On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:39:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more
>   things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

It is, but AIUI, the original concept was that the system should be open 
by default (I understand that was a design requirement that Gates put in 
place).  Then they discovered that a default "allow" security policy was 
bad, so they started retrofitting.

The thing that I find somewhat ironic is that piracy (which I don't 
condone) is part of the reason that Windows is predominant on the desktop 
these days.  It's far from the only reason, but people wanted Windows but 
didn't want to pay for it, so they borrowed copies of it back in the days 
when DOS shipped with machines and pre-installation was something that 
was generally not done.

MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I 
think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost 
to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:42:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?

I don't think the US DOJ or the EU commission would consider that 
appropriate under the current "agreements" in place due to the antitrust 
litigation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

Kind of sucks when the customer isn't always the user, doesn't it? :-)

>   In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.

We have that. They're called cell phones. Or microwave ovens. Or iPhones.


Invisible wrote:
 > How about if you design hardware so that it will only run "authorised"
 > software

Yeah. This is the iPhone, and Apple is slowly moving the rest of their 
OS that direction.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

In article <486b862e@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
> 
> > (Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose
 
> > your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs 
> > without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)
> 
>   In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
> It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
> 
>   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
> 
What? You mean they are not already basically doing that with DirectX 
10? lol Seriously though, they are already making the hardware so its 
hard, or nearly impossible, to take full advantage of it (or work at 
all) without Windows. Putting a chip on the MB the way Apple initially 
did, so that only their OS would run on their boards, isn't that far of 
a stretch.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
>  From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only 
> PC. Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the 
> Sony Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?

In that instance, it's because Sony Ericsson isn't making their menu 
system for Nokia phones, and Nokia isn't actively adding features to 
prevent them from doing so.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I 
> think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost 
> to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.

They would lose their biggest single source of revenue, and with it the 
incentive to develop it further.

Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10 
years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:59:20 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I
>> think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost
>> to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.
> 
> They would lose their biggest single source of revenue, and with it the
> incentive to develop it further.

I think the combined revenue for their applications probably either is 
(or could be) their largest source of revenue.

> Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10
> years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.

Depends on how they structure the business.  If the apps fed into the OS 
development stream and the apps were successful enough, then it could be 
self-reinforcing.

And it's hard for me to believe I'm saying this, since I advocate(d) 
breaking MS up and splitting the OS and apps into two separate entities.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think the combined revenue for their applications probably either is 
> (or could be) their largest source of revenue.

IIRC, Windows and Office are (respectively) their #1 and #2 earners. 
Everything else pales in comparison.  Their most successful products 
outside of these two make nowhere near as much money for them.

Of course, that was a few years ago, and things could have changed.

>> Think Windows Vista is bad now?  Imagine how bad things would be 10
>> years from now, if MS's development budget were slashed in half.
> 
> Depends on how they structure the business.  If the apps fed into the OS 
> development stream and the apps were successful enough, then it could be 
> self-reinforcing.

Yeah, but they wouldn't get paid for the OS, only for the Apps, so 
there's the temptation to focus on the apps and not the OS.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:56:09 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>>  From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only  
>> PC. Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the  
>> Sony Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?
>
> In that instance, it's because Sony Ericsson isn't making their menu  
> system for Nokia phones, and Nokia isn't actively adding features to  
> prevent them from doing so.

But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought music  
what's the difference?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> But Apple just aren't making their phones to accept non-Apple bought 
> music what's the difference?
> 

Personally, I see none.  So I don't know.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message