Windows 8 - Looks really awsome

And in the case of many an XP user, not until some guys in black force their way in and stand there with a menacing look

 

No, I'm sorry, this is quite obviously a marketing gimmick. It reminds me a bit of the Austin Allegro's ill-fated Quartic Steering Wheel.

I think that you have been reading the brochure a bit too much.

 

Wouldn't "no-compromise" be very bad to say when discussing your product?

 

Depends on the circumstances. Microsoft tried to explain that you don't have to compromise yourself with any input method because Windows 8 will offer nice support to all of them. Hence, no-compromise experience.

 

I feel you are making big assumptions here. No one knows yet what UI changes will be made in Windows 8 RTM. When we know what they are then we can decide whether or not they are improvements. While I agree that incremental improvements in security, stability and performance are desirable I believe they will take a backseat to the user experience of interacting with the UI. People who have laptops with Windows 7 without touchscreens may not be happy to see that the UI is optimized for touch input, which they cannot use.

When Windows 7 was released there were real, compelling reasons to upgrade from Vista and many people did. There is nothing equally compelling about Windows 8 CP, but we'll see what RTM has to offer.

 

You do realise I was joking, right?

 

True. A considerable portion of those happy with their W7 powered devices may not find enough compelling reasons to buy a new OS.

But anyways, people generally upgrade to a new OS when they buy new computers. This is my personal prediction:

 

ot posts removed

 

Okay, near monopoly. Whatever. Point is, Linux may be an alternative, but it's not a viable alternative for most people, because nobody builds their proprietary special-purpose software for it.[1] And OSX is not much of an alternative either, since it's linked to expensive proprietary hardware. What do you call it when one family of OSes, made by one company, has 90% of the desktop market share? What do you call it when one of those OSes ships preinstalled on perhaps 90% of desktop computers?

There are significant barriers to up and switching to Linux or OSX for most users. There are no such barriers to switching from Google to Bing, unless you count muscle memory.

[1] This is mostly the community's doing IMO. Disparate package managers, no stable driver API, absurdly fast release cycles, etc. On the desktop, Linux will IMO remain a niche OS for the foreseeable future.

 

I call it a success!

 

A success for Mr. Gates and Mr. Balmer. Whether it's a success for prospective customers is another matter.

(Not discounting the work that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has done, mind. I just think there's more to a working free market than have an effective choice of one "successful" product.)

 

Well, I don't know who you are blaming, but it surely isn't Microsoft's fault if products from competitors are not "viable" alternatives in your opinion.

 

Unlike Google Windows arguably is a monopoly as the bar is whether the primary vendor needs to worry about competitors when setting prices and suchlike. I for one am happy for Microsoft's success: no possible competitor would pass on more of our payments to charity. And even with their monopoly there is - albeit against their wishes -a fair measure of intra-Windows choice with all the obsolete versions.

 

Microsoft needs to worry about competitors when setting prices. If, for example, PC manufacturers couldn't afford Windows' prices, they would simply offer systems without OS or with alternatives. But Windows has good cost-benefit for them. It increases sales, value, etc.

So no, it's not a monopoly. It's a good choice.

 

I honestly don't think it matters where their price is set, Windows is the only option. There'd be nothing to gain by manufacturers refusing to pay as consumers would just have to buy it on their own; there is nothing that could replace Windows on the standard PC: their only choice would be between putting up and paying whatever they were charged or going bankrupt.

 

I disagree. There are alternatives like Ubuntu. If you like them or find them appropriate/viable for your needs is another question. There are alternative Operating Systems that will enable you to interact with the PC hardware. In other words, standard PCs are not a closed garden.

 

See:

The Pre-Installed Linux Vendor Database.

The Full database.

 

I am aware of Ubuntu but there is a reason for Linux remaining a niche despite being free and that is that it is not a viable alternative to Windows. If Microsoft doubled their prices you would not see Windows replaced by any currently available Linux distribution, instead computer usage would decline as consumers were priced out of the market. Whether Windows goes for $200 or $400 it is infinitely more costly than Linux either way but for whatever reason Ubuntu has not and perhaps can not establish itself as a competitor. If Microsoft went out of their way to destroy themselves then sure a new competitor would emerge but that is true of any monopoly: the point of differentiation is that that competitor does not at present exist.

 

Competitors exist, the point of differentiation is that most people simply prefer Windows. There are several alternatives, people can buy PCs without OS, with Linux or they can buy Macs.

And stop the silly predictions, Ubuntu has some non-tech savvy users.

 

People use Windows because people use Windows. They go where the crowd is, and it makes sense. It's where the devs go and it makes sense that if your friends all use X you should use it too.

It's got nothing to do with one OS being better than the other at this point. I find Ubuntu way easier to maintain than Windows. Plenty of novice users are on Ubuntu - usually they have someone else install it for them.

 

Monopoly:

(an organization or group which has) complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/monopoly

Desktop Operating System Market Share:

Market Share of Windows: 92.49%
Market Share of Mac: 6.53%
Market Share of Linux: 0.98%

No monopoly on Desktop. Several competitors (as Linux, which is a kernel, is used by several different competing Operating Systems). One most successful product: Windows

Source: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=0

Mobile/Tablet Operating System Market Share:

Market Share of iOS: 63.19%
Market Share of Android: 19.27%
Market Share of Java ME: 11.83%
Market Share of Symbian: 2.24%
Market Share of BlackBerry: 2.04%
Market Share of Kindle: 0.52%
Market Share of Windows Phone: 0.49%
Market Share of Windows Mobile: 0.11%
Market Share of Samsung: 0.11%
Market Share of Bada: 0.11%
Market Share of BREW: 0.04%
Market Share of LG: 0.03%
Market Share of HUAWEI: 0.01%
Market Share of Palm: 0.00%

No monopoly on Mobile/Tablet. Several competitors. One most successful product: iOS

Source: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=1

 

Baah baah black sheep have you any wool? Yessir, yessir, three bags full. One for the master, one for the dame, and one for the little man who lives down the lane.

I thought that might be more on your intellectual level seeing as you clearly didn't understand anything that I wrote. I think I'll take the 'silly predictions' as a complement given that it's you who said it. And there we were conversing courteously, I might as well expect table manners from a caveman.

Encyclopedia Britannica: A monopoly implies an exclusive possession of a market by a supplier of a product or a service for which there is no substitute. In this situation the supplier is able to determine the price of the product without fear of competition from other sources or through substitute products. It is generally assumed that a monopolist will choose a price that maximizes profits.

There are no competitors, of course there are other operating systems used on pcs, they are not competing with Windows for the same market: not Linux/Solaris/Symbian - entirely regardless of the level of technical expertise on the part of their users - and not even Apple.

 

They are competing with Windows for the same market. Ubuntu and MacOS, for example, are designed with that in mind. Ask their devs. One more competitor is Google Chrome OS. Designed with Windows' users and main uses in mind. Its market share is right there, together with other Linux-based OS, under the Linux name.

So Windows have competitors. You may depreciate them if you want, but they are still competitors.

 

I have used both and depreciate neither. But regardless of the hopes of some of their developers they are not presently considered as potential replacements for Windows in its entirety. The same with other Linux distributions, Solaris, Symbian, Amiga et al: sure they can do much that Windows can, and a lot of it more effectively too, but I have come across nowhere that any compete as a full replacement across the spectrum of machines or functions.

 

They are not presently considered as potential replacements for Windows in its entirety by you. Several people use them/ find them to be satisfactory replacements. To be precise, 8% of the desktop market and more than 99% of the Mobile/Tablet market.

They compete with Windows. All classes of machines work with Windows alternatives. Maybe, for example, a very specific model of an old printer doesn't, but the class "printer" has several models (almost all of them) that work with Windows alternatives.

The same goes for functions. Many games, for example, are designed to be used with Windows, but the class "game" has several titles that work with Windows alternatives.