On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:39:26 -0700, nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:26 am, Robin T Cox <nom...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:53:19 +0000, Matt wrote:
>> > ness...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >> “This can free us from the Windows stranglehold.”
>>
>> >> “I have been a true PC stalwart for 2+ decades, but after trying
>> >> Vista, I’m ready for a change.”
>>
>> >> “It has been easier learning the Mac than learning Vista.”
>>
>> > Extending the issuance of new XP licenses past the June 2008 deadline
>> > would reduce:
>>
>> > 1) migration by individuals from XP to Mac 2) migration by
>> > enterprises from XP to Linux
>>
>> Only if those individuals and/or enterprises continue to feel that MS's
>> rather elderly, limited and insecure OS is preferable to the
>> alternatives. Especially when it is no longer necessary to run MS's
>> elderly, buggy and expensive software when cheaper and/or free
>> alternatives are available.
>>
>> And that is getting to be a harder and harder argument to sustain,
>> isn't it? Especially since XP is too bloated to run on the new breed of
>> machines.
>
> You mean Vista, don't you? It runs on the new breed of machines (top of
> the line), but not on anything else. Obviously the main reason for MS to
> extend XP is to avoid defections to Mac and Linux. Otherwise, why not
> force the customer to downgrade to Vista and its DRM controlled world
> and make some money at the same time?
>
Er, no. XP may well run on the new breed of machines, but it leaves
precious little room for anything else, or any software, to be installed
thereon. Certainly not for MS Office etc which was really the reason for
installing MS Windows in the first place, surely.
> One reason the enterprise has traditionally resisted migration to Macs
> is that they haven't been able to run a lot of apps written for Windows.
> Linux suffers even more in that regard. The fact that the new OS/X can
> run Windows under it (more efficiently than when it runs natively, so I
> understand, and certainly more secure) has been a big factor in
> persuading businesses to switch. Looks like the IBM experience has not
> been without problems, but their experience may help others.
Windows apps are required less and less nowadays, since there are far
more (and better) equivalent apps available cheaper (or free) to do what
MS Office used to do 10 or so years ago. The fact is, that MS have been
trading on their past reputation for too long, and now it's time for a
change.
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
|
|
