|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Fwd: CG: Windows XP warning
|
> > I guess the main factor is that there are competing hardware manufacturers.
>
> MS doesn't make hardware so they don't make it any cheaper.
MS *does* make hardware (well, peripherals); they just don't make complete systems.
They can influence the price downward on systems, tho, by providing useful software, that makes you want to buy that particular style of hardware (i.e., non-proprietary) - IOW, driving up sales. And keeping the price low also helps sales, to a degree. A symbiotic relationship, to be sure.
> Programs can run without an os. In the bad old days most oses were just
> launching pads for programs.
This isn't the bad old days.
> > hardware is needed to run it. The competition to be the hardware supplier to fill the demand for PCs helps to drive prices down. As a result, that hardware can be purchased by Linux
> > users at a lower cost, because Linux can run on hardware meant for Windows.
>
> MS didn't start this competition.
No, but they helped it immeasurably.
> Also, there are new technologies. Also, I'm starting to sound like a
> broken record here, but a few companies made BETTER hardware, cheaper and
> they went out of business. So by standardizing on MS, many features that
See Beta vs VHS, no doubt.
> people who used the amiga took for granted (multimedia and a decent gui)
> are finally coming to people in the i386 world. So I argue that if MS had
> been any factor at all, it has been detrimental. Remember that apple,
If you mean from a technical point of vie, perhaps. If you mean from a widespread, non-technical user acceptance of low cost computers in the home, you're mistaken.
> atari, and commodore were competing with _each other_ was much as the ibm
> based systems were competing with each other. So, I don't see why MS has
> anything to do with this.
MS became the dominant OS (in terms of market share), which - in turn - has somewhat of a self-sustaining nature (because your average person knows and wants software at home that they know, and so this helps fuel similar hardware platform sales for home, as well as business). So yeah, they had a whole lot to do with it.
> No, it would have been a much better world if MS went out of business. But
> that didn't happen. Instead, it broke the law, which is why I said the
> market wasn't efficient, it's impossible to have an efficient market when
> people cheat. And inefficient markets hurt the consumer.
MS broke the law after they became dominant. Perhaps they cheated to get there, but that wasn't what they were convicted of.
It's not illegal to be a monopoly; it's illegal to use monopolistic power to retain or further that monopoly. Wasn't that the ruling?
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|