On Dec 1, 5:33 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ed wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> > Robin T Cox wrote:
> >> Let's do a quick straw poll.
>
> >> How many readers of this news group are aware that their company is
> >> definitely planning to upgrade its software to Windows Vista?
>
> > Certainly not.
>
> > But lets face it. XP will not be supported indefinitely
Keep in mind that Microsoft tried to cancel support for NT 4.0 server
for almost 3 years before they finally declared "No more security
patches". The big problem was that every time Microsoft attempted to
cancel support for NT 4.0 and attempted to force customers to switch
from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 or Windows 2003, customers transitioned
most of the servers to Linux instead. The servers that could not be
transitioned were switched to Windows 2003, but even then, the
customers generally ended up having to upgrade to Enterprise Edition,
which often pushed the price prohibitively high. The increased costs
of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition were offset by the nearly free cost
of Linux and Linux applications such as MySQL, Apache, and other low-
cost or free applications.
The good news for Microsoft was that the cost of those few Enterprise
licenses was so prohibitively high, that most companies wanted to get
as much "bang for the buck" as possible. They put the newest and
fastest machines in as the Windows machines, then took the machines
being replaced and converted them to Linux. Of course, since Linux is
cheap, these companies ended up with lots of "free" Linux machines.
Eventually, the biggest expense of all these Linux machines was the
cost of power. It costs about $200/month to keep 12 standard PC Tower
based Linux servers running 24/7. If you have 24 or 46 such servers,
the costs can get a bit high.
Since Linux servers don't need complex video, support X11, and don't
need keyboard and video, these extra features could be "stripped
out". The result, short minimalized boards, combined with storage
arrays give us blade server arrays. Many racks full of Linux PCs have
been replaced with blade arrays. typically, a 19 inch rack can hold
about 64 blades with up to 8 processor cores per blade, and about 8
Gbytes of RAM per blade. The result is some really huge and powerful
machines in very small space, with about 1/2 to 1/4 the power
consumption.
Of course, all that processor power might be overkill in Linux world,
so it's often desirable to split the blades into multiple servers.
The result is the equivalent of 1000 virtual servers in a single 19
inch rack "server".
> Interesting statement that.
> Does it mean that third parties have automatic rights to support it
> and force the handover of code to support it because micoshaft
> has been declared a monopoly?
Not quite. In some cases, such as government contracts, Microsoft may
have the ability to bid a replacement. In many cases, Microsoft wins
the bid simply because they are the only ones capable of offering a
compatible replacement. In other cases, the same functionality may be
available through competitors, including Linux.
Remember, most bids are for a given functionality, not for specific
brands. For example, the RFQ will be "Give us your solution for
connecting web browser users to a server which can then access our
inventory system and order system". Such a solution could be
implemented using Windows and .NET, AIX and WebSphere, or Linux and
PHP. Other factors such as hours of development time required, cost
of ongoing support, and the use of "accelerators" such as intellectual
capital used in previous engagements can often make a Linux and
WebSphere based solution the most cost-effective in terms of
performance, reliability, security.
> Are the regulators just dozing off on their duties again
> in the light of new and creative monopolies?
Why not? Microsoft paid good money to Bush and other high ranking
Republicans, and probably some democrats as well. Most of these
donations were made early in the 2000 primaries, when Bush really
needed the money. In gratitude, Bush has made it clear that he
believes Microsoft deserves to profit as much as possible from all of
the "innovations" they can steal.
Since the EU ruled against Microsoft, Microsoft has funded the
overthrow of top officials in Germany, France, Great Britain, and
possibly a few others.
> Companies and individuals don't want to switch to PISTA.
They didn't want Windows XP either. Microsoft "force fed" them XP,
telling them that unless they accepted the upgrade licenses within 3
months after the initial release of XP, they would lose the right to
any ongoing support. Within weeks after these companies took
delivery, Microsoft let it be known that all retail customers who had
OEM versions of XP would also get free security updates.
Microsoft has been even more subtle with Vista. The corporate
customers were given the licenses, with no expectation that any
upgrade be installed. Instead, these commercially supported customers
were automatically "upgraded" to Vista Business Edition, and the XP
machines already in the field simply became "downgraded" versions of
Vista Business Edition.
Many companies have opted out of their support programs, choosing to
take ownership of their XP licenses, with the ability to downgrade to
Windows 2000 under the terms of the Windows 2000 licenses. This
allows Linux users to call the Windows 2000 DLL routines from WINE.
> They have invested in a monopoly that is turning into a bad
> investment by the second. But those consumers need protection
> from bad monopoly practice.
Keep in mind that Microsoft does not sell to "End Users". They sell
to OEMs, CIOs, and Retailers. About the only way you can order
Windows directly from Microsoft is to order it via the Web, at full
MSRP, which almost nobody does.
Most antitrust laws are designed to protect the individual customer.
The same is true with fraud, extortion, and bait-and-switch laws. The
courts tend to be less sympathetic to the consumer when the consumer
making the decision is a corporate executive who is assumed to have
the council of an attorney and often does involve negotiations with
corporate attorneys.
It's unlikely that Texas will name Dell or Gateway as a defendent in
Clayton Act based lawsuits. These companies were aggressively
courted, and bring lots of jobs to key cities like Houston and
Dallas. It's unlikely that California is likely to haul HP into court
for Clayton Act based lawsuits. Again, HP has been a huge source of
jobs and tax revenues, and when prior attempts were made against HP,
they opened facilities in Colorado, incnluding Colorado Springs and
Fort Collins.
The problem is that NOBODY is looking out for the interests of the END
USER. End users are simply expected to take whatever is shipped with
the PC. If End Users invest the time and money to install Linux, they
are not entitled to any sort of refund or discount to reflect their
non-use of Windows.
Microsoft's primary claim of market share is based on the percentage
of PCs, including desktops and laptops, produced and sold by the "Top
5" OEMs that ship systems with Windows. Ironically, Microsoft now has
to find ways to exclude Apple from that list (Apple is now the 3rd
largest PC OEM by unit volume). Microsoft's operating systems are
installed in 99% of the PCs made by HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway, Lenovo,
Toshiba, Sony, and e-Machines, the 8 largest OEMs.
The problem is that the "White Box" market has grown to almost 40% of
the market.
The AMD-64 based PCs had grown to 25% of the market for HP, Dell, and
Toshiba.
Less than 30% of the PCs made and sold by the "Big 8" are Vista Aero-
Glass compatible.
Over 60% of the "Big 8" PCs are now "Linux Ready". Almost 20% are
Linux capable.
Apple OS/X now has over 14% of the market based on unit volumes over
the last 12 months.
> Dropping support is the newest form
> of monopoly abuse.
Yep. But Microsoft is above the law. Bush will do nothing against
Microsoft.
> The monopoly regulators need to hold
> meetings and forcefully apply a new name to the practice of
> dropping support by a monopolistic abuser so they can address
> it today's markets as market abuse.
There is already a word for it. It's called Extortion.
It's Illegal.
It's a criminal act.
There are criminal penalties.
Bush will not lift a finger to prosecute any of the Microsoft
Executives involved.
Microsoft is also openly involved in bribery, but nobody wants to dig
too deeply there either.
There are too many in BOTH parties who have taken huge hand-outs from
Microsoft and other large contributors. Nobody wants to look too
closely, because the mud would end up on a lot of top Democrats as
well as Republicans.
|
|
