Originally Posted by vinea
The probability that Windows Server takes large amounts of share from Linux/BSD + Apache remains remote. There is a lot of growth for Windows Server but mostly for workgroup servers.
Apache gained 1% share in January. That said, I run Apache on Windows rather than IIS sometimes.[quote]
I don't know about that. It's been gaining over time. One very small setback doesn't change that.
No, netscape did not. First, the only reason that IE really gained share was because Netscape said they were going to start charging for their browser. Second, Netscape made most of their money from servers which they sure as heck weren't giving away. Also, all of Netscape's technology was largely built off work done at NCSA by the principles.
Of course they did. The reason why IE gained marketshare was because it went to a free model, when everyone else had tocharge. That's the old monopoly profits talking. Netscape charged from the very beginning. I paid $39.95 for it when it first came out, and even got a Netscape cap.
It was only after IE made little momentun against it that MS decided to give it away.
As is well known in economic theory, a so so free product often can drive a good but paid product out of existence.
This isn't the only time MS has done this.
You also forget that MS lost the case against them over this.
Netscape destroyed itself by both claiming to want to start charging for their browser and not improving that browser much until after IE started eating it for lunch. Both Netscape and MS indulged in non-standard extension to their browsers.
You've gotten history backwards. Totally.
Really? MOST of the PC World?
Read almost any article about IE vs almost anything else.
I said I don't mind if it happened. Not that I necessarily wanted it to. Which is better than wishing ill on Linux like you do.
I'm realistic. This is a world where things compete in the marketplace. I back one, that, of necessity means that I DON'T back another.
Gee, I wonder where I wrote that? Oh, nowhere. I said that MS HAD that power and from a consumer perspective we did rather well.
I didn't say you wrote it. You were hinting it though. It's just a fact.
So, you cannot name another computing company that you think would have done a better job than evil old MS eh?
That's not a sly question. It's a pointless one. We're talking about a company that does have that power. What's the point in bringing up something that never existed? Do you want to write a book about alternative history?
I already said, in response to this question, that I wouldn't want to see any company in that position. That should be a good answer. I even included Apple. That should have been a GREAT answer.
MS is one of the more aggressive companies looking to innovate. I'm sure that you can't see that but they have been either through their own research (they do quite a bit) or acquisition.
That's one of the biggest jokes going around, MS innovating.
Try developing Java on OSX. I need to buy a new laptop because of Apple's policy toward Java.
That's not an answer to the previous point.
Say what? CP/M was more than $40. Name any other commercial operating system you could get for $40.
You were talking about thousands for OS's. I don't remember any personal computer OS that cost anywhere near that. Most early machines came with the OS, and updates were free. Same thing for programs.
Apple only started to charge anything with System 7, because they saw MS making so much money over it.
So, it should be easy then to name another company in the 80s that was doing that. MS made two things extremely cheap: Operating systems and office suites. Wang was selling word processing machines for over $5000 when the PC could do it for far less.
MS didn't make anything cheap in the 80's. IBM made the OS cheap. MS followed along.
It wasn't MS that was responsible for that. MS didn't even come up with the idea of a computer OS. If They weren't lucky, and a bit underhanded, they wouldn't even of had the OS for IBM, as we all know. They would have been relegated to making the Basic program for IBM for which they were hired in the first place, and today, MS might not even be around.
MS didn't even come up with the first word processing program. XYWrite, and Wordperfect were much earlier and far more popular until Windows came out. electric Pencil was one of the first easy to use word processors, and there were some very good ones for the Atari, Amiga, Commodore, etc., before Apple hired MS to write Word for them.
Oh get real...those TCO numbers are relevant for businesses but not households where the initial capital costs are the main barriers to entry.
Yes, they are relevant for business. business and government still buys at least 50% of PC sold. But even for individuals, the Mac is a good buy. You can poll the people here.
Their motives are the same as any other company...to make money. The upside to MS is that their business strategy is geared toward making computing a commodity product. Commodity products are typically cheaper.
Yes, they absolutely are. And they should be. I've had to defend Apple on this point as well. I don't argue with it.
Given that my professional career started during this transition period I cannot imagine a better outcome than what MS has provided for the masses. NONE of the other companies at the time, despite opportunity, did what MS consistently did: drive computing costs down while maintaining a working business model.
Not Atari (dead), not Commodore (dead), not Apple, not IBM, not DEC, not Sun...no one.
We can thank IBM for that. I remember the reviews of the first IBM PC. Almost to a man, they said that the Apple II was equal, or possibly even a slightly better machine, but that the PC would sell because of three things.
I B M
Nowhere was MS mentioned as the reason.
The original IBM PC, in its basic version was $1,600 without a monitor, of course. Pretty cheap for it's time from a company such as IBM, about the same price as the Apple II, but with far more cache.
Once Phoenix clean roomed IBM's BIOS, the race was on. Imagine if IBM decided to not allow MS to sell PC-DOS?
The point is that in the hands of any other company it would have been far worse.
It could have been, but it might have been better. We just don't know! There's no way to know, and what matters is what did happen, and what we do know.
Ivory tower experts perhaps. Yes, I've heard it said but not one can point to a better model that gets us to where we are today.
I guess if an expert disagrees they live in an ivory tower, but if they agree, they don't?
BS. Look at the unix market when it was dominant. A bazillion flavors of unix from a bazillion different vendors and prices were idiotic across the board.
BS yourself Vinea. Why even say that? You're talking about mainframe and mini computer manufacturers. not only did they all have their own flavor of Unix, but they all had their own processors, etc.
The PC world is very different. Now, everyone uses the same chip families. There is a price mindset. Competition would drive software prices down, not up.
Most things killed themselves. Atari...killed itself. Commodore...killed itself. You forget Dell, Gateway, Micron and the other clone makers. You forget how quickly the cost of computing dropped. You forget how quickly real computing power expanded. Without that common platform we wouldn't have had PC based gaming and the HUGE explosion in GPU capabilities because everyone else had their own homegrown graphics capabilities which absolutely killed SGI and pretty much gave everyone a $25,000 SGI class workstation on their desktop with a $150 graphics card.
There was bad management in numerous companies. That's true. But with a lot of these companies, it was the PC that drove them out of business ultimately. They simply couldn't compete against that. They were too small.
Advances were coming no matter what. And as I said, it's been considered that they slowed down with the advent of the PC (as opposed to the pc).
MS has had bad management as well. They've lost billions on other businesses.
We were very lucky to have MS and Gates at that important point in history.