Re: NAS notes
Dave Higton
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <9910f4d04f...@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
> <daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > In message <4fd0b737...@no.spam.here> Chika
> > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Added to this, it must be noticed that Microsoft have yet to grasp the
> > > notion that people don't necessarily want to buy new systems every
> > > couple of years. The idea of evolving a system, such as with Linux,
> > > Unix or even RISC OS, seems to have evaded their notice
>
> > No, /you/ have to grasp the notion that incompatibility is a crucial
> > part of Microsoft's business plan. No incompatibility, no reason to
> > upgrade, no $ for Micro$oft.
>
> Crikey, and I thought *I* was cynical! :)
You ain't seen nothing yet, b-b-b-b-baby...
> The thing is that it may have been the case once that this was true, and
> M$ can still get away with it sometimes, but it is increasingly becoming a
> reason why people *won't* upgrade. They see all the incompatibilities and
> switch off.
It has long seemed to me that "PC compatibility" is an interesting
paradox. It's the reason that everybody was falling over themselves
to go to MS-DOS 20 years ago. But look at all the incompatibilities
that there have been in those 20 years.
> It may be a crucial part of their business plan, but it's a
> part that could end up killing them.
Let's hope so!
Dave
Chika
<daveh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > The thing is that it may have been the case once that this was true,
> > and M$ can still get away with it sometimes, but it is increasingly
> > becoming a reason why people *won't* upgrade. They see all the
> > incompatibilities and switch off.
> It has long seemed to me that "PC compatibility" is an interesting
> paradox. It's the reason that everybody was falling over themselves to
> go to MS-DOS 20 years ago. But look at all the incompatibilities that
> there have been in those 20 years.
Maybe. My own conclusion is that, while there are still those in the
general marketplace that don't have a clue, the overall level of
perception of ordinary users, both at home and in business, has improved
in those twenty years or so.
The whole field is very different to when I first started back when the
8-bit market was just about getting on its feet and Acorn were still
struggling for notice with its early machines. I'm not saying that it is
brilliant, but it does seem to be that people are questioning the actions
of the various controlling companies now, which could be a good thing.
It means, amongst other things, that Microsoft can't just release a
repackaged OS onto the market; they have to give good reasons for the
upgrade. Not just what *they* think are good reasons, either, but
something tangible that users are going to want. After all, money doesn't
grow on trees...
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... "Shhh! The Christians think they are up here alone."..God
Erik G
> It means, amongst other things, that Microsoft can't just release a
> repackaged OS onto the market; they have to give good reasons for the
> upgrade. Not just what *they* think are good reasons, either, but
> something tangible that users are going to want.
Reality shows that they can get away with selling baked air. Vista was
created with the sole purpose if giving Microsoft a grip on Digital
Rights Management. It offered nothing new to the users but some eye
candy, and actually put extra restrictions on the usefullness of the
computers it was installed on.
It was sold as "new and improved" and the public fell for it, even to
the point of a hyped-up introduction date with people camping outside
the shops to get their hands on it, the poor deluded suds.
In the meantime everybody who buys a computer of *any* type with *any*
OS is paying extra because of Microsofts pipe dream of playing movies on
a computer without pirates making copies. See
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html> why.
Essentially, hardware manufacturers have to jump throught hoops to get
Vista certification, making their products more expensive, and are
prohibited from making and selling non-Vista-certified hardware.
--
Erik G http://www.xs4all.nl/~erikgrnh
== 'From:' address is a spam trap. Do not use
== See web site for email address
Chika
> > It means, amongst other things, that Microsoft can't just release a
> > repackaged OS onto the market; they have to give good reasons for the
> > upgrade. Not just what *they* think are good reasons, either, but
> > something tangible that users are going to want.
> Reality shows that they can get away with selling baked air. Vista was
> created with the sole purpose if giving Microsoft a grip on Digital
> Rights Management. It offered nothing new to the users but some eye
> candy, and actually put extra restrictions on the usefullness of the
> computers it was installed on.
> It was sold as "new and improved" and the public fell for it, even to
> the point of a hyped-up introduction date with people camping outside
> the shops to get their hands on it, the poor deluded suds.
To an extent, I'll agree, at least for the first week or so. Then the
sales dropped off big time. Microsoft have been trying to work out for
themselves ever since then why there is such a reluctance for people to go
out and buy their "new and improved" OS, other than the reasons that
people keep telling them they won't, some of which you have touched upon
here.
> In the meantime everybody who buys a computer of *any* type with *any*
> OS is paying extra because of Microsofts pipe dream of playing movies on
> a computer without pirates making copies. See
> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html> why.
Which is why there are so many folks out there now downloading stuff
ripped from whatever source rather than paying for it. The story of Robin
Hood comes irresistably to mind here, with Microsoft playing the part of a
certain robber baron by the name of John. People will risk the illegality
of downloading rather than pay the taxes being demanded by the Merkan
corporate conglomerates.
> Essentially, hardware manufacturers have to jump throught hoops to get
> Vista certification, making their products more expensive, and are
> prohibited from making and selling non-Vista-certified hardware.
Although Microsoft had to climb down over their "XP is dead, we sell
Vista, get used to it" stand when such machines as the Eee came out.
Especially as its primary incarnation was with Linux rather than anything
Redmond-shaped.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Data, data everywhere, and not a byte to eat!
Steffen Huber
[Microsoft Vista]
> To an extent, I'll agree, at least for the first week or so. Then the
> sales dropped off big time. Microsoft have been trying to work out for
> themselves ever since then why there is such a reluctance for people to go
> out and buy their "new and improved" OS, other than the reasons that
> people keep telling them they won't, some of which you have touched upon
> here.
Amusingly, Microsoft is hit by the same problem as RISC OS. The features
unique to Vista are not compelling enough for the average user to
upgrade. Software companies see XP as their baseline spec and don't use
Vista specific features. XP is seen as "good enough" by many users.
The same happened before: when Microsoft tried to convince people to
migrate from Windows 98SE to Windows ME. Few did, many more stayed
(for very good reasons).
Steffen
--
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
druck
> The same happened before: when Microsoft tried to convince people to
> migrate from Windows 98SE to Windows ME. Few did, many more stayed
> (for very good reasons).
The difference then being ME was just a stop gap for home users because
Win2K had some compatibility problems with games and other 16bit apps,
so MS just bodged up a rehash of 98. XP was already well under
development to finally merge the NT and 95 lines.
This time, is Vista isn't a stop gap, its meant to be the next big thing
which has had over 10 years of development. There is no plan B, as the
next version of Windows, (Windows 7 although it should be 8 if they
could count) is at least 4 years away.
If Microsoft do finally pull the rug out from under XP for force
everyone on to Vista, there is never to be a better opportunity for Mac
OS and Linux to make some traction on the desktop.
---druck
Chika
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Steffen Huber wrote:
> > The same happened before: when Microsoft tried to convince people to
> > migrate from Windows 98SE to Windows ME. Few did, many more stayed
> > (for very good reasons).
> The difference then being ME was just a stop gap for home users because
> Win2K had some compatibility problems with games and other 16bit apps,
> so MS just bodged up a rehash of 98. XP was already well under
> development to finally merge the NT and 95 lines.
To an extent, true, though W2K was still pretty much segregated at the
time (Neptune and Odessey weren't merged into Whistler - XP to be - until
after it emerged what a total disaster ME was, though the distinction
isn't that important as Neptune was already showing signs of what XP would
eventually become).
> This time, is Vista isn't a stop gap, its meant to be the next big thing
> which has had over 10 years of development. There is no plan B, as the
> next version of Windows, (Windows 7 although it should be 8 if they
> could count) is at least 4 years away.
This is where I believe that Microsoft are having problems. If Vista isn't
a stopgap, then it is a very poor return on so much work, but it is
documented that a number of "improvements" that were supposed to be in
Vista had to be dropped for various reasons, which is why it can be
perceived as a stopgap, much as the BBC B+ or the Apple III. I suppose it
could be argued either way, especially as Microsoft are making preliminary
noises about the future of Windows itself (I know that Midori is very
preliminary right now, but it shows that Microsoft are, at least, thinking
beyond the current status quo, even if it comes to nothing).
> If Microsoft do finally pull the rug out from under XP for force
> everyone on to Vista, there is never to be a better opportunity for Mac
> OS and Linux to make some traction on the desktop.
Agreed. The only thing holding back these operating systems right now is
the continuing reluctance of ordinary users to consider them coupled with
the folk lore about these systems being hard to use. If they can kill off
these rumours, they'd really have a chance.
It's now that I really wish that RISC OS could make some headway, too.
Well, I can wish, can't I? :)
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Is that lemon in your tea? No, s'lime.
druck
> In article <fsWdnXexn9HMfy_V...@posted.plusnet>,
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> If Microsoft do finally pull the rug out from under XP and force
>> everyone on to Vista, there is never to be a better opportunity for Mac
>> OS and Linux to make some traction on the desktop.
> Agreed. The only thing holding back these operating systems right now is
> the continuing reluctance of ordinary users to consider them coupled with
> the folk lore about these systems being hard to use. If they can kill off
> these rumours, they'd really have a chance.
Agreed
> It's now that I really wish that RISC OS could make some headway, too.
It would have had to been back in the ME days for RISC OS to be able
to offer an alternative with any resemblance of credibility. After
all, what have we done since then?
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Tony Houghton
There was a danger for MS of the EeePC making Linux popular with the
masses, so they've had to continue supporting XP.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Chika
Quite so, but the current popularity of machines such as the Eee means
that Microsoft might have trouble putting off the demise of XP far longer
than they really want to as it seems unlikely that Vista or its successors
will ever be able to support them. It may even mean biting the bullet and
continuing the development of the older system just to keep the Linux
threat at bay, or just giving up that market and letting Linux have it.
Of course, this depends also on how such machines develop in the future.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... The truth is a virus.....
druck
> In article <20080826001...@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton
> <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote:
>> There was a danger for MS of the EeePC making Linux popular with the
>> masses, so they've had to continue supporting XP.
> Quite so, but the current popularity of machines such as the Eee means
> that Microsoft might have trouble putting off the demise of XP far longer
> than they really want to as it seems unlikely that Vista or its successors
> will ever be able to support them.
They are using their muscle with the manufacturers, who are all big
Windows licencees. You notice how Asus have been instructed not to
undercut the Windows versions of their machines, and artifically raise
the price of the Linux ones by adding additional (and mainly
unnecessary) SSD storage, so you can't perform a direct price
comparison and see the real cost of XP.
> It may even mean biting the bullet and continuing the development of
> the older system just to keep the Linux threat at bay, or just giving
> up that market and letting Linux have it.
You never know, they might be forced to do an embarrassing U-turn,
like Intel have. Ditching the inefficient clock bitch of the Pentium 4
net burst architecture, and turning to their tiny Israeli lab to warm
over the late 90s Pentium III, which forms the basis of all current
Core and Core 2 chips.
> Of course, this depends also on how such machines develop in the future.
In the wrong direction mainly. The newer netbook are getting bigger
and more expensive, instead sticking to the Ł200 price point and
improving usability.
Theo Markettos
> They are using their muscle with the manufacturers, who are all big
> Windows licencees. You notice how Asus have been instructed not to
> undercut the Windows versions of their machines, and artifically raise
> the price of the Linux ones by adding additional (and mainly
> unnecessary) SSD storage, so you can't perform a direct price
> comparison and see the real cost of XP.
It may not be directly comparable, but now the netbook concept has been
proved the Chinese are starting to ramp up production of their own designs.
Software and user support on Chinese goods has typically been their
downfall. But if the device runs vanilla Linux then it's mostly a
manufacturing problem - which the Chinese are very good at. Just look at
the wireless router market - apart from proprietary configuration stuff, the
Chinese/Taiwanese models are up there with the rest but at a lower price
point.
> In the wrong direction mainly. The newer netbook are getting bigger
> and more expensive, instead sticking to the ?200 price point and
> improving usability.
The Chinese are announcing sub-100 pound netbooks. Those are mostly MIPS
toys running WinCE, but hopefully a sensible middle ground will develop.
Theo
druck
wrote:
> But if the device runs vanilla Linux then it's mostly a
> manufacturing problem - which the Chinese are very good at. Just look at
> the wireless router market - apart from proprietary configuration stuff, the
> Chinese/Taiwanese models are up there with the rest but at a lower price
> point.
But unfortunately a lot of that is state sponsored piracy. No foreign
company can set up a cheap manufacturing plant in China without
forming a joint venture with a local company. All to often after such
ventures are set up, run for a while, then the Chinese cancel the
agreement, but carry on manufacturing the equipment using the
technology which they have aquired.
> The Chinese are announcing sub-100 pound netbooks. Those are mostly MIPS
> toys running WinCE, but hopefully a sensible middle ground will develop.
If its WinCE, its guarenteed to be useless.