Posted on 05/09/2005 10:45:13 AM PDT by HAL9000
Common sense says he knew - and it was probably his idea. You should spend more time with billionaires.
Besides, whoever made the investment is surely regretting it now, since the stock has slid 40% in just the last few months. So Dell's $100 million is now magically $60 million, thanks to the boneheaded investment in Linux.
This is about a long-term power struggle between Gates and Dell, not a short-term investment.
"The $100 Dell PC could happen if they don't have to split the money with Microsoft."
BS. Microsoft makes less than $100 per PC and in many cases $25.
"Of course, Microsoft could easily afford to start their own PC manufacturing division, and drive Dell out of business."
Now, yer thinkin'.
I always laugh at those who say Microsoft will die for some third party reason. The fact is, Microsoft could VERY easily create and promote a better PC architecture and drive hardware sales and costs. VERY easily, and don't think it hasn't crossed their minds, it has. In fact, I am suprised it hasn't happened. I think because Dell, IBM, and others have done a great job selling cheaper and better PCs that Microsoft hasn't stepped forward.
Hardware sales have skimpy margins and they can even get thinner, which is why I believe Microsoft hasn't stepped forward.
When Microsoft starts competing against Dell in PC manufacturing, Dell needs a free operating system - or they will go out of business. Microsoft can afford to sell hardware at a loss. Dell can't.
I thought you were implying that Microsoft charges soo much for the OS that a $100, or even near $100, PC wasn't possible. The last I knew, Microsoft charged $25 to Dell per OS install.
There is not enough profit for Dell in Microsoft's dream of a $100 Windows PC.
Microsoft could sell the same things Dell sells, but more profitably - or $25 cheaper.
I believe a reasonable home PC used for the checkbook and online shopping should be had for $150. A simple 1.6Ghz Pentium-M, 128 MB memory, a seriously scaled down Windows XP OS, a 40GB hard drive, with a 15 inch LCD. They could use a cheaper motherboard without the fancy I/O systems.
Hardly. Dell is firmly partnered with both Intel and Microsoft, which isn't about to change. Don't believe it? Here's a good read for you:
Problem is, then you have to bluff your way through their tech support script. "Open the Control Panel... double click on System..."
Usually by the time we call tech support we already know that is a failed device. We do a pretty good diagnosis on our own, so what we really want is a replacement wireless card/hard drive/etc. We have yet to be wrong.
Dell chairman Michael Dell has cast doubt on the potential of Linux on the desktop, and also distanced himself from his own investment company's $99.5m investment in Linux distributor Red Hat.
The rumor going around today is that Microsoft will acquire Red Hat.
LOL, I'd say the chance of that is zero, just like the Dell BS, any decent investigation of that hogwash would discount it for a variety of reasons. I really expect better analysis out of you, I understand when the Linux guys try to legitimize Linux and make all these pie in the sky claims like Microsoft is going to buy Red Hat, LOL again, but don't tell me you're falling for every single line. Microsoft could make a free copy of Red Hat whenever they wanted, just like CentOS and WhiteBox do. If anybody was going to buy any Linux company, IBM obviously already would have done it. It just doesn't make any sense to buy into Linux, and ridiculous claims like this are obviously intended to cover up that fact.
I don't invent the current rumors, I just read them on ZDNet and slashdot today. Microsoft Red Hat Linux for Xbox 360 is not unthinkable, since Red Hat already has Linux for PowerPC. It wouldn't be the first time Microsoft has acquired an operating system.
If Red Hat is in play, it would be an attractive target for several major companies.
I know, I said you were falling for more of the Linux bs, not that you were making it up.
If Red Hat is in play, it would be an attractive target for several major companies.
If any of the MAJOR hw/sw vendors were interested in Linux they would have already made their own "distro", it's ridiculously easy to take a free copy of Red Hat's code and make your own version, just like all the others have done including Red Flag in China. It doesn't cost a penny. But as far as actually paying any money to buy Red Hat, IBM would have done it already if anyone was going to, but it's just not worth it. To now claim that Microsoft of all companies is now going to instead is hysterical. I guess if it wasn't so asbsurd, you might not have fallen for it.
Red Hat has a free version of Linux called Fedora that doesn't cost a penny, but they do charge money for the enterprise editions. And they can support Linux on PowerPCs.
IBM's reason for not owning a Linux distribution was to avoid IP problems - but then the SCO litigation occurred. It may be too risky for IBM to acquire Red Hat during the lawsuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.