| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Nimble edge slowly erodes for Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 09:46 EST/14:46 GMT | News Source: Seattle Times | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
As bleak as the technology sector looks, there's one bright spot: The Microsoft monopoly is dead. Perhaps "dead" is too strong a term. Statistically, Microsoft still rules — on the PC desktop, at least. But monopolies, which take years to build, collapse slowly. And historians seldom point toward market share as the meaningful indicator of a monopoly's demise. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/13/2003 10:01:57 AM |
| If it is dead, can we stop the remaining anti-trust garbage and move on? |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 11:09:52 AM |
| Yup, time to move on. |
| #3 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 1/13/2003 11:17:50 AM |
|
Steven123, good luck with your RedHat investment. LOL.
"open source software isn't even ready to dethrone MS yet but it will be soon enough" Am I in a time warp? That same phrase has been uttered for 7 years now... yet Microsoft is stronger than ever. |
| #4 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 1/13/2003 11:24:59 AM |
|
" In his keynote at Macworld last week, Apple Computer's Steve Jobs proved that there's a lot of creativity left in desktop software, especially when open source's opportunities are leveraged. Microsoft is trying to expand into new businesses, but so far has fared unremarkably in games, personal digital assistants and phones."
ROFL 1. Isn't Apple the one that is loosing market share and will be #3 on the desktop soon? 2. It's my understand that the Xbox has met if not surpassed expectations. 3. On the PDA front Palm is running scared. Every article that I read points to reduce market share for palm and increase market share of Pocket PC. This trend will only continue with the likes of Dell pushing the prices down (that Dell PDA is sweet). 4. With the release of Visual Studio.net it seems that MS is relegating Java to an "also ran" status. While broadening Microsoft's reach. 5. A few years back everyone was using ICQ/AIM but clearly MS/Windows messenger is pushing that area and giving AOL a run for it's money. I didn't even mention the recent success of MSN and failures of AOL. That article neglects these points while making great leaps of faith. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/13/2003 11:55:21 AM |
|
Steven, just my opinion here, but your comments aren't too funny. They are also rather contradictory.
You claim that you need to stay neutral, though you clearly have an opinion about Microsoft's fate. That's interesting. If you were nuetral, you wouldn't have an opinion about their fate. Further if you do have an opinion about their fate, and you see their competitors succeeding than it makes sense that you should put your money where your mouth is and invest in the companies that are going to replace Microsoft. If you don't have enough faith in your judgement to be a stock investor and buy stock in a company, than what are your words worth? My valuation of your words is, um, 0. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 12:06:46 PM |
|
Steven123 - LOL!
Are you actually sitting there claiming Open Source has an efficient development model? And you expect to be taken seriously? Give me a break. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 1:06:48 PM |
|
Steven123 - "No, being neutral means I don't benefit either way, I've nothing to gain whether Linux or MS wins, so I can see the situation from an unbiased point of view. Can you say the same?? "
Yet you seem to be biased towards Linux. I mean, actually claiming that Open Source is a more efficient development model? Come on... I have to admit to holding a certain amount of bias, but I also am capable of seeing the writing on the wall and diving off the bandwagon if need be. I've done it before as I've gone through about 7 different platform changes over my time in the computing world. I do have a pretty good track record here. While I've held onto some times a little bit longer than I should, I've generally dove off well before the rest did. I was predicting the dot-com bubble crash 5 years or so before it happened(yeah not real insightful, but man you should have seen the arguments I got into). I even questioned myself for a bit there. I abandoned Linux back in '97... I was actually somewhat concerned about that decision through 1999, but when Win2k came out that pretty much cemented it for me. Now with the release of XP, and .Net... Linux is going nowhere fast. The friends of mine who I introduced to Linux back in the mid-90's who held onto it longer than I did have now just in this past year abandoned it. That abandonment is actually a pretty strong trend, and I think it's kind of funny how out of touch the advocates and media is with the reality of what's occuring. That doesn't mean Linux is going away. We're adopting it at my company for use as the platform to run our development Oracle servers. It's cheaper than buying new HPUX boxes, and for development you don't need all the features. Maybe in a few years it'll be mature enough to run production on, we'll see. That is to say, my track record for picking technologies has been pretty good. My money is on the deal insomuchas I invest in my own training. I'm learning to work with .Net today, not PHP or other Linux technologies... there's a reason for that. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/13/2003 1:39:34 PM |
|
"No, being neutral means I don't benefit either way, I've nothing to gain whether Linux or MS wins, so I can see the situation from an unbiased point of view. Can you say the same?? "
Um, no, bein neutral means...well, let's let the dictionary tell us. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neutral Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground. Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other. It seems to me that saying "my money is on Linux" is either aligning with, supporting or favoring Linux in the dispute of Linux vs. Windows. By definition this means you aren't neutral. Whether you are neutral or not is OK, but it bugs me when people don't admit to being what they are. As for the money issue, I still think my point stands. Perhaps you haven't decided which Linux distro(s) will make it and that is why you haven't invested? I didn't say that Red Hat was Linux (I didn't mean to imply it, if that is the way I came across). If I consider myself objective or unbiased (what you would call neutral) and in my objectivity I see that a product is going to succeed and supplant the current giant AND if I am also an investor, it stands to reason that if I value my own objectivity I'll invest accordingly. Reasons, perhaps for not acting accordingly, might include - I really don't have faith in my objectivity it's really just an opinion, I don't think any of the current companies are going to survive with the product to unseat the king, the current strike price is too high for me, though I'm confident in my assessment of success in that market I don't foresee a sufficiently substantial gain to warrent investment. It seems to me that this is reasonable logic. Do you find fault with it? This post was edited by BobSmith on Monday, January 13, 2003 at 13:40. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 2:42:04 PM |
|
linuxhippie - Well we're also pursuing SQL Server on Windows. But we already have a large Oracle presence. So we have both.
As to Oracle on Windows. We've found Oracle software doesn't work well on Windows, I think also our DBAs are familiar with the HPUX environment and didn't want something to terribly dissimilar. It's an experiment, mainly because the x86 hardware is cheaper. I think if Oracle had a better reputation of running well on Windows we would not be looking at Linux. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 2:49:34 PM |
|
Steven123 - I guess I should clarify. One thing I don't like is preconceived notions, and that's generall what I argue against as devil's advocate.
So I harp on the more efficient development model thing because I see no evidence to support this claim. Maybe it's true... But I think Mozilla taking 5 years to produce a stable browser rather than the 2-3 years it took MS suggests that it is not true. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 2:51:54 PM |
|
Steven123 - "I personally think that companies like Redhat, Mandrake will eventually be bought out by OEM's like Dell or Hewlett packard and the distribution rebranded, anyone for Dellinux?
It would benefit them by having an OS they can optimize for their hardware and plenty of free Dell advertising with every user of their OS. " BTW, you realize the industry has been down that path before? Dell once sold their own version of SVR4 even. But most notably are the OS's from Commodore, Apple, Atari, and so forth. hint: It didn't work well. Having the producer of the OS seperate from the hardware has been a tremendous boon to the industry. Now I can see the value in having a standardized OS with multiple producers. But I do not see the value in having the hardware companies controlling it again. |
| #12 By 1868 (67.73.187.186) at 1/13/2003 4:19:38 PM |
|
I'm not going to claim to have some insightful knowledge, but I did happen to find this an intersting tool. I have tested many OSes in the past. Steven123 maybe you should take a look at this. Try out the diferent OSes for FREE and take a look at the strenghts of MS's OSes. I am biased because I have used so many systems and I've found MS's OS's to work the best for me and about everyone I know(cept the kid down the street who moved to linux when he couldn't pirate XP PRO) So...
"Want to have some fun? Get a copy of Connectix Virtual PC and add a few virtual operating systems to your computer, without the hassle of dual boot or complex incompatibilities. The system, free for 60 days from http://www.connectix.com, lets you create memory partitions on which you can run Linux simultaneously with Windows XP. You can run multiple versions of Linux at once to see the differences." I found http://www.connectix.com to be a helpful free tool in analysing the OS side by side with varying configurations for specific task orienated jobs. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/13/2003 5:34:22 PM |
|
linuxhippie - "It might suggest that if all else was equal, but it's not."
Actually you highlighted many of the problems with Open Source development and why it's not efficient. mainly scope creep, lack of vision, lack of direction, etc. Anyway, point is, there is no evidence to suggest open source is a more efficient development model. |
| #14 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 1/13/2003 5:48:30 PM |
| no fair, linuxhippie is arguing against himself. |
| #15 By 11888 (64.230.18.241) at 1/13/2003 5:50:28 PM |
| loosing! |
| #16 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/13/2003 10:11:07 PM |
|
Damn, Parker with the uber searching. Awesome job.
Yes, your point was made and made well. To summarize for those not really paying attention and for those who were, well, born a bit slow... Parker was challenged, by Dupe to "show me proof" that "Linux is riddled with copyright issues and DMCA issues" And Parker knocked it out of the ballpark with IBM QUOTES and quotes from Cox himself. Damn Parker. Impressive. |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/13/2003 11:11:40 PM |
|
linuxhippie - Well I don't know if I was using it as a counter-example, but it was certainly an example that didn't prove the positive. :)
I can't think of any largescale open source projects which have progressed more rapidly than closed source. I just downloaded Media Player 9. It's been about 15 months since Media Player 8 shipped with XP, and the changes are just phenomenal. I think what Open Source does do is give the illusion of progress, because of the constant releases. Closed Source tends to be big bang. You don't see anything for a year and then bang Version 9 comes out with a slew of incredible new functionality and fixes. parker - Oh, wow... I didn't know Doug Michels was one of the founders of SCO. He's the guy that sent me a free copy of SCO OpenDesktop 3.0 back in like '94 or so, so I could compile open source software and setup an ftp site to distribute it. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/14/2003 8:35:46 PM |
|
The SCO thing is what you call FUD. I'm not sure who decided to FUDdie duddie it, but it showed up on /., then a couple hours later a retraction showed up. Meanwhile the story is still spreading across news.com and so forth.
I really really really dislike new stories about possibilities. Why don't you just tell me what has happened, and leave the opinions to the op-ed page? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
