|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/09/2002 10:51:17 AM PDT by GeneD
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. won't cut the price on its Windows operating system to compete with a $199 personal computer that runs rival operating software, the No. 1 software company's CEO said Wednesday.
Walmart.com, the online shopping site of the nation's largest retailer Wal-Mart Inc., has been selling a $199 personal computer -- monitor and modem not included -- that runs the Lindows operating system.
LindowsOS, from San Diego, California-based Lindows.com, is based on the Linux operating system, which is a free, open-source operating system that is increasingly being used by large corporations for back-end systems. But it has made few inroads in PCs.
The computer is made by Microtel Computer Systems and runs on a microprocessor from VIA Technologies, the Taiwan chip maker.
"Somebody is subsidizing that hardware. Somebody's losing -- people know what power supplies and processors cost," Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer said at a Gartner technology conference here.
The $199 price tag is less than half the price of Windows-based PCs from low-priced vendors like Dell Computer Corp. or Gateway Inc., which sell PCs for as little as $500 or $600. It's also below the $399 entry-level price at eMachines Inc.
Demand for personal computers has been weak for almost two years as both businesses and consumers have held back on spending. Gartner said earlier this week that a return to higher PC demand may be delayed as users make do with the PCs they already have.
Microsoft's Windows operating systems for low-end PCs costs about $50, and Ballmer said that price has been steady for at least seven years.
Cutting the price of the operating system by $20, for instance, wouldn't sell more machines, he said.
"Will that really drive a lot of demand? No. Will it wipe out our ability to do innovative work like Windows XP? That it will do," he said.
In addition, he said, it would cause "logistical nightmares" in terms of licensing for PC manufacturers, who often load the Windows operating system onto PCs before they ship them.
LindowsOS is designed to run Windows applications.
Microsoft sued Lindows.com in December of 2001 for trademark infringement, saying the name would confuse the public. Lindows.com was started early in 2001 by Michael Robertson, who founded MP3.com and later sold it to Vivendi Universal.
Microsoft had said it spent $1.2 billion over the past 18 years to market and promote Windows, which runs an estimated 90 percent of the world's personal computers, and that Lindows threatened the brand value.
Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
I think that's the key. My P3 500 does everything I want it to do. I can't see upgrading at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
The problem for the people who think LINUX can compete with Windows is it is not competitive to Windows. The Dell PC was an IBM Pc clone. LOOK UP CLONE IN THE DICTIONARY. It is the key to success in defeating Microsoft.
If you could run IBM's Pc you could run Michael Dell's Pc. Back in 1915, when Ford had 90 percent of the car market, if you could drive Ford's Model T, you could drive General Motors' Chevrolet.
Being able to run Windows does not mean you can run LINUX. NO one could have defeated the Ford' car with an airplane. And LINUX will not defeat WINDOWS. LINUX and Windows are operating systems in the way that planes and cars are transportation vehicles.
What kills Linux is the training costs. I can buy a Dell for $800 bucks with Windows installed and spend zero on training. Or I could pay $200 for one with Linux and spend $1,000 on training. When my total cost is $1,200 to buy a LINUX computer or $800.00 to buy a Windows computer, which do you think I will buy?
When you look at the total cost FREE LINUX costs more than EXPENSIVE WINDOWS. CEO's look at total cost. That is why they get the big bucks. Until the LINUX people solve that problem they are doomed to 1 or 2 percent of the desktop share.
Even in servers LINUX can't get the low end market. One can easily spend $2,000 on operating system software for each Windows 2000 server. The same functionality comes with FREE LINUX. Anyone can install and hook up Windows 2000 servers to windows 2000 or xp clients. It costs at least $50,000 a year to get a guy who can get a Linux server to work seamlessly with Windows 2000 and XP clients.
The total cost of server software for 4 servers running Windows 2000 is about $12,000.00 including labor to install and maintain them for the first year. OK! The total costs of server software for 4 servers running LINUX is $50,000.00 when the cost of the required LINUX GURU is included. And each year of its life thereafter the windows cost is about $3,000 for labor to maintain the servers, and the GURU to keep my Free LINUX running will cost $50,000.00 plus raises.
It works like this small business can't aford FREE LINUX. But it can hack the costs of EXPENSIVE WINDOWS.
Linux now installs as easily as Windows. But configuring it so Windows clients are able to talk to LINUX servers costs at least one LINUX GURU.
When a Linux client has no training costs and any windows server jockey can do a linux server, Bill Gates will be in deep doo doo. But until a LINUX GURU is not required to use a LINUX server with Windows Client, ONLY the big RICH companies can affort LINUX.
I've tried 4 different distributions, with NONE of them installing properly so far. Most of my problems have centered on getting the Mickey Mouse but essential app X-Windows to operate properly.
The level of configuration required by X-Windows is utterly ridiculous. What program nowadays can't properly deal with a standard PC display (laptop in my case)? Everything else I run, from 1980's utilities and programs through year 2000 CAD programs have no trouble at all. MS-DOS, Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 all can do it - but the latest Mandrake and Red Hat distributions couldn't, and neither could older Caldera and Red Hat.
Linux is for masochists.
I'd been hoping for something to match all the "lean and mean" and "high performance" hype. What I found was an unfriendly '60's mainframe OS with a poorly glued on GUI that ANY version of Windows could beat, performance-wise.
For servers it may be great. For the desktop, it's definitely not ready for prime time. Perhaps the late, late, late show, for those with nothing better to do with their time.
jimt, which distros and versions did you try?
I sympathize with you; not all my installations went well either and, like you, most of the trouble centered on getting X going. But nearly all of that occurred in the time from Mandrake 5 through Red Hat 6. I've had no trouble with RH7.2 or 7.3, and Lycoris (formerly Redmond Linux) was the easiest install ever.
I'm running RH7.3 at home on my primary machine. (The Win machine rarely gets booted up now.) Linux is still "expert-friendly," but it's getting better.
Nobody wants an incompatible OS.
BUMP
There is hope for you yet! :)
<subliminal voice>You want a Mac. Mac's are for macho men like Rush Limbaugh and George Bush. You can run Windows, Mac and UNIX programs on a Mac. You are comfortable with your sexuality and do not fear using a Mac.</subliminal voice>
Microsoft has slit its own throat with Windows XP licensing. The number of people that i know (and i know a LOT of people who use computers) that have actually purchased Windows XP (some got it on their new computers without asking for it) I can count on my fingers and toes.
I've spent the last two days cleaning up after the bugbear virus. On Microsoft machines, of course.
Those who have made the switch to Linux don't have to worry about this. Linux is worth having *just* because it is higher quality software, and as a result MUCH, MUCH safer from a security standpoint.
Microsoft is quickly becoming an economically fascist organization: when you download the "latest" Windows Media Player (8 or above), it installs Digital Rights Management software so you can only play MP3 files which are RIAA approved...
The biggest problem with Windows and any Microsoft software is that whatever you study and learn about it is not *real* knowledge.
Learning what combinations of pull down menus to exercise to do something is superstitious behaviour... which will become obsolete next time you upgrade.
With Linux, when you learn about how programs interact with the system, that knowledge is usable to solve the next problem -- and furthermore is usable under Solaris, AIX, OS X, BSD, etc...
or just pay $450 for an emachines box that already has everything and you can actually find software for. people want AOL. once they take the training wheels off, they graduated to 128meg video cards.
it's niche market marketing.
(http://cin.earthweb.com/article/1,3555,10493_1477911,00.html)
would dispute your claims that Linux TCO is higher than Windows, quite the contrary...
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.