A blogger by the name of Roger left a very well thought out comment on my post about Microsoft, instead of leaving a comment on my own post, I decided to just go ahead a write another entry in response to Roger.
First I want to state that Roger’s comment was very well thought out and well written, but yet I must disagree with him on one point. That being that GM and Microsoft really are a like in how they operate and run business.
So then, what is the difference between Microsoft pushing the same product on you in different forms (i.e. XP Home and XP Pro) and Ford, who is in the same shoes as GM, pushing a Ford Fusion and a Mercury Milan? They are the exact same car. They even look alike except for small cosmetic changes. No matter which sub-brand you choice, your still more or less forced into buying a Ford. Your first response is probably something like go buy a Chevy, but the same can be said of their cars as well. This is how I feel about Windows as well. What is the difference between Home and Pro? Very little unless your a true Windows guru. I’m willing to bet 99% of Windows users couldn’t even tell you the difference if you asked them. The 1% that can either works with computers for a living or, as I previously stated, is a guru of some sort. I’m no expert on Windows by any means, but I consider myself current in my knowledge and I also consider myself to have a good working knowledge of computers, and I can only give you general differences, nothing really specific. The same goes for the cars. I can’t name the architecture or the platform, but I can still name general differences. Which is not a great deal in either case.
I’m not a really a fan of Microsoft, but at the same time I think we should play fair. If you hate one company for trying to be a monopoly, then you should hate another for the same practice as well. It only makes sense logically. Yet no one complains about GM and very few people complain about Rupert Murdoch (the billionaire owner of Fox News and countless other media resources). As as far as Murdoch goes though, I must admit that I do watch a lot of Fox News.
machines couldn’t communicate with the Vista machines. If hardware any older than a P4 or a Personally, I am not sure if I can honestly blame Microsoft for what they’re doing with Vista. With the massive amount of pressure on them from every industry, they’re almost left with no choice. They’re not like Apple who can just rewrite everything and alienate all the users who don’t upgrade (something they’ve done more than once). Apple, after all, only has some where around a 5% market share. The world runs on Microsoft software. I don’t think a lot of users are always aware of what it would mean to “rewrite an OS.” Not only would that be expensive for MS, but imagine the havoc it could and/or would reap across the globe. If suddenly all the XP PIII weren’t supported in any fashion. If no XP programs could run on Vista. If XP became obsolete overnight. Now I realize that not all of those are probable if Microsoft rewrote the whole OS from scratch, but all are possible, and that’s what matters here. Any of them could cause a lot of set backs at first. Something companies don’t want to experience. That is just simply not feasible, and I think of a lot of Open Source people don’t to like to admit to that.
So flame on. I may not be 100% correct about everything I just said, but I think my idea has been stated well, and must be given some merit. Again thanks for the comment Roger.
Enjoy the Penguins!