@zariok:Some businesses need those certain features of MS Office, and not having them -is- holding them back from switching. Additionally, if you have a large group of users who need an office suite but are only familiar with MS, you're going to severely cripple productivity while they relearn the OpenOffice way of doing things. Long term, that's probably a sound decision, but short term, those productivity losses could bankrupt your company. Paying licenses is often cheaper than retraining.
This is hilarious. Intel will, for the foreseeable future, be using Lunix to design it's chips. All the tools work on Linux, and no one is working on porting those tools to Windows, because there would be a HUGE performance loss in doing so. Linux is by FAR superior to Windows for doing the kinds of processing that are needed by chip manufacturers. Not all of Intel is run on Linux of course, but even the windows machines will never be upgraded to Vista. Intel is sticking with XP until the next version of Windows comes out. That is an even bigger FU to microsoft. The only place Vista will be used in Intel is in the validation labs to test that the hardware works with Vista.
@wallyYes, and as one of those people, I support Microsoft's right to do business, because if I open a business I would want the same rights as Microsoft.I am thinking of myself and society as a whole by advocating a reasonable legal position.Microsoft is not slavery. In fact, they treat their employees better than almost any other company today.I support that. It is in fact, Microsoft's dominant position that has allowed it to treat its employees well as opposed to many others. I don't work for Microsoft, but I do work in engineering and I quickly see how fast commoditization that might help the consumer hurts companies and employees.Given the craziness of patents, the best tools companies have is vendor lockin and frameworks. I think it is reasonable for them to leverage those tools to maintain their market. To put it better. You advocate the WalMartization of the software industry by making these as cheap as possible for the consumer. Whereas I would allow MS to use reasonable pressure and incompatibility to leverage its position to make sure it keeps the industry alive and well. If it goes too far, the market pushes back as I said before.
thokuFeb 10, 2009
The 360 is a great product. Even with its RRODs it has been light years ahead of the PS3 its only true direct competitor.
burrgrinderFeb 10, 2009
@zariok:Some businesses need those certain features of MS Office, and not having them -is- holding them back from switching. Additionally, if you have a large group of users who need an office suite but are only familiar with MS, you're going to severely cripple productivity while they relearn the OpenOffice way of doing things. Long term, that's probably a sound decision, but short term, those productivity losses could bankrupt your company. Paying licenses is often cheaper than retraining.
freqkFeb 10, 2009
You really think microsoft is fighting a "losing battle" against linux?Get real.
mifarestd50Feb 10, 2009
Cows are orange./s
chofstoneFeb 11, 2009
This is hilarious. Intel will, for the foreseeable future, be using Lunix to design it's chips. All the tools work on Linux, and no one is working on porting those tools to Windows, because there would be a HUGE performance loss in doing so. Linux is by FAR superior to Windows for doing the kinds of processing that are needed by chip manufacturers. Not all of Intel is run on Linux of course, but even the windows machines will never be upgraded to Vista. Intel is sticking with XP until the next version of Windows comes out. That is an even bigger FU to microsoft. The only place Vista will be used in Intel is in the validation labs to test that the hardware works with Vista.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2009
"We cannot let our OS run on any other hardware than ours."Sounds familiar???
scamper22Feb 12, 2009
@wallyYes, and as one of those people, I support Microsoft's right to do business, because if I open a business I would want the same rights as Microsoft.I am thinking of myself and society as a whole by advocating a reasonable legal position.Microsoft is not slavery. In fact, they treat their employees better than almost any other company today.I support that. It is in fact, Microsoft's dominant position that has allowed it to treat its employees well as opposed to many others. I don't work for Microsoft, but I do work in engineering and I quickly see how fast commoditization that might help the consumer hurts companies and employees.Given the craziness of patents, the best tools companies have is vendor lockin and frameworks. I think it is reasonable for them to leverage those tools to maintain their market. To put it better. You advocate the WalMartization of the software industry by making these as cheap as possible for the consumer. Whereas I would allow MS to use reasonable pressure and incompatibility to leverage its position to make sure it keeps the industry alive and well. If it goes too far, the market pushes back as I said before.
brantlymurphyFeb 15, 2009
Man that guy never ceases to amaze me... Fascist. GNU/Linux all the way.
amenicJun 11, 2009
4 words....