Monopolist

[Bodo]

Reading the threads about the recent attacks on Windows PCs by the W32.Blaster virus got me thinking.

Microsoft seems to have a nearly monopol in desktop computers; everybody is using MS for several reasons:

It's the user interface most people know how to use; and only few are willing to learn to use another one.

It's what most IT people know how to support.

Windows is not bundled with a certain hardware; buyers buy their hardware on a very competitive market and hence get good value for money.

This morning I have read that the new Apple Macintosh with G5 CPU is to be introduced; which will put Macintoshs ahead of PCs again after a longer break. And it will be more UNIX than ever HW and OS wise.
A pity only, that they're so expensive, and one has to buy the complete bundle.

I witness more and more people in my surroundings switching completely to Linux; but they all have been experienced Windows-users who installed their applications themselves, and most people don't know whom to ask when they get stuck somwhere.

So where is this going now with Microsoft controlling the end-user market? A lot of economical power (many employees using Windows-PCs in order to be productive) depends on just one company and one product-family.

What does the PistonHeads-Oracle think/predict?

[FourWheelDrift]

It's all moving towards a Microsoft Brain implant which periodically sends your memories back to Seattle, slows down if more than 2 things are required to be done (like making the tea & scratching your arse), has compatibility problems with various hats for which new updates are required and needs rebooting very 4 hours due to blue eye errors.

And no one will ever understand it properly.

[anonymous-user]

It'll probably be a long time yet, if ever, but alternatives will become more attractive.

With employers such as the German local authorities switching to Linux combined with the distros like RedHat, Lindows, etc. getting easier and easier to user / install / maintain, it'll work out less hastle for a home user to have Linux on their machine than Windows.

I still mourn the fall of BeOs (yes, I know I'm sad).

[Whoozit]

The only reason I stick with PCs, despite never having had a Mac, is for the games. Now that Macs can read and write Office documents, virtually everything I need would be covered.

[plotloss]

Operating systems will become more and more feature rich and become thinner as time goes on I believe.

Whilst at one point MS would not accept the concept of a network computer fibre to the door will change everything. Why bother with local storage if you are getting 5000 times the speed of current DSL (trials currently occuring).

For me the emergence of the .NET initiative is a clear move for MS in this direction.

I also believe that we will see a greater reliance on pervasive computing, smart devices everywhere and everything connected. Theres already a kettle toaster combo that talk to each other via bluetooth, the kettle triggering the toaster to start when the kettle boils.

The futures bright, the future is hosted or at the very least buttery and sugary.

[m-five]

Whoozit said:

The only reason I stick with PCs, despite never having had a Mac, is for the games. Now that Macs can read and write Office documents, virtually everything I need would be covered.

I've been working on both since 1988 and used to copy Office documents between Mac & PC regularly via a PC-formatted 3.5" disc which the Mac could read.

I am a Mac fan, and have a new G5 on order, I don't miss many games that are PC only and don't have time to play all the Mac games I have anyway.

How many PC buyers use it for games, yet still end up buying a dedicated games machine like the PS2?

As one Mac-advocate said "The PC may have 1,000,000 games, and the Mac 10,000 games, but only 1% of the PC games are any good, whereas 99% of the Mac games are good!" - figure are probably BS, but you get his point!

Mac users complained a lot about the Mac port of a particular PC game being 10x slower on the Mac. The reason for this was usually that the PC was running at 640x480 on a 15" screen and the Mac was running at 1280x1024 on 18" or 20" screens.

Mac gamers just didn't want blocky, low resolution graphics that PC users put up with, therefore developers had to do more work on the Mac versions to make them acceptable, just to sell a few more copies. Unfortunately, to a lot of developers, the expense was not justified and the could not make a profit.

[Sparks]

On the game front, I know a person that has a PS1 emulator for the mac that plays GT2 quite well on a 600Mhz iBook.

Now if you talk nicely to that person.........

Sony bought out the emulator from Connectix, as they kept losing the court battles to get it banned.

Long live the Mac

Sparks

[ATG]

Think Plotloss may well be right. Java and .NET make applications independent of machine and operating system (in theory at least) which attractive for both developer and application user. If this stuff really catches on, i.e. your spreadsheet app and word processor actually are .NET or Java applications, then frankly you can almost say good bye to the windows versus Mac OS arguement. Hardware performance/price will remain a battle ground, and the economies of scale gained by their huge market share still puts Intel at the head of the pack. May well be that the performance/price benefit of a PC is what will end up keeping people "loyal" to Windows in the age of truly portable apps.

[Sparks]

MS are shagging about with java though, so it isn't standard. the same will happen with .NET

Intel recently (last year?) gave a US university all new PC's on the premise that they gave up all their old workstations (macs, SGs everything). Now that sort of marketing should be banned. Get them hooked on Intel kit, then claw back the initial outlay over the next X years.

Intel are as bad if not worse than M$

Sparks