MS pushing themselves out of the market?

Help and discussion about non-Linux operating systems

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Postby Nigel » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:42 am

phorneker wrote: It is bad enough that we are paying in excess of $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline here in the US...


Think yourself lucky. In the UK we are paying closer to US$7 per US gallon (approx US$ 8.30 per UK gallon, or just under £1 per litre).
User avatar
Nigel
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby Béranger » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:24 am

wyliecoyoteuk wrote:Realistic usable spec:
Pentium core duo, 4Gb memory, 50Gb hard disk space
No kidding, is now Windows really able to use 4 GB of RAM?! Till now, everything over 2 GB was very poorly used. Or they will just fill it up with some random bytes to make like they'd been using it, or something...

15 GB of disk space only for Vista and Office... and the rest up to 50 GB, that's most likely for bad clusters/inodes or whatever it has ;-)

I have *tons* of Linux apps in a few GB. If I'm not D/L .ISO files and I'm not compiling a lot, I don't use that much disk!
Béranger
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:13 pm
Location: Romania

Postby GMorgan » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:51 pm

Nigel wrote:
phorneker wrote: It is bad enough that we are paying in excess of $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline here in the US...


Think yourself lucky. In the UK we are paying closer to US$7 per US gallon (approx US$ 8.30 per UK gallon, or just under £1 per litre).


Until John Clease takes over the US in the name of HM. US and UK fuel prices will be cross normalised at that point.
GMorgan
LXF regular
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Postby Hello » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:55 pm

Nigel wrote:
phorneker wrote: It is bad enough that we are paying in excess of $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline here in the US...


Think yourself lucky. In the UK we are paying closer to US$7 per US gallon (approx US$ 8.30 per UK gallon, or just under £1 per litre).



:( :( :( :(
Hello
LXF regular
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:51 pm

Postby jjmac » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:26 pm

Nigel wrote:
>>
phorneker wrote:
>>>>
It is bad enough that we are paying in excess of $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline here in the US...
>>>>


Think yourself lucky. In the UK we are paying closer to US$7 per US gallon (approx US$ 8.30 per UK gallon, or just under £1 per litre).
>>

Thats expensive,

hmmm, a pound is around $2+ over here, roughly 49pUK per $1AU

We pay $1.30AU per litre currently....
$5.92AU per gallon

about $4.14US @ 70c US per 1$ AU, more when the exchange goes up, which it usually does....


jm
http://counter.li.org
#313537

The FVWM wm -=- www.fvwm.org -=-

Somebody stole my air guitar, It happened just the other day,
But it's ok, 'cause i've got a spare ...
jjmac
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby ollie » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:51 am

Microsoft are starting to have problems with Vista/Office 2007 already - they have had to add Open Document Format support to Office 2007 at the request of governments and large corporations (only read support so far I think) and it is not released. In late 2005 a Microosft exec stated that to effectively run Vista and Office with all the bells you would need 2 GB of RAM, SATA-II HDD, dedicated graphics card with 256 MB memory and he didn't mention having any other applications running. Recent costings with these specs put the system at $2500+ in Australia without Office (assuming Vista is the same price as XP Pro).

Not many businesses can afford to have $2500 tied up on systems doing Internet, e-mail, word processing and spreadsheets, which is all most office systems do really :wink: , so cheaper alternatives with these features become more attractive all the time. The current versions of Apple's iMacs are also looking good for these tasks with better multimedia support and security (due to the FreeBSD background) and with Bootcamp making the installation of Windows easy market share will increase.

IMHO, Linux needs a single place to configure installed components, preferably with a GUI interface, to make skills truly transferable between distributions. I use OpenSUSE with YaST which makes a great start but really it needs to be much more "intelligent" - if I don't have a DNS server installed why do I need the configuration icon.
User avatar
ollie
Moderator
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Bathurst NSW Australia

Postby Hello » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:56 pm

ollie wrote:Microsoft are starting to have problems with Vista/Office 2007 already - they have had to add Open Document Format support to Office 2007 at the request of governments and large corporations (only read support so far I think) and it is not released. In late 2005 a Microosft exec stated that to effectively run Vista and Office with all the bells you would need 2 GB of RAM, SATA-II HDD, dedicated graphics card with 256 MB memory and he didn't mention having any other applications running. Recent costings with these specs put the system at $2500+ in Australia without Office (assuming Vista is the same price as XP Pro).

Not many businesses can afford to have $2500 tied up on systems doing Internet, e-mail, word processing and spreadsheets, which is all most office systems do really :wink: , so cheaper alternatives with these features become more attractive all the time. The current versions of Apple's iMacs are also looking good for these tasks with better multimedia support and security (due to the FreeBSD background) and with Bootcamp making the installation of Windows easy market share will increase.

IMHO, Linux needs a single place to configure installed components, preferably with a GUI interface, to make skills truly transferable between distributions. I use OpenSUSE with YaST which makes a great start but really it needs to be much more "intelligent" - if I don't have a DNS server installed why do I need the configuration icon.


Actually useful. Although I know about dns I dont know about whats the best dns server and for linux there are quite a few a click on that button and it will install the package I will need and configure it for me with no confusion
Hello
LXF regular
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:51 pm

Postby TheDoctor » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:24 am

ollie wrote:Not many businesses can afford to have $2500 tied up on systems doing Internet, e-mail, word processing and spreadsheets, which is all most office systems do really


Which is why a strpped-down distro offering only these (plus, perhaps, an upgrade path to another, more complex, distro) would probabaly do well in the market place in terms of number of installations. Whether it would do well in terms of profit is another matter altogether.
TheDoctor
LXF regular
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Postby atomic1fire » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:38 am

with the many distros of linux i doubt cost will be a problem since theres many ways you can use the money going to it
atomic1fire
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:34 am

Postby Karti » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:21 pm

Hi all,

Just thought I would add my two pennies worth, though that will not be much in a pertol station!

Having installed Vista and Office 2007 on my test machine which I run linux variants on, it tells me that my machine is only rated as a 2 out of 5.

They plan to market software in the future with a score so that you will know if your machine will be able to run it.

My stats are: AMD 2400, GeForce 5900 with 128Mb and 2Gb mem.

2 out of 5? ................... Suppose I should just throw it in the bin then!

My gaming machine is faster and I get the software as part of the MS action pack, but if I am like any other 40 year old (OK 41) pc gaming geeks (I use the word lightly), I would not pay to change it. I would just hope that gaming companies would port their wares across sooner!

Ahh well....

K
;)
User avatar
Karti
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:33 pm

Postby TheDoctor » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:03 pm

Karti wrote:They plan to market software in the future with a score so that you will know if your machine will be able to run it.


And if not, they'll provide an upgrade for free? Or refund your money?

Surely they should tell you whether your PC will run the software or not before you buy it?
TheDoctor
LXF regular
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Postby Nigel » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:06 pm

TheDoctor wrote:Surely they should tell you whether your PC will run the software or not before you buy it?


Don't be silly - that would leave them with no customers ;)
User avatar
Nigel
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby TheDoctor » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:33 pm

Nigel wrote:that would leave them with no customers ;)


And your point is? :D
TheDoctor
LXF regular
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Postby Diagmato » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:01 pm

To the original point of this topic - it is very unlikely that MS will only allow Vista to be bought as an OEM on a new pc. For a start, pc's are shipping with "Vista compatible" logo's. Either they expect you to buy some horrible OEM installation disc from the place you bought your pc (if you didnt custom-build it) or its just a heads up that youll be able to 'upgrade' to the next version of windows. Plus there is the different versions which theyve previewed - the home basic edition, the home power user, and all the rest, whatever each version is called.

MS will lose alot of fans to people who get one of the lower versions expecting the 'seriously cool' Aero glass, only to find a message telling them to purchase a more proffessional version. Its inevitable that a large number of people will get smacked by that.

It seems, most computer users are so fussed over a good looking desktop that nothing else matters to them - security, stability - sure, they complain when these issues arise, but tell these people that there are better solutions, and the arguement that 'it looks cheap' comes along. I dont know if others have this problem, but so many people ive tried reccomending Linux to (in a suitable manner - not to a pc gamer for example) seem to think that the XP desktop looks more proffessional, and completely blank out the fact that Linux desktops are extremely customize-able).

Vista will get people very excited because it looks generations better than XP, and from what it seems, most the population of general home users think that there is nothing but Windows out there. I do pretty much believe that if Linux is to trully impress users over to its side of the fence, then kde and gnome especially need to look the biz, by default. For those who plan to install on weaker hardware, a gnome-minimal option could be provided.
My Blog

Micro$oft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the full house
Diagmato
LXF regular
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Cardiff

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:41 pm

The thng is, the aero desktop is OTT.
And it is seriously overspecced.
I can run compiz and openGL or far lower spec hardware.

Windows Vista is dead in the water. Microsoft are going to struggle to sell it.
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
wyliecoyoteuk
LXF regular
 
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Other OS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests