Are Microsoft Tight with their OS's?

I didn't really care to read the other threads but her is my 2 cents. I think an OS should be an OS, I like putting the software I like onto a computer. Windows will always come with some basic things because some people are too illiterate with computers to figure out how to download stuff. I like the turn Windows 7 is taking by removing the built-in extra software and letting you determine what you want with the downloadable Windows Live Essentials programs. Windows 7 is also finally letting loose of its hold on the software that has always been on there. It now gives the option of uninstalling Internet Explorer, possibly other programs as well. I think as long as the OS performs well then it doesn't need unnecessary extras to add value which is why I am still using Windows 7 and have been since the January beta release. I think a system of program installation similar to the way Linux does (check the program you want to install and youre done) is excellent but due to issues with being a commercial company and not a GNU based platform, Microsoft couldn't really do that with anything other than their own software. Overall, Windows is my favorite OS for the fact that I don't need the technical/networking robustness of Linux but I do want an OS that I can do almost anything on provided I have the right software and Windows is undisputed in its software library (an advantage of being a monopoly, i know, but that is also a consumer advantage).
 
gamerman4 said:
I didn't really care to read the other threads but her is my 2 cents. I think an OS should be an OS, I like putting the software I like onto a computer. Windows will always come with some basic things because some people are too illiterate with computers to figure out how to download stuff. I like the turn Windows 7 is taking by removing the built-in extra software and letting you determine what you want with the downloadable Windows Live Essentials programs. Windows 7 is also finally letting loose of its hold on the software that has always been on there. It now gives the option of uninstalling Internet Explorer, possibly other programs as well. I think as long as the OS performs well then it doesn't need unnecessary extras to add value which is why I am still using Windows 7 and have been since the January beta release. I think a system of program installation similar to the way Linux does (check the program you want to install and youre done) is excellent but due to issues with being a commercial company and not a GNU based platform, Microsoft couldn't really do that with anything other than their own software. Overall, Windows is my favorite OS for the fact that I don't need the technical/networking robustness of Linux but I do want an OS that I can do almost anything on provided I have the right software and Windows is undisputed in its software library (an advantage of being a monopoly, i know, but that is also a consumer advantage).
Click to expand...

Yes installing what you want is part of the fun and makes your system different to the next guys, but he other thread was more about the necessities rather than the optional stuff, like office. You could get open office which works fine but they charge silly prices for a program which yes is better, but why not implement it?

And another one said in the other thread, why do you have to pay nearly £200 to get 32 and 64 bit OS, if the key works for both, why not give you both rather than one and then make you buy another disc for an extautionate price for what it is just to get the other one if you need it?
 
Aastii said:
And another one said in the other thread, why do you have to pay nearly £200 to get 32 and 64 bit OS, if the key works for both, why not give you both rather than one and then make you buy another disc for an extautionate price for what it is just to get the other one if you need it?
Click to expand...

Actually you don't have to spend that much for both versions. You will spend that much on Ultimate, yes. But, you can purchase the vanilla home version of either 32 or 64bit and then opt to pay Microsoft a small fee to send you the other disk if you really want. Combined, they hardly approach the cost of the Ultimate version.

This is Microsoft trying to simplify things for the end user. Most people don't need the 64bit version anyway. And, even less need the ability to switch back and forth between both. A majority of the populous would be more confused by seeing a 32bit version and a 64bit version in the same box when they just wanted Vista Home Premium. Now, granted, Microsoft could simplify things more by not putting out so many different levels in the first place... I don't see that happening for quite some time though - if ever.
 
Microsoft gets sued if it bundles too much software with the OS.

Since the majority of computers used run one version of Windows
or another, Microsoft has an unfair marketing advantage over competing
software companies when they just include their own software with the OS.

If you bought an OS with Office software already included, which would be
MS Office of course, would you go buy something else? Of course not.

That eliminates a fair market, and thus creates lawsuits.
 
Bodaggit23 said:
Microsoft gets sued if it bundles too much software with the OS.

Since the majority of computers used run one version of Windows
or another, Microsoft has an unfair marketing advantage over competing
software companies when they just include their own software with the OS.

If you bought an OS with Office software already included, which would be
MS Office of course, would you go buy something else? Of course not.

That eliminates a fair market, and thus creates lawsuits.
Click to expand...

It's Microsoft's product, let them do what they want. The other companies were just to slow around the curve to come up with it first.
 
Zatharus said:
Actually you don't have to spend that much for both versions. You will spend that much on Ultimate, yes. But, you can purchase the vanilla home version of either 32 or 64bit and then opt to pay Microsoft a small fee to send you the other disk if you really want. Combined, they hardly approach the cost of the Ultimate version.

This is Microsoft trying to simplify things for the end user. Most people don't need the 64bit version anyway. And, even less need the ability to switch back and forth between both. A majority of the populous would be more confused by seeing a 32bit version and a 64bit version in the same box when they just wanted Vista Home Premium. Now, granted, Microsoft could simplify things more by not putting out so many different levels in the first place... I don't see that happening for quite some time though - if ever.
Click to expand...

and then make you buy another disc for an extautionate price
Click to expand...

I said about being able to purchase the disc, but as it would cost pennies to produce and ship each one because they will send it in with other stuff, they massively over charge for it. Yes it is cheaper to get say home premium then get the other version if you need, but even so if the liscence you bought is acceptable for 32 and 64 bit then microsoft aren't supplying what you initially bought and are asking for more money to get the full package, it seems a bit silly to me.

As for most people would be daunted by it, most people are daunted by the idea of uninstalling or installing windows because they think windows=the system, not BIOS=system, windows=more complex systeem with interface. All they would need to do would be too give the option of 32 or 64 bit and then next to 64 bit have a little link called "what is 64 bit?" or "the advantages of 64 bit" or something, and then explain how if you have 4GB or more of RAM then install 64 bit or if you have AMD 64 or later processor or intel P4 processor or later, install 64 as it will let it use it's full potential. They can then link another little thing to find the processor. We are talking a couple of KB of data here to hugely improve the microsoft service and OS.
Microsoft gets sued if it bundles too much software with the OS.

Since the majority of computers used run one version of Windows
or another, Microsoft has an unfair marketing advantage over competing
software companies when they just include their own software with the OS.

If you bought an OS with Office software already included, which would be
MS Office of course, would you go buy something else? Of course not.

That eliminates a fair market, and thus creates lawsuits
Click to expand...

I don't fully understand the logic here, Microsoft would get penalised if they bundled their own product into another of their own product because their operating systems are so popular because they are so good and because they managed to release at just the right time?

I can't see where possibe suers would get their law against this from and if they would have a leg to stand on, i'd have thought they'd just get laughed out of court and told to make a decent product, advertise it well, get a group of dedicated users to spread the word and maybe within a few years you will be on par with microsoft. It seems a bit silly to me if they can sue a company for being sucessful
 
Aastii said:
As for most people would be daunted by it, most people are daunted by the idea of uninstalling or installing windows because they think windows=the system, not BIOS=system, windows=more complex systeem with interface. All they would need to do would be too give the option of 32 or 64 bit and then next to 64 bit have a little link called "what is 64 bit?" or "the advantages of 64 bit" or something, and then explain how if you have 4GB or more of RAM then install 64 bit or if you have AMD 64 or later processor or intel P4 processor or later, install 64 as it will let it use it's full potential. They can then link another little thing to find the processor. We are talking a couple of KB of data here to hugely improve the microsoft service and OS.
Click to expand...

I think you are making my point for me. Why confuse the issue more since most people are daunted by a computer in the first place? ;)

When Microsoft finally gets around to eliminating the need for backwards compatibility (references to pigs flying may be appropriate here), then yes, I can see them making a simpler OS and designing ONE OS for a standard set of hardware (but that won't happen either, will it?). Microsoft doesn't control the hardware market that they build for, and they are trying to accommodate as many systems as possible with their software. In a sense, Microsoft is bound by their chaotic environment in this case.

As for educating the common public, good luck. Microsoft does offer plenty of information about their products if you care to dig for it. There are also a plethora of resources such as this forum available for people to research with if they so choose. And, there is the catch: if they choose to do it. The only way someone is going to learn is if they choose to. Also, for some people, technology in general is beyond their will to comprehend. Microsoft sells to those folks as well.


Bodaggit23 said:
Microsoft gets sued if it bundles too much software with the OS.
Click to expand...

You do have an excellent point there. :D
 
Aastii said:
I don't fully understand the logic here, Microsoft would get penalised if they bundled their own product into another of their own product because their operating systems are so popular because they are so good and because they managed to release at just the right time?

I can't see where possibe suers would get their law against this from and if they would have a leg to stand on, i'd have thought they'd just get laughed out of court and told to make a decent product, advertise it well, get a group of dedicated users to spread the word and maybe within a few years you will be on par with microsoft. It seems a bit silly to me if they can sue a company for being sucessful
Click to expand...

I suggest you take a look at the recent decades worth of anti-trust lawsuits Microsoft has been going through with just their internet browser alone. ;)
 
Aastii said:
Have they actually been sucessfully sued so far?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Successfully sued then slapped on the wrist. Successfully sued then given ridiculous reparations/demands to meet which were never enforced. Successfully sued then forgotten about - no ending determination or no follow-through on that determination. Successfully sued and forced to release yet more "versions" of their OS in certain markets. Cases dropped. Cases re-opened. Cases dropped again. It's been a circus - some of it entertaining.

I guess it depends on how you determine success in this case. :)
 
Zatharus said:
Yes and no. Successfully sued then slapped on the wrist. Successfully sued then given ridiculous reparations/demands to meet which were never enforced. Successfully sued then forgotten about - no ending determination or no follow-through on that determination. Successfully sued and forced to release yet more "versions" of their OS in certain markets. Cases dropped. Cases re-opened. Cases dropped again. It's been a circus - some of it entertaining.

I guess it depends on how you determine success in this case. :)
Click to expand...

So they failed misserably you mean? Is it because they have hopeless case because there isn't a trade law or any other type of law preventing people from having sucessful companies, more sucessful than everyone elses?

Or if there is could somebody post it and a reason why it has been made a law?
 
Well, like I said earlier, you really should read up on those cases. I would say they haven't been successfully sued in most of them. But then again, I also think that some of the cases have been waaaaay out there in the first place and they should rightly have been dropped.

Oh, there are trade-law infringements that have gone to court. And, Microsoft has lost some of those cases. The problem has been in enforcing them or determining any realistic corrective measure. For instance, the US justice department won their big case earlier in this decade, but then they turned around and told Microsoft "play nice" to which Microsoft essentially yawned. Then the EU had their way with them and did a little more...but, not much.

Microsoft is a company in the business to make money. They don't have the best business practices in the world (from economic and ethical standpoints), but they aren't by default evil.

(I know some of you out there who know me are probably laughing right now...yes, I cringed when typing that...)
 
chrisalv14 said:
I think their OS's are cheap in a way, less than £200 ;)
soon it will be less and less and less!
woo! :D
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you there, maybe in comparrison to todays money, yes, but if you look at inflation, it will cost MORE in 10 years time than today. To show you this in a real world way, 20 years ago, £10 was alot, compar that to today, i would buy something for £10 and not think twice, it is only £10 after all. Eventaully we will gete to a point where £10 is the same as 50p today, and you will be sat there going don't talk rubbish, but i wasn't around 20 years ago, but my parents and grandparents bang on about it, you only have to look at articles and stories and listen to people to know it happens everywhere all the time, but wages move up too so it all stays relative.

Also, i doubt it will get cheaper. As hardware gets more demanding with the software it wants, the software will get harder to make, so take more time to program because it will be larger and more complex, so cost more to make, because more time=more money payed as wages to the programmers
 
Aastii said:
because their operating systems are so popular because they are so good
Click to expand...

Are they that good? Or do people just not have a choice?
If you walked into a store right now and wanted
to buy a prebuilt pc, what OS options would you have?
Ask yourself the same question 10 years ago.

Aastii said:
I can't see where possible suers would get their law against
this from and if they would have a leg to stand on
Click to expand...


A monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient
control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the
terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition
for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies.
Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however
certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions.
Click to expand...
 
Bodaggit23 said:
Are they that good? Or do people just not have a choice?
If you walked into a store right now and wanted
to buy a prebuilt pc, what OS options would you have?
Ask yourself the same question 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Sure people have a choice. They may not like the choices, but they still have them. As you are inferring, yes, most store-bough pre-built machines will come with Windows. Microsoft does hold a very large majority in the personal computing business, but that doesn't mean there are not choices.

Install Linux on your new computer. Purchase a Mac. It depends on what you really want to do and how comfortable you are with the options. Most people use Windows because that is what is there on their computer. They live with it. If they want to change, they have options.

As for "are they that good?" That's for the individual to decide anyway.
 
You've taken my example too literally.

Microsoft didn't get where they are today because there were lots of choices.

Mac? I'll never understand why people pay so much to be confined. Even Apple has realized that they need to be able to put Windows on their hardware, but the logic of purchasing Windows to put it on a Mac fails me beyond words, and
negates the argument to guy a Mac.

Linux? What's a Linux? Most people don't know what it is, or how to get it,
or how to install it. Then you're confined as well, but this time only by software.

I think what you're referring to are options. There's always options, but ultimately people make logical choices. Mac and Linux don't seem like
logical choices to me. Just my opinion. :cool:
 
Depending on how you look at it, you could also make the argument that Microsoft got to where they are today because of so many choices, choices in hardware. As I mentioned earlier, MS is in a sense held back because they don't control the hardware their OS runs on. This is one reason why Windows has had legacy support going back decades now and why Windows has gotten to be the monolith it is today. Microsoft is taking steps to change that with Vista and more so with Windows 7.

A person is only confined by their knowledge and imagination. Most work-related tasks can be accomplished on any of the three OSes I mentioned and some more efficiently than others. The argument for being confined can apply equally to all three.

As for Apple allowing/helping Windows to load on their hardware, this can be seen as a smart move on their part. Many professionals who choose Apple hardware do so for various reasons, but quite a few of them also work with both OSes. Since Windows has the lead in market penetration, why not offer users the ability to do either or? Besides, the only legal way to run OS X currently is on a Mac, and belive it or not, there are people who prefer OS X to Windows. How does having the option to run Windows on a Mac negate the need/want to own that hardware?

Being able to run Windows in a virtual environment on Macintosh computers and the OS has been around since the early 90's. As a matter of fact, Connectix created Virtual PC for the Macintosh long before Microsoft bought them out. Now that the hardware between platforms is essentially identical (barring the BIOS/EFI issue), it makes sense to offer the ability to run Windows natively. If Apple didn't you can be assured that a third party would have sooner or later.
 
Zatharus said:
How does having the option to run Windows on a Mac negate the need/want to own that hardware?
Click to expand...

Poor Mr. Jobs. He's still ill and away from work, you know, from
"allowing" Mr. Gates to put his...phff "Windows thingy" onto the
Elitist Mac "Experience". The hives and fever may never leave him. :o

It makes no sense to me to spend twice the money, if you're just
going to run Windows anyway.

A pc build that costs half what a Mac Pro costs works great for me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top