are just not worth the hassle of breaking, but just because a bill is passed does NOT make it good. Take a look into the process and riders and lobbying and back rubbing and deal brokering going on. It's a disgrace.

Not an Anarchist, that's not feasible. A Constitutionalist. The closest thing I've ever had to 'heros' are The Founders.

As for buisness, the name of the game is to out compete. Some can do it, some can't. However, after Jobs stole from Xerox and Bill decided to copy him, computers drove remarkably deeply into the potential market, expanding it to incredible levels, allowing costs to come down, which increased demand, which brought about more power, at yet cheaper costs, and allowed more features to be used, and the cycle continued. That's why a 468 used to cost $5000, and now I can buy the aforementioned Core2Duo system for $1400. THAT is because of M$ (who further spawned things when they helped IBM launch their PC, and what better idea than to guarentee sales for your own fledling company than by putting it in the contract? And when clone makers came out, they had to emulate, so you grab that too. It's smart buisness). Gripe about it all you want, Microsoft was pivotal in the creation of the PC market as we know it, and you have THEM to thank for your toys. And I think that pisses you off all the more. lol



Quote:
I've moved the music collection four times as I added (larger) hardrives, but the pathname remains the same. Move your music files from C: to D:, fire up your player, load a playlist, and listen to the sweet sound of silence.
Well given that I go through Windows Explorer and double click on the mp3 which launches WinAMP (gasp!, shock! - yeah, I don't care for media player for anything but video, WinAMP is the only audio player I like), I can move that directory anywhere I like and it doesn't affect anything.

I know some shortcuts will follow paths too, not sure if it would work for that, but I never use folder shortcuts anyway....



Quote:
Anyone who can't afford that 3Ghz P4.
I'm sure you could get one for $50 these days.



Quote:
For a large business, yes that matters. For a small one, with less than a dozen computers, it doesn't. Extra hardware is an extra expense. How does adding yet another heat source help climate control? For a small company, having one persons desktop running the database solves the "data wrangling" problem nicely. Back-ups are created automatically on a daily basis (two backup files on two different PC,s for redundancy) and written to tape weekly - all automatically. The only effort required is for someone to swap the tape once a week.
Large buisnesses are HP, M$, GM, etc. Small buisnesses are in the sub 100 desktop range.

It's not adding a heat source, it's putting htem all in one small-ish room and only having to climate control that (more or less than the rest of the building).

That one person's desktop running a DB is great until they kick the plug, or spill something on it, or break the optical drive (and have to shut it down) or get hit with malware, etc. Great for your 5 node network, not for buisnesses that I refer to. (which ARE small buisnesses)



Quote:
Yes, I find MS's blatant disregard for the law to be offensive. I find Bernie Madoff's disregard for law offensive also. People with morals find that kind of dishonesty offensive. I guess you don't?
If you equate any old law with moral (BECAUSE it's a law), then you are scary.



Quote:
BTW, MS's suggested retail price for Server 2005 was $3000, the $1500 you quote is a "wholesale" price that small businesses and NPO's don't get.
You can go to CDW too you know. They aren't exclusive. And there was no Server 05. 03 and 08, and the license we bought was for 08, but I'm currently installing 03 (64 bit), and next year when we upgrade the App (which we get free because we bought the Software Assurance, 2 years free upgrades), then I'll jump up to 08 (also for free, because I already have hte license). Oh and we only bought 1, no bulk purchases of any kind.


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguofreak View Post
 The problem here is that the law itself may or may not be offensive. Bloodspray's point is that, in his opinion, antitrust laws (or at least some anti-trust laws, such as the ones that have been leveled against Microsoft), prevent the effective management of a business, so that to run your business "the way it's supposed to be run" you have to break the law. I happen to disagree with him, and think that the laws in question are perfectly just. But you can't just say "it's illegal and therefore wrong," because the law can, in some cases, be wrong.
Right.... sort of. Don't misinterpret. I'm not saying that monopolies are great or that anti-trust laws are always bad. I'm speaking philosophically. The idea of competition is to win. The idea of a buisness is to grow and make all the money you can for your employees and investors. If you do it well enough, people cry foul.

And also, there is nothing wrong with leveraging your product. I don't HAVE to sell you something, I didn't force you to not install the competitors products, I just chose not to sell to you if you did so. It's a subtle point, but an important one.


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
 If you disagree with a law, that doesn't mean you can simply ignore it.
Technically it's your duty as a citizen to not follow bad law. If charged, the jury has the right to refuse to convict (not the same as a hung jury). That is SUPPOSED to be the last line of defence in the check and balance system (if it gets through both houses, the president and the supreme court).

That isn't to say that it actually happens today, but it SHOULD. Trouble is, people think "just because you disagree with the law doesn't mean you can ignore it". And THAT mentality is why I'm convinced that the 18th Amendment wouldn't be repealed if it were passed today.


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
 I think something is becoming clear, which could possibly explain the incredible differences in opinion we've got here. The Windows proponents say that Windows is superior for many tasks in a large company with a huge budget, and possibly a large number of tech-phobic users. The Linux proponents say that Linux is superior for some low budget operations, and some tech-savvy individuals. There is no inherent conflict here, and I think it illustrates a fundamental truth: No system can ever hope to serve everyone's needs, because everyone is different.
Agree with the last statement. But I only point out the "superiority of Windows" (if you wish to use that phrasing, I wouldn't, but hey...) because of the other side saying it sucks for everything, should NEVER be touched, the people who use it are evil idiots, and then fixating on tiny non-issues as if they were real, or even spreading falsehoods around.

Usquanigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 06:01 AM   #32
Scarecrow
Orbinaut
 
Scarecrow's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 ...because of the other side saying it sucks for everything, should NEVER be touched, the people who use it are evil idiots...
Please quote me. If you can, I apologize in advance for this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 ...and then fixating on tiny non-issues as if they were real
Back to everyone has different needs again. Perhaps they are non-issues for you. I'm not you. For me, every issue I cite is Very Real, and has either pleased me (made my life easier) or pissed me off (made my life harder) at some point, often repeatedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 ...or even spreading falsehoods around.
Again, I beg to be quoted, and apologize in advance for anything that is actually false that I've said. Edit: Also, please quote me for propaganda too, since you brought it up earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 
Scarecrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 06:07 AM   #33
willy88
Tinkerer
 
willy88's Avatar

Default

The real, obvious problem with Microsoft, is its relative lack of competition.

The only alternative that most people are aware of is Mac OS, but since only runs on Apple computers (which is quite silly, if you think about it, Apple would probably have much larger sales if it opened up Mac OS to non-Macs), it really isn't much for competition.

Linux, on the other hand, which is pretty much capable of running on any platform known to mankind, is mostly unknown to the average Joe.

Microsoft's only real competition as of now, is itself. Microsoft trys to get its customers to upgrade to its Latest & Greatest (TM) OS, while the customers want to stick with the older version.

From this lack of competition, and thus innovation, OSes (well, Windows, at least) have become fairly stagnant over the last decade or so, with a lack of actual new features.

willy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 07:10 AM   #34
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Right.... sort of. Don't misinterpret. I'm not saying that monopolies are great or that anti-trust laws are always bad. I'm speaking philosophically. The idea of competition is to win. The idea of a buisness is to grow and make all the money you can for your employees and investors. If you do it well enough, people cry foul.
Sometimes people cry foul because they're jealous. Sometimes they cry foul because you have committed a foul. Sometimes both. Just because people's motives for calling you on a foul *are or aren't* pure doesn't mean you *did or didn't* commit one.

There certainly are enough cases where people do cry foul on a corporation just because the corp has done well and they don't trust anybody who does well. But in this case, I happen to be crying foul because I think Microsoft actually commited a foul, whatever the motives of anyone else for crying foul on Microsoft.

Quote:
And also, there is nothing wrong with leveraging your product. I don't HAVE to sell you something, I didn't force you to not install the competitors products, I just chose not to sell to you if you did so. It's a subtle point, but an important one.
That's anti-competitive, illegal, and wrong, although it's not exactly what Microsoft did (which was no less anti-competive, illegal, or wrong).

Microsoft allowed dealers to sell other OS's, but they wouldn't sell MS-DOS to them unless they sold it with every computer they sold, and then, if the customer wanted another OS, they had to buy that on top of MS-DOS. It guaranteed Microsoft a sale of MS-DOS for every sale of a competing OS, no matter how good or bad, popular or unpopular, the competing OS was. Of course, you have to have a certain market share to be able to pull such a stunt, but it doesn't even have to be a majority share (though it may be one). Just enough that any dealer who turns you down is doomed to fail for not selling your OS.

You can debate back and forth whether Microsoft's product was enough better than its competitors that it would have won anyways. The point is that Microsoft made shady business deals that arranged things so that it didn't matter which product was better, Microsoft would come out on top.

EDIT: Saying that Microsoft didn't "force" dealers into their licensing agreements misses the point. Blackmailers don't "force" people to give them money, either. They just choose to release embarrasing or incriminating information if they aren't given money.


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 Technically it's your duty as a citizen to not follow bad law. If charged, the jury has the right to refuse to convict (not the same as a hung jury). That is SUPPOSED to be the last line of defence in the check and balance system (if it gets through both houses, the president and the supreme court).

That isn't to say that it actually happens today, but it SHOULD. Trouble is, people think "just because you disagree with the law doesn't mean you can ignore it". And THAT mentality is why I'm convinced that the 18th Amendment wouldn't be repealed if it were passed today.
Yes, but civil disobedience carries it's responsibilities too. You have to be willing to freely admit that what you've done is illegal, but you think the law is wrong, and you have to be willing to suffer whatever penalty the law demands in the interest of fighting that law. Somehow I get the idea that Bill Gates wouldn't be willing to go to jail to fight US Anti-trust laws. If you truly think such laws are wrong, and you would be willing to go to prison to fight them, more power to you.
Linguofreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 07:18 AM   #35
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguofreak View Post
 Sometimes people cry foul because they're jealous. Sometimes they cry foul because you have committed a foul. Sometimes both. Just because people's motives for calling you on a foul *are or aren't* pure doesn't mean you *did or didn't* commit one.

There certainly are enough cases where people do cry foul on a corporation just because the corp has done well and they don't trust anybody who does well. But in this case, I happen to be crying foul because I think Microsoft actually commited a foul, whatever the motives of anyone else for crying foul on Microsoft.



That's anti-competitive, illegal, and wrong, although it's not exactly what Microsoft did (which was no less anti-competive, illegal, or wrong).

Microsoft allowed dealers to sell other OS's, but they wouldn't sell MS-DOS to them unless they sold it with every computer they sold, and then, if the customer wanted another OS, they had to buy that on top of MS-DOS. It guaranteed Microsoft a sale of MS-DOS for every sale of a competing OS, no matter how good or bad, popular or unpopular, the competing OS was. Of course, you have to have a certain market share to be able to pull such a stunt, but it doesn't even have to be a majority share (though it may be one). Just enough that any dealer who turns you down is doomed to fail for not selling your OS.

You can debate back and forth whether Microsoft's product was enough better than its competitors that it would have won anyways. The point is that Microsoft made shady business deals that arranged things so that it didn't matter which product was better, Microsoft would come out on top.

EDIT: Saying that Microsoft didn't "force" dealers into their licensing agreements misses the point. Blackmailers don't "force" people to give them money, either. They just choose to release embarrasing or incriminating information if they aren't given money.
I would argue that regardless of the illegality or immorality of Microsoft's practices, it was good for the computing community in the long run. If you have a dozen different computer manufacturers using a dozen different operating systems, none of which are compatible with each other (because each company uses a proprietary system which is a "trade secret" from all the others--they don't want the others stealing their income!) -- that's not a good place to be.

Let's imagine that world, for a moment.
Instead of several acres of software and hardware at the local Frys which I *know* will work on my pc regardless of who published the software and who made the computer (and a row or two of software/hardware for that *other* company's stuff, but that's not the point), we have a row here for OS1, another row for OS3, another for OS4, etc etc.

While I'm walking down the OS1 row to get to the row with the OS78 software/hardware that I need (because that's the only stuff that works with my OS78 machine), I spot a new game title for OS1 and think, "hey that looks cool." I look closer, but see that it's from a smaller company who only makes software for OS1 (which can run on OS27 using an emulation layer), but not OS78. Drat.

Standardization is good for the consumer. Especially Granma over there, who won't understand why the widget she just bought doesn't work in her OS27 machine. Whether that standardization comes from government regulation or a huge company doing everything, that doesn't matter.

Plus, if MS's corporate policies are so evil and they're only out to make a buck, why can you buy a new machine fitted with Windows for only $500 when an entry-level Mac is $1000 or more? If the whole "crushing the competition" thing were true, wouldn't you expect them to set whatever price they damn well pleased and then roll in bathtubs full of hundred dollar bills? *

* - I saw no such bathtubs during my internship. I'll keep an eye out and let you know, though.

Last edited by Hielor; 01-15-2009 at 07:21 AM. Reason: her != here
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 07:41 AM   #36
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 
Standardization is good for the consumer. Especially Granma over there, who won't understand why the widget she just bought doesn't work in her OS27 machine. Whether that standardization comes from government regulation or a huge company doing everything, that doesn't matter.
Except that standardization doesn't *have* to come from anticompetitive business practices. As far as I understand, MS-DOS and DR-DOS were interchangeable. And even if standardization does come about through a monopoly, there are legal and illegal ways to gain a monopoly, and legal and illegal ways to use one.
Linguofreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 12:05 PM   #37
cjp
Donator
 
cjp's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 I would argue that regardless of the illegality or immorality of Microsoft's practices, it was good for the computing community in the long run. If you have a dozen different computer manufacturers using a dozen different operating systems, none of which are compatible with each other (because each company uses a proprietary system which is a "trade secret" from all the others--they don't want the others stealing their income!) -- that's not a good place to be.
Agreed, multiple proprietary standards are far worse than a single proprietary standard. But how about using an open standard?
In the PC hardware market, there is no problem in having lots of competing suppliers of video cards, sound cards, motherboards, harddisks, RAM memory & so on. They can work together because, on the hardware interface level, they are based on open standards.

Standardization is good for the consumer. But a standard where one side only has a single non-free implementation isn't a standard, it's a monopoly and a vendor lock-in. And monopolies are bad for the consumer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 Plus, if MS's corporate policies are so evil and they're only out to make a buck, why can you buy a new machine fitted with Windows for only $500 when an entry-level Mac is $1000 or more? If the whole "crushing the competition" thing were true, wouldn't you expect them to set whatever price they damn well pleased and then roll in bathtubs full of hundred dollar bills?
No, the economic theory of monopolies doesn't say a monopolist can just set an arbitrary prize to its product. When the price is too high, there are too many consumers who simply cannot afford it anymore. There is an optimum price for maximizing profit, and when going beyond that, profits will decrease. However, this price is higher than in a well-functioning free market with lots of competition. In fact, in an ideal free market equilibrium, profit would be zero.

Macs are expensive because they have high-end hardware. At least that's what I'm told by a mac user (who is not a mac zealot BTW). I see no reason not to believe him.

I'm still surprised by the high minimum specs needed for windows 7. I don't really care anymore (I just hope I won't need apps that require 7 or vista), but I'm just surprised. It's just like microsoft says to Linux: "okay, you can have all the computers with lower specs".

They're probably doing this because they expect the high-end market to be the most profitable, and for a commercial organization it doesn't make sense to invest in making their product suitable for non-profitable market segments.

So, the road is open for Linux on all embedded systems: routers, file/printer servers, video recorders, washing machines, car electronics & so on. And there is the growing market of cell phones being capable of desktop tasks, and those ultra-cheap laptops. If the hardware is already good enough to allow these specs for $100, then I wonder how cheap you can make a useful Linux desktop(*).

And then, there is still windows CE of course...

(*) E.g. Web browsing (including Javascript and Flash), email, and some simple m$-format compatible word processor + spreadsheet, pre-installed, so the user doesn't need geek skillz, and advertized like a cell phone, so the user doesn't expect windows.
cjp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 12:47 PM   #38
agentgonzo
Grounded since '09
 
agentgonzo's Avatar
Default

I prefer plain hobnobs to chocolate-hobnobs or digestives
agentgonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 01:01 PM   #39
cjp
Donator
 
cjp's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentgonzo View Post
 I prefer plain hobnobs to chocolate-hobnobs or digestives
I don't think I know what you mean.

*disables cookies*
cjp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 02:57 PM   #40
movieman
Addon Developer
 
movieman's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjp View Post
 However, this price is higher than in a well-functioning free market with lots of competition. In fact, in an ideal free market equilibrium, profit would be zero.
Long-lasting monopolies generally occur in one of two circumstances:

1. Markets where costs reduce with increased size.
2. When they're granted by the government.

Microsoft is in the latter position, as they have a government-granted monopoly on Windows through copyright law. Without software copyright -- of which Bill Gates was one of the earliest proponents -- they would be a very different and much smaller company.

Quote:
So, the road is open for Linux on all embedded systems: routers, file/printer servers, video recorders, washing machines, car electronics & so on.
I'm not sure why you say 'the road is open'; Linux is already one of the most popular embedded operating systems in the world, if not the most popular. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are already more embedded Linux systems than Windows systems in total.

Quote:
And then, there is still windows CE of course...
When I was working in low-cost embedded systems a few years ago none of our customers wanted to run Windows on them. Some wanted a proprietary Unix-like OS, but most just used Linux because it was good and free; even an extra dollar per system adds up fast when you're selling them by the millions.
movieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 03:18 PM   #41
cjp
Donator
 
cjp's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 Long-lasting monopolies generally occur in one of two circumstances:

1. Markets where costs reduce with increased size.
2. When they're granted by the government.

Microsoft is in the latter position, as they have a government-granted monopoly on Windows through copyright law.
Not only a monopoly on windows (that's the one which is enforced by copyright law), but also a monopoly on 'an OS that runs windows applications'. Wine is the only worthy competitor: all other alternatives are either based on Wine, or run windows inside a virtual machine. Wine is very nice, but it's still unfinished.

When it comes to standards and interoperability, this is the important point. Many software vendors still consider it acceptable to ship only a windows binary version of their software. This locks their users to windows. For many office and creative software there are already good multi-platform alternatives, but this isn't the case for games. Which is strange BTW, as most games have to be designed in a multi-platform fashion anyway, to be able to run on all those game consoles. I think it's just commercial laziness, caused by a lack of demand for, say, Linux x86 binaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 I'm not sure why you say 'the road is open'; Linux is already one of the most popular embedded operating systems in the world, if not the most popular. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are already more embedded Linux systems than Windows systems in total.
You're probably right. The desktop is the 'holy grail' in Linux adoption, but for the rest it's already quite settled. Cell phones and the new ultra-cheap laptops are more important, as they could be a low-end entrance into the desktop, making people familiar with the system.
cjp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 05:46 PM   #42
RisingFury
OBSP developer
 
RisingFury's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjp View Post
 Not too bad?!
How scalable will it be? I know you can do cool things with the high-end machines (even microsoft can), but what are the system requirements with
  • High-end settings (sure(*) you can go as high as you want, but I mean the resources used by the OS; anything more is available for the apps)
  • Default settings
  • Minimum settings where it can run all applications
  • Minimum GUI settings
  • Minimum text-mode settings
And how will it compare to windows XP? And to windows NT? And, OK, to Linux (say, the latest Debian or Ubuntu)?

When I bought it, my laptop had 256MB RAM and Windows XP installed. It was a bit slow, but it worked (now I have 1280MB). And Windows XP only needs 2GB disk space. And doesn't need a high-end video card (SVGA will do).

(*) OTOH you never know. 640k limit & so on...


I agree that a high end graphics card and 1 GB of RAM just to run an OS is over the top, but compared to Vista... well, it's an improvement. And being the Devil's advocate in this case, I don't think it'd make sense for Microsoft to scale back more... at least not after Vista has been forcing people to buy high end computers for the past 2 years, because a lot of people now have a computer with a dual core CPU, 2GB+ RAM and a powerful graphics card.

It's like creating a low end game with poor graphics even though you know you can build better.
RisingFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 06:17 PM   #43
movieman
Addon Developer
 
movieman's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingFury View Post
 I don't think it'd make sense for Microsoft to scale back more... at least not after Vista has been forcing people to buy high end computers for the past 2 years, because a lot of people now have a computer with a dual core CPU, 2GB+ RAM and a powerful graphics card.
Except that when people realise that they only need an Atom and integrated graphics for web-browsing and email, Vista isn't going to run too well on it. I don't think it's a good idea to be pushing a $300 OS that needs high-end hardware in a recession where someone can build an Atom-based Linux box for $250.

Computers are rapidly becoming commodity products, and Microsoft aren't going to be able to charge premium prices (or demand fast hardware just to run the operating system) for much longer.
movieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 06:42 PM   #44
T.Neo
SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Default

I don't regard myself as a real "computer nerd", and I haven't much experiance with anything other then XP. I have heard Vista isn't too good for gaming, but I don't have a problem with it for web browsing, document making, etc. It also looks pretty. I know, some people don't care about "looks", but some do (not
necessarily me, I would guess casual users.)
I know virtually nothing about Linux, and little about Mac, so I can't really, say anything, except that they cant run Orbiter, so they're out of the picture for me.

I guess it comes down to you're personal preferance, what you want to do with the computer (for example, my choice for dropping a computer off a cliff would be Windows ME ), and what programs you wnat to run.
T.Neo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 07:06 PM   #45
Usquanigo
Orbinaut
Default

You guys are a trip. You hate M$ so much that you actively preach going backward on the hardware front. If everybody thought like you, nobody would ever upgrade (anything), we'd be extremely limited in what our hardware and software could do, and the whole industry would dry up and blow away, and in time, even replacement parts would become unobtainable.

I guess that's just the American in me (I want bigger, better, faster, MORE )


Usquanigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge

Tags
security


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.