Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 05 May 2006 00:08 \__
> > Poor Microsoft, they don't have a new operating system to shovel into
> > our computers yet, and even though they promised one for around 2003,
> > it looks like it won't actually be released until 2008, which means it
> > probably won't be stable until 2009, which means that we might actually
> > see a working SP2 version around 2010.
> I bet that Vista will be released *some* time in 2007,
Actually, I would guess that, barring court actions, the release would
be around August of 2007. This is based on Microsoft's historical
record of releasing at the end of their fiscal calender year,
> but it will be a
> premature release which will not be most stable (BSoD in order) and will not
> be more secure than Windows XP. They will still have that pending re-write
> of the code, which involves 60% of the whole. Mind you, they *still* don't
> use .NET in Vista development. They refuse to eat their own dogfood and they
> can only ever come up with lame excuses and rely on spin doctors.
I don't know what percentage of the code was actually changed, but even
the smallest changes require replacement of the library or executable
in which the patch was applied. Since Microsoft loves to have huge
monolithic libraries and huge monolithic applications, Microsoft.
> > By then, of course, Linux will be running circles around Windows XP,
> > making it look like something from the stone age, and of course, anyone
> > who wants a fully functional, well-supported 64 bit machine, will have
> > to be running Linux.
> It is the case already, but only few people are aware of the advantages.
> Cattle effect is what will mark the tipping point. It's when everyone
> announces how great Linux is that others will join in and express consent.
The irony is that Linux/Unix has been ahead of Microsoft's offerings
almost from the very beginning of MS-DOS. And even from MS-DOS 2.0,
Microsoft has been playing "Catch-up" with Unix. Microsoft's strategy
seems to be to try and find only those critical features which might
trigger a mass exodus to Unix or Linux, and then at least promise those
functions and features.
> > This reminds me a bit of another time that a little nothing of a
> > company called Microsoft managed to pull of a coup which took the
> > market away from CP/M made by a company called Digital Research.
[snip rant of fantasy]
> All good and valid points. Every aspect where FUD is non-existent is where
> FUD has no basis to even be conceived. Security is one such example.
The key difference between DRI and Microsoft is that DRI was not a $80
billion/year corporation owned by 3 people who could not be outvoted no
matter how big the proxy vote against them. DRI also didn't have a $4
billion/year advertizing budget and control over another $40 billion in
advertizing revenue placed by OEMs and Vendors. DRI also didn't have
nearly $4 billion/year to spend on lawyers who could write bear-trap
agreements designed to give Microsoft more control over a corporate
customer or OEM than that held by any member of the executive board,
including the CEO.
DRI didn't own enough interest in 2 different networks (MSNBC, CNBC)
to set the agenda for competitor news agencies. DRI didn't own
substantial interest in the the sattellites which fed nearly all of the
major cable companies. Microsoft controls the critical "central
switch" between content providers and the cable distribution systems.
> > It's not actually a lie, just a comparison of apples and oranges using
> > criteria designed to make the orange the "Winner".
I think the more interesting aspect of these comparisons is the ability
of Microsoft to use nondisclosure agreements, license terms, and other
contractural restrictions to prevent anyone from making a comparison in
which the Apple wins (pun intended).
And even if someone does publish a comparison in which Linux is
superior, Microsoft has control over nearly $40 billion worth of
advertizing, so the benchmark ends up being relegated to a vanity web
site and perhaps the back pages of some Linux magazine with very
> As in all the other FUD campaigns.
If Coke tried to claim that Pepsi was actually a toxic addictive drug,
while Coca-cola was a miraculous medicine designed to make you young
and healthy, the Federal Trade Commission would be all over that. If
Coca-Cola company tried to force every dealer, customer, and any place
with a pop machine to sign contracts which required them to publish
only what Coca-Cola wanted them to publish - the FTC and DOJ might even
consider fraud and obstruction of justice charges.
> Best wishes,
> Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
> http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> 4:00am up 7 days 10:57, 14 users, load average: 0.29, 0.27, 0.45
> http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine