| 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 |
 |
Microsoft sees threat from Linux desktop | |
|
||
| Time: 11:14 EST/16:14 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft Chief Financial Officer John Connors said on Wednesday that the software giant's future growth would be hurt if the rival Linux operating system was to establish a foothold on desktop computers. Although Microsoft commands the desktop market with its Windows operating system running on nearly all of the world's personal computers, it is competing neck-to-neck with Linux in the market for servers, which manage computer networks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 346 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:43:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/5/2002 12:25:41 PM |
| Microsoft sees a threat? Linux on the Desktop? No can't be. 1000000 ActiveWin MS sheeps can't be wrong. |
| #2 By 665 (66.49.20.2) at 12/5/2002 12:58:15 PM |
|
Right now the biggest threat on the desktop for Microsoft is Apple with its' rejuvenated operating system.
You're right, but there basically is no threat from Apple. Their rejuvenated OS? You mean the one that has been out for well over a year, and people would still choose OS9 instead? The numbers don't lie. OSX is the biggest threat, but it is no threat at all. This post was edited by ToddAW on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 13:02. |
| #3 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/5/2002 1:14:15 PM |
|
#4 - OHHH... I started reading that and I thought you were quoting Nine Inch Nails for a second... I would have been SOOO happy.
Oh well, I guess it's only fair to quote the original song. :-( #6 - "The numbers don't lie. Right now the biggest threat on the desktop for Microsoft is Apple with its' rejuvenated operating system." THEN SHOW US THE DAMN NUMBERS. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/5/2002 1:19:16 PM |
|
tgnb - Moooo!
I'm a cow, not a sheep. |
| #5 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 12/5/2002 2:17:27 PM |
|
My friend and I just wrote an OS called (Soda_Jerk_Blue) , it's free and open source and doesn't work very well. It does some stuff (never mind the details). And it appears that there are some people that like it and want to build upon.
Wouldn't that technically make us a threat to MS? |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/5/2002 2:50:33 PM |
|
parker, world Apple market share is 2.4%. Let's not give Apple any more credit than it deserves. Considering how long it has been around and how little market share it has, it doesn't deserve much. This post was edited by BobSmith on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 14:50. |
| #7 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/5/2002 3:00:58 PM |
|
anyone else noticing the amazing bias (both directions) in news accounts around Judge Motz' comments today? I especially enjoy the one talking about "knee-capping".
The reuters story says the judge compared Microsoft to Tonya Harding, but there isn't a quote. http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021205/1317000776_1.html I did find this part especially interesting... Imposing Sun's remedy on Microsoft wouldn't be judicial engineering of the market but would be "un-engineering the market, a Groundhog Day remedy," Motz said. He cautioned that he would have to carefully examine the facts to see if such a remedy is warranted. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 15:01. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/5/2002 3:36:21 PM |
|
Running "neck-and-neck"? Who gives a crap about running head to head? If Microsoft loses growth, or stalls, or sees a loss in its share of the OS or Office Suite market, they are in trouble. MS's success is predicated on success on Wall Street. They use these two sectors to underwrite EVERYTHING else. Investors and analysts will respond very negatively if they spot a trend that MS has hit a wall.
In other news, Sony drops MS Works for most desktops in Europe today in favor of StarOffice. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/5/2002 3:48:43 PM |
|
Linuxhippie, do you know of a single message coming out of Microsoft that isn't a bit schizophrenic? This is an integral part of their FUD and vaporware campaign. It's not a threat, it's a cancer, it's a virus--it is a threat and we take it seriously, we never said it was a cancer. We can't be cheaper, we need to compete on quality; we are cheaper.
In every critical and strategic message,this same schizophrenic-every message is exactly the strategy they pursue. |
| #10 By 4209 (67.97.216.252) at 12/5/2002 4:00:28 PM |
| I do not know to many Network/Systems Admins who are ready to subject there users to Linux. Most users are barely able to operate and understand Windows let alone Linux. And that is all that matters. Even if you save money on licensing you will have to add training and that even when done internally costs money. We look at TCO, not just the cost of a license. And the average Joe Sixpack is looking at ease of use. I look at it this way. If I was to give a computer to my parents or in-laws and they could not use it without calling me, then it is not going to my users at work. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/5/2002 4:01:01 PM |
| jerk, the article I read (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107690,00.asp) says some not most. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/5/2002 4:49:10 PM |
|
RedHook - I'm going to sue you for trademark infringement.
linuxhippie/sodajerk - Name me one company where you can ask 4 employees about competitive threats and get the same answer and I will show you a company being dishonest. I can't believe you think that means there exists a conspiracy. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/5/2002 5:53:20 PM |
| Yeah, you're the only conspiracy theorist here, soda. And who's talking about asking random employees about product strategy? Tell me one company that is more schizophrenic in their message from the top executives who are granted to express a public view of their company. Tell me one, and then we'll do a comparison of the conflicting messages. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/5/2002 6:09:06 PM |
|
No, parker, I haven't fallen for anything. Everything they say I disregard as utter bullsh!t and FUD. I don't trust them. I presume the first versions of any product will be behind schedule, will suck, and underdeliver on product features. Whenever they make a competitive statement that is extremely ridiculous, outlandish, and FUD-induced, I know they will come out with a cute, sweet little message recognize the strengths of their competitors. This I see as back-pedalling. It's you and some other idiots who are fooled and say such things as: "you see, that's what MS knows how to do, respond to customers--they get bitched out, and change their message" or flatly "MS never said that."
I understand the culture but your internal competition theory doesn't really fit when we are talking about the four top executives who should have their message in sync... nevermind the fact that you could just focus on one of them, say Ballmer, and track the flipflops. |
| #15 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/5/2002 6:34:01 PM |
| Parker please buy a clue! Oh, and please do me a favor and don't ask sodablue for one, he doesn't have one to spare. |
| #16 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/5/2002 6:46:20 PM |
|
#10 - "Maybe you need a little faith"
I need nothing which is the antithesis of reason. Your article doesn't help your cause, it hinders it. Faith is defined as belief WITHOUT REASON. You believe the success of Apple WITHOUT REASON. Thanks for proving my point for me. Oh, and WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS? |
| #17 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/5/2002 7:02:15 PM |
|
RMD:
Faith is NOT defined as "belief WITHOUT REASON" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith for proof Thanks for playing "who's the idiot now"! |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/5/2002 7:03:38 PM |
|
a definition of believe though is: to have faith.
Winderful the way language works. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 19:03. |
| #19 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 12/5/2002 7:05:15 PM |
|
Well here are some reasons why I don't believe Linux will rule the desktop.
1. No common support. Too many Linux desktop version available. 2. Linux companies will have to compete with other Linux desktop manufacturers even before they could compete with Microsoft Windows. 3. If users still gets confused with Windows, then what do you think a Linux desktop will do for users ?.?get them confuse of course. I'm not against Linux (heck I play Unreal Tournament in a Linux server), but that is how I see it. As for Apple ...No I have not made the switch, and I won't. |
| #20 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/5/2002 7:49:49 PM |
|
rommels:
I understand thats the way you see it, but from my view its a little different. 1. No common support. Too many Linux desktop version available. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Choice is good. If you want strong support you can always choose the version where support is strongest. If you don't need a lot of support, you can choose a different one. People aren't made one way. Choice is good. Different things for different people. Also, there IS quite a bit of common support IMHO. Not common as in one company. But support for KDE for example is common to any distro that runs it etc. 2. Linux companies will have to compete with other Linux desktop manufacturers even before they could compete with Microsoft Windows. Competition is good. Competition spurs growth. Competing against each other will help them to catch up faster with Microsoft. I think this fact is contrary to your opinion benefitial for linux. 3. If users still gets confused with Windows, then what do you think a Linux desktop will do for users ?.?get them confuse of course. This is true. However, desktop linux is getting easier at a very fast rate. It is in NO way stagnant. So while i agree with you here.. I dont know for how much longer this will remain true. I hope I wrote this post in a way that doesnt offend you :) I didnt mean to in any way. You expressed your opinion and i am expressing my thoughts on it. |
| #21 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/5/2002 8:10:09 PM |
|
#31 - "Faith is NOT defined as "belief WITHOUT REASON""
Taken directly from the link you provided: Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". In other words, belief without reason. Maybe you should read ALL of the definitions next time. Beliefs that do not rest on logical proofs or material evidence are invalid. I've written extensively on this subject. See http://www.rit.edu/~rmd0549/athought_godargument.html and http://www.rit.edu/~rmd0549/athought_evolutionargument.html and http://www.rit.edu/~rmd0549/athought_hankandmary.html "Thanks for playing "who's the idiot now"! " Ya, looks like you won. This post was edited by RMD on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 20:39. |
| #22 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 12/5/2002 8:35:13 PM |
|
TGNB ...no not at all. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion ...no way that I'm offended.
In fact I like the way you think these things out ...but would Linux desktop developers have enough time to catch up with Microsoft? Microsoft has been out there for a long time now, and their OS keeps on improving. Another thing, companies have to consider if they would want to change OS because if there are any people out there that are not accustom to change ...are the users. Home users ...if someone wants support right away, or have a simple question, they can get their support from the PC manufacturer or from someone who knows a little about Windows. At this moment, Linux lacks that resource. Again it goes back to the fact that there any too many different Linux desktops. Linux developers will continue to competing against one another. Granted choice is good, but it will be tought because they will have to improve upon each other, and at the same time improve and compete against Windows ...and most important of all, sway the common users. |
| #23 By 1868 (141.133.152.79) at 12/5/2002 9:11:14 PM |
|
RMD I find it interesting and noteworthy that you wrote an article about my comments here on activewin.
Anyways check out wired magazine's last issue. Here's a short blurb: About 10 years ago, just as scientists were becoming confident in big bang theory, I asked Alan Dressler — one of the world's leading astronomers, and currently a consultant on the design of the space telescope scheduled to replace the Hubble — what caused the bang. He scrunched his face and said, "I can't stand that question!" At the time, cosmologists tended to assert that the cause and prior condition were unknowable. The bizarre physics of the singularity that preceded the explosion, they explained, represented an information wall that blocked (actually, destroyed) all knowledge of the prior condition and its physical laws. We would never know. The more scientists testily insisted that the big bang was unfathomable, the more they sounded like medieval priests saying, "Don't ask me what made God." Researchers, prominently Alan Guth of MIT, began to assert that the big bang could be believed only if its mechanics could be explained. Indeed, Guth went on to propose such an explanation. Suffice it to say that, while Guth asserts science will eventually figure out the cause, he still invokes unknown physical laws in the prior condition. And no matter how you slice it, calling on unknown physical laws sounds awfully like appealing to the supernatural. The existence of 50 billion galaxies isn't the only mystery that's prompting scientists to rethink their attitudes toward the divine. Beyond this is the puzzle of why the universe is hospitable to living creatures. In recent years, researchers have calculated that if a value called omega — the ratio between the average density of the universe and the density that would halt cosmic expansion — had not been within about one-quadrillionth of 1 percent of its actual value immediately after the big bang, the incipient universe would have collapsed back on itself or experienced runaway-relativity effects that would render the fabric of time-space weirdly distorted. Instead, the firmament is geometrically smooth — rather than distorted — in the argot of cosmology. If gravity were only slightly stronger, research shows, stars would flame so fiercely they would burn out in a single year; the universe would be a kingdom of cinders, devoid of life. If gravity were only slightly weaker, stars couldn't form and the cosmos would be a thin, undifferentiated blur. Had the strong force that binds atomic nuclei been slightly weaker, all atoms would disperse into vapor. These cosmic coincidences were necessary to create a universe capable of sustaining life. But life itself required an equally unlikely fine-tuning at the atomic level, yielding vast quantities of carbon. Unlike most elements, carbon needs little energy to form exceedingly complicated molecules, a requirement of biology. As it happens, a quirk of carbon chemistry — an equivalence of nuclear energy levels that allows helium nuclei to meld within stars — makes this vital element possible. To the late astronomer Fred Hoyle, who calculated the conditions necessary to create carbon in 1953, the odds of this match occurring by chance seemed so phenomenally low that he converted from atheism to a belief that the universe reflects a "purposeful intelligence." Hoyle declared, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd." That is to say, Hoyle's faith in chance was shaken by evidence of purpose, a reversal of the standard postmodern experience, and one shared by many of his successors today. This post was edited by Zeo01 on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 21:17. |
| #24 By 1868 (141.133.152.79) at 12/5/2002 9:11:42 PM |
|
As for faith:
To quote God's authoritative word on the subject: Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." An example goes like this: During the late 19th century a French tightrope walker made quite a stir by repeatedly crossing over Niagara Falls on rope stretched between the two banks of the river. Reportedly, he once singled out a member of the audience before one of these "trips" and asked him several questions along the following lines: "Sir", he asked, " do you believe I can walk over the falls on this little rope?" "Sure", answered the man, "I've seen you do it before." "And do you also believe that I could push this wheelbarrow across?" "Yes, I do." "And do you also believe that I could do it with a man sitting in the wheelbarrow?" "Yeah, I'm positive you could." "Then, kind sir, would you mind assisting me by getting into the wheelbarrow?" "Not on your life!", answered the man. The man being questioned here demonstrated Notitia, or knowledge, in that he knew what the stunt entailed, because he had seen him do it. The man also demonstrated Assensus, or intellectual assent, because he believed the tightrope walker could successfully push a wheelbarrow across the falls. He did not, however, demonstrate Fiducia because he was not willing to put his life into the tightrope walkers hands by getting intothe wheelbarrow. Therefore his belief or assent never bridged the gap between the theoretical and the practical. At the risk of seeming trite, saving faith involves "getting into the wheelbarrow" and as such is markedly different from what is often referred to as "easy believism". This post was edited by Zeo01 on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 21:15. |
| #25 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/5/2002 9:28:20 PM |
|
Ah ha. I think I undersstand now.
sodajerk's hypothesis - "Everything Microsoft tells you is a lie." Why? Don't know, I'm just supposed to believe this on Faith. :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 346 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:43:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
