could microsoft be the savior of the high tech sector?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,615
Likes: 1
From: North Richland Hills, TX
Sunchild,
If Apple is so great, why do they keep losing market share to the Wintel platform? Personally, I can appreciate Apples, but their price premium becomes increasingly unwarranted as Microsoft has improved their ease of use and adopted more of Apple's look and feel.
Apple is now a niche product, and will probably become even more of one. I'm no big fan of MSFT's business tactics, but nobody else has stepped up to the plate w/ as compelling a choice of OS's and applications. While sub-Windows NT/2000 OS's crash too frequently, 2000 and NT are plenty stable, and Office is great.
Dell stole market share leadership from Apple in their biggest stronghold, education, and will continue to erode their miniscule market share in other segments as well.
If Apple is so great, why do they keep losing market share to the Wintel platform? Personally, I can appreciate Apples, but their price premium becomes increasingly unwarranted as Microsoft has improved their ease of use and adopted more of Apple's look and feel.
Apple is now a niche product, and will probably become even more of one. I'm no big fan of MSFT's business tactics, but nobody else has stepped up to the plate w/ as compelling a choice of OS's and applications. While sub-Windows NT/2000 OS's crash too frequently, 2000 and NT are plenty stable, and Office is great.
Dell stole market share leadership from Apple in their biggest stronghold, education, and will continue to erode their miniscule market share in other segments as well.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
From: Ft. Campbell
I'm not into that marketing stuff, Sunchild, but it sounds to me as if Gates is a genious! What if Steve Jobs would have tried to hit up IBM and work with the IBM platform and 'go with the flow' instead of trying to beat out everybody. Microsoft is big because they didn't try to invent something new. I'm no historical expert so don't hold me to my word on this but this is what I heard.
It was the 3 CEO's in the beginning, IBM (dunno his name), Jobs, and Gates all working on DOS. Jobs had his own idea which he marketed badly so he lost. IBM and Gates created DOS together, had different opinions and IBM had DR-DOS and Microsoft had PC-DOS. Microsoft won the marketing war and everybody used PC-DOS instead of DR-DOS. He then looked at the Mac environment and knew the GUI was a good idea, but it only needed the marketing to back it up. He then wrote (or stole, if you prefer) a GUI interface for DOS (Windows 3.x). 3.11 hit it off so he improved upon it with an entire GUI OS and make the right deals with the right people.
If Apple would have talked IBM into manufacturing their PC's then maybe the scales would have tipped a little differently. If they would 'go with the flow' then they would be bigger. Mac's don't get the support because of corporate a-holes with fat contracts and wallets that made deals with the right people. If Jobs would have jumped on the opportunities early, as Gates did, then he would probably have a monopoly instead of vice versa. I could have this all backwards but this is what I can remember.
It was the 3 CEO's in the beginning, IBM (dunno his name), Jobs, and Gates all working on DOS. Jobs had his own idea which he marketed badly so he lost. IBM and Gates created DOS together, had different opinions and IBM had DR-DOS and Microsoft had PC-DOS. Microsoft won the marketing war and everybody used PC-DOS instead of DR-DOS. He then looked at the Mac environment and knew the GUI was a good idea, but it only needed the marketing to back it up. He then wrote (or stole, if you prefer) a GUI interface for DOS (Windows 3.x). 3.11 hit it off so he improved upon it with an entire GUI OS and make the right deals with the right people.
If Apple would have talked IBM into manufacturing their PC's then maybe the scales would have tipped a little differently. If they would 'go with the flow' then they would be bigger. Mac's don't get the support because of corporate a-holes with fat contracts and wallets that made deals with the right people. If Jobs would have jumped on the opportunities early, as Gates did, then he would probably have a monopoly instead of vice versa. I could have this all backwards but this is what I can remember.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
From: Edison
not necessarily true...when prices don't meant consumer needs and for the prices that pcs have been available at for the past 20 someodd years it would be difficult to take the people to the cleaners.
i'll stop using a pc if need be and leave it to companies to buy this equipment...a computer isn't so important to my life that i need one at home all the time 24/7.
i'll stop using a pc if need be and leave it to companies to buy this equipment...a computer isn't so important to my life that i need one at home all the time 24/7.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
From: NYC
skitz--
Apple never focused on the corporate accounts. I negotiate against IBM all the time, and I can tell you how M$ got dominant -- IBM bribes procurement managers with vacations, cars, boats, property, etc. and they get big desktop, server and mainframe contracts. They've done it for years, and Microsoft rode IBM's wave to control the OS markets.
Apple, meanwhile, focused on "the rest of us." Some people see this is as "dropping the ball," but I disagree. Just because Apple has traditionally supplied a niche market does not mean that it should be obliterated from that niche by M$'s inferior OS's.
swurv--
You can vote with your personal dollar, but what if you owned a company and had to decide which computers/OS's to buy? You'd be suffering from the monopoly, and the detrimental effects at the corporate level will eventually reach consumers.
Apple never focused on the corporate accounts. I negotiate against IBM all the time, and I can tell you how M$ got dominant -- IBM bribes procurement managers with vacations, cars, boats, property, etc. and they get big desktop, server and mainframe contracts. They've done it for years, and Microsoft rode IBM's wave to control the OS markets.
Apple, meanwhile, focused on "the rest of us." Some people see this is as "dropping the ball," but I disagree. Just because Apple has traditionally supplied a niche market does not mean that it should be obliterated from that niche by M$'s inferior OS's.
swurv--
You can vote with your personal dollar, but what if you owned a company and had to decide which computers/OS's to buy? You'd be suffering from the monopoly, and the detrimental effects at the corporate level will eventually reach consumers.
Former Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,826
Likes: 5
From: Denver CO
My takes.....
1) Having to support millions of different pieces of hardware is difficult. True, but Linux seems to do it admirably.
2) OS/2 sucks. Have you ever used OS/2? Have you ever talked to anyone who did? OS/2 kicks Windows' ass. It's a shame there is a monopoly up in Washington that made it so noone would ever know this.
3) Everything MS has done, which can at best be called evolutionary and not innovative, would have been done regardless contrary to what they would have you believe.
4) Win 9x is ungodly unstable. It's a shame that we had to go from DOS, which was rock solid, to an environment where we pray the computer works for a day without crashing. Instead of trying to add features to put their competitors out of business maybe Microsoft should work on putting out a stable and secure OS.
5) Apple should have licensed their technology when they were doing well 10 years ago. They chose not to and here they are. It's still great technology but dominated in most areas by the Wintel monopoly.
1) Having to support millions of different pieces of hardware is difficult. True, but Linux seems to do it admirably.
2) OS/2 sucks. Have you ever used OS/2? Have you ever talked to anyone who did? OS/2 kicks Windows' ass. It's a shame there is a monopoly up in Washington that made it so noone would ever know this.
3) Everything MS has done, which can at best be called evolutionary and not innovative, would have been done regardless contrary to what they would have you believe.
4) Win 9x is ungodly unstable. It's a shame that we had to go from DOS, which was rock solid, to an environment where we pray the computer works for a day without crashing. Instead of trying to add features to put their competitors out of business maybe Microsoft should work on putting out a stable and secure OS.
5) Apple should have licensed their technology when they were doing well 10 years ago. They chose not to and here they are. It's still great technology but dominated in most areas by the Wintel monopoly.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
<1) Having to support millions of different pieces of hardware is difficult. True, but Linux seems to do it admirably.>
Yes and no. Sound for one is an area where Linux could use some work. Also, out of the box, it's GUI is still not as stable as Windows. It can be fixed, but you need to get deep into the code. That is something 95% of the people that use computers are not willing to do.
You also have to remember Linux has a group of coders that is what 30 (??) times that of Microsoft. The source is open, so people can see problems with the code. I wish Microsoft would open their code. That would take what advantage Linux has over it away. It would also open up competition.
<2) OS/2 sucks. Have you ever used OS/2? Have you ever talked to anyone who did? OS/2 kicks Windows' ass. It's a shame there is a monopoly up in Washington that made it so noone would ever know this.>
Yes I have used it. It does suck (read OPINION). No applications (worse than the Mac
). The support for 3.1 programs in Warp was pittiful. Just as stable as an NT core system (more stable than 3.1 that it was in competition with). It was kind of like an overdone movie. Some loved it. Some hated it. I was one that hated it.
If IBM wasn't so arogant at the time, they would have won. Microsoft was a co-developer of OS2 up until IBM thought they could push the little guy around. They underestimated Gates as did alot of other people did. What would you say if IBM did retain its monopoly or Apple gained a monopoly? I think those would be more restrictive than a Microsoft monopoly.
<3) Everything MS has done, which can at best be called evolutionary and not innovative, would have been done regardless contrary to what they would have you believe.>
The small companies innovate. The big companies eat them up and take the ideas. That is a fact of corporate America in the US. The Bay Area.
<4) Win 9x is ungodly unstable. It's a shame that we had to go from DOS, which was rock solid, to an environment where we pray the computer works for a day without crashing. Instead of trying to add features to put their competitors out of business maybe Microsoft should work on putting out a stable and secure OS.>
9x is unstable. 9x is out the door. NT is stable. I have RC1 on order. When I get around to it, I'll tell you what I thinkIf it weren't for the power crisis out here, I would have an uptime for you. The only time I bring my system down is for software and hardware upgrades.
As for all of these features. I wish they wouldn't. Concentrate on the OS and leave the fluff to the other companies.
<5) Apple should have licensed their technology when they were doing well 10 years ago. They chose not to and here they are. It's still great technology but dominated in most areas by the Wintel monopoly.>
It was a bad business decision on their part. They have great technology. They do not have they ultimate technology. They steal from Wintel. Wintel steals from them. That's the way the game works.
Yes and no. Sound for one is an area where Linux could use some work. Also, out of the box, it's GUI is still not as stable as Windows. It can be fixed, but you need to get deep into the code. That is something 95% of the people that use computers are not willing to do.
You also have to remember Linux has a group of coders that is what 30 (??) times that of Microsoft. The source is open, so people can see problems with the code. I wish Microsoft would open their code. That would take what advantage Linux has over it away. It would also open up competition.
<2) OS/2 sucks. Have you ever used OS/2? Have you ever talked to anyone who did? OS/2 kicks Windows' ass. It's a shame there is a monopoly up in Washington that made it so noone would ever know this.>
Yes I have used it. It does suck (read OPINION). No applications (worse than the Mac
). The support for 3.1 programs in Warp was pittiful. Just as stable as an NT core system (more stable than 3.1 that it was in competition with). It was kind of like an overdone movie. Some loved it. Some hated it. I was one that hated it.If IBM wasn't so arogant at the time, they would have won. Microsoft was a co-developer of OS2 up until IBM thought they could push the little guy around. They underestimated Gates as did alot of other people did. What would you say if IBM did retain its monopoly or Apple gained a monopoly? I think those would be more restrictive than a Microsoft monopoly.
<3) Everything MS has done, which can at best be called evolutionary and not innovative, would have been done regardless contrary to what they would have you believe.>
The small companies innovate. The big companies eat them up and take the ideas. That is a fact of corporate America in the US. The Bay Area.
<4) Win 9x is ungodly unstable. It's a shame that we had to go from DOS, which was rock solid, to an environment where we pray the computer works for a day without crashing. Instead of trying to add features to put their competitors out of business maybe Microsoft should work on putting out a stable and secure OS.>
9x is unstable. 9x is out the door. NT is stable. I have RC1 on order. When I get around to it, I'll tell you what I thinkIf it weren't for the power crisis out here, I would have an uptime for you. The only time I bring my system down is for software and hardware upgrades.
As for all of these features. I wish they wouldn't. Concentrate on the OS and leave the fluff to the other companies.
<5) Apple should have licensed their technology when they were doing well 10 years ago. They chose not to and here they are. It's still great technology but dominated in most areas by the Wintel monopoly.>
It was a bad business decision on their part. They have great technology. They do not have they ultimate technology. They steal from Wintel. Wintel steals from them. That's the way the game works.