Where Competition Thrives, M$ Dives

In 1995 M$ was just beginning to have a presence on the web. When Lose ’95 was inflicted on the world, M$ bundled its browser with the OS and did anti-competitive actions to boost its presence. It’s web server, IIS, rapidly grew to ~22% by 1998, when US Department of Justice went after them for their illegal war on Netscape. After the complaint in 1998, IIS levelled off and except for a few bumps where they bribed large customers to use IIS for periods of time, and reached 36% at most, IIS has declined gradually ever since.

“One important current source of potential competition for Microsoft’s Windows operating system monopoly comes from the Internet, described by Microsoft’s CEO, Bill Gates, in May 1995 as “the most important single development to come along since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981.” As Mr. Gates recognized, the development of competing Internet browsers — specialized software programs that allow PC users to locate, access, display, and manipulate content and applications located on the Internet’s World Wide Web (“the web”) — posed a serious potential threat to Microsoft’s Windows operating system monopoly. Mr. Gates warned his executives:

A new competitor “born” on the Internet is Netscape. Their browser is dominant, with a 70% usage share, allowing them to determine which network extensions will catch on. They are pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API [applications programming interface] into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system.”

When the anti-trust suit was “finally” settled in 2007, other competitors emerged and IIS started a steeper decline. Today IIS is at 12% of “all domains” according to Netcraft. Google, nginx and “other” are taking share from IIS and the market-leading Apache which has 55% of sites.

see September 2012 Web Server Survey | Netcraft.

This shows that when competition is allowed to thrive, M$ is just another player, not the elephant of IT. The predominance of M$’s OS on the desktop is evidently the result of all the anti-competitive actions M$ has taken to create and to preserve their cash cow. Fortunately, M$ could not control all the small OEMs providing consumer electronics globally and now we have */Linux on small cheap computers everywhere. M$ is making a late start in the mobile space, but with their track record, they will again be just another player. Android/Linux appears to dominate this space and with exposure to OEMs, retailers and consumers, the cash cow of M$’s OS on the desktop is also threatened. There’s nothing like seeing a different OS everywhere to raise awareness that M$ is not the only game in town.

The truly locked-in claim the small cheap computers that run */Linux are not real “PCs”, but they are. Just ask any teenager who uses them more than a PC to browse the web, send messages or talk for that matter. It’s not just teenagers, either. My “little woman” uses her smart phone more than her PC now. The big PC is relegated to printing and storing all the stuff her smart phone gathers… She travels and shops a lot and the smart phone is with her always. The big PC will stick around but it’s not a growth industry any longer. There might be a necessity of one per household like a server but there is a necessity to have one smart phone per person in society and that drives growth there. The smaller cost and greater portability makes it inevitable. Even I may have one in my holster out in the garden, shopping or hunting sooner or later.

Incidentally, the judge in US DOJ v M$ defined a PC:
“A “personal computer” (“PC”) is a digital information processing device designed for use by one person at a time. A typical PC consists of central processing components (e.g., a microprocessor and main memory) and mass data storage (such as a hard disk). A typical PC system consists of a PC, certain peripheral input/output devices (including a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, and a printer), and an operating system.”

Well, the small cheap computers have all of those albeit in tiny form… The judge was also quite limited in his outlook. A GNU/Linux PC can serve multiple users and be a server as well.

The one thing the big PC does better, production of stuff in business, can mostly be done better with thin clients, too, so the gradual decline of M$’s cash cow will continue there because the thin clients can run GNU/Linux. The use of web applications will also dry up that cow.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Where Competition Thrives, M$ Dives

  1. Yeah. I just posted about that. I think it is an anti-competitive act considering recent history. I wonder who would lay that complaint, Canonical? RedHat? Suse? I expect there will be millions of PCs produced that cannot run GNU/Linux because of the built-in video processor. That’s a loss of business for all non-M$ services.

    I think it’s risky business by Intel. If “8” doesn’t sell they are out of luck. I wonder how much M$ paid for exclusivity.

  2. eug says:

    Intel Clover Trail Atom chip won’t work with Linux

    http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/58464

  3. ch says:

    “ch so you are one the odd real NT deployments. Not that common for that time frame.”

    Yeah, sure, nobody ever used NT, all those sales and deployments never happened …
    Just keep on making up your own reality. Don’t worry about facts, believe instead.

    “due to how identical Samba and NT looked to end users”

    They didn’t look identical to people with admin accounts.

  4. oiaohm says:

    ch 3Com cards where the cheapest here at the time 1995 to about 1999 but just label for PC in Australia at time. They were buying cheapest of what they believed was better but was brick.

    ch mind you this could be regional as well. Thinking Samba lead developer is in My country.

    ch so you are one the odd real NT deployments. Not that common for that time frame.

    As I stated you cannot find out what was the deployment unless you add access to the server room around that time due to how identical Samba and NT looked to end users.

    More often than not when I question people over this kind of claim its bogus. I had to find one sooner or latter who was using NT really. You were in the minority for that timeframe. Lot were sticking to there Unix with Samba or BSD with Samba.

    Its like all shifts there are different groups different numbers. In every statical happening there are edge groups.

    Again does not change the fact that was not a really true integrated backbone and it could not be. Of course some business operations do want many small isolate servers not a integrated backbone.

    Web of trusts does not make a integrated backbone by the way. Since you don’t have the multi location backups of a proper integrated backbone. That is what cause the problem ch you mostly likely used the wrong term to describe what you had.

  5. ch says:

    “So by that there is a chance that you NT network domain controllers in that time-frame were really Samba sitting on LDAP.”

    No they were not. I was working with the admins all of the time, even had an admin account myself, and I knew what was going on. No, we didn’t even talk about Samba – it was NT, and that was it. Stop clutching for straws!

    “So boss would sign off on copies of Windows copies of Unix/BSD not knowing that both were being deployed as one.”

    Our bosses would have known, they were no PHBs.

    “Basically cheapest so called server network card was a brick.”

    Why in the world would you buy the cheapest whatever for a server??? We used mostly 3Com cards at the time, no problems. But then again, we knew what we were doing.

    “As you say ch unix was used where appropriate the big important question is where was that.”

    Stuff like DB servers (those that weren’t SQL Server for one reason or another), Internet proxy, some special applications etc.

  6. oiaohm says:

    ch
    –Our company built – among lots of other stuff – servers with their own version of Unix. Yes, we knew Unix – and used it where appropriate.–

    So by that there is a chance that you NT network domain controllers in that time-frame were really Samba sitting on LDAP. This would not be uncommon. Up until year 2000 Microsoft attended all the Plug fests for the SMB and related protocols. So a samba domain controller worked perfectly without risk of having NT insanities. So was quite a popular solution. Even more fun since there is no licensing change with Samba you don’t have to bug the Boss that much to deploy it. So boss would sign off on copies of Windows copies of Unix/BSD not knowing that both were being deployed as one.

    This is why its important to check records to make sure what you were using pre 2000. There were a lot of cases of windows servers just being members server in Samba run NT networks in that time frame. So windows not doing the domain control role due to the glitches the Microsoft implementation had.

    Ch some of that cheap and nasty network hardware was relabel as good brand hardware as well. –Basically cheapest so called server network card was a brick.– But a general PC version network cards was cheaper without the defect. Yes stuff labelled server that not work. There was some cheap and nasty stuff I should have said stuff that looked cheap by description but was nasty.

    Samba up to and including 3 series has another little fun feature settable locations in the LDAP to look up. The LDAP server could contain multi domains information. So replication from one location to another would be creating backups. Even if the users at each location that could login where different.

    Supporting ADS in samba 4 causes the multi domains in a single LDAP to be given up. I am going to miss it.

    As you say ch unix was used where appropriate the big important question is where was that. Answer required to know if your network was a Windows NT network or a Samba network with Windows server members in that time frame. To end users of that time-frame both look identical.

    This is why I wish Samba 4 with ADS would get out then we could have this fun again.

  7. ch says:

    “Yes 1991 to 1999 I have some bad memory of network gear from hell made by different companies on the cheap with nasty big defects.”
    (my emphasis)

    Who would’ve thought!

    “ch I guess you guys out sourced for the solution in 1997 and did not have any unix/bsd staff”

    Our company built – among lots of other stuff – servers with their own version of Unix. Yes, we knew Unix – and used it where appropriate.

  8. oiaohm says:

    ch the 40 000 object limit Its one of those ones those who used it learnt. NT 4.0 was tested to a particular point not past it. You went past that point all hell broke lose. Mostly due to minor handling bugs that never got fixed in how hives operate. People who used it to limits know that. People who did not don’t know that because they never found out that the recommendation was the max. So would just hit the numbers up planting time bombs in many businesses that did go off for some unlucky ones.

    ch
    –Fortunately our admins were more competent than you–
    No more competent than the ones I was cleaning up after. I saw some really good ways to ruin a NT.

    Most creative was a network card that unless you enabled netbeui it did not work at all. Packaging said 100 Mbs server grade network card. Believing packaging not that wise all the time. Basically cheapest so called server network card was a brick. Yes 1991 to 1999 I have some bad memory of network gear from hell made by different companies on the cheap with nasty big defects. Only lasted 10 years before that the gear was mostly good after that mostly good. You did not have just incompetent IT people you had incompetent hardware makers as well.

    –Which implementation of LDAP would you have recommended around 1997 ?–
    I will take this as Jan 1997 and before.

    Slapd was very popular with us at the time doing BSD bases mostly. Linux servers for me start around 1998. Even that I had been messing with Linux from 1994. No licensing cost either.

    So the two dominate would have been NDS and Slapd in 1997. Mostly because NDS for migration so all clients get reconnected to Samba before migrating the user information into Slapd out of NDS. So that zero down time for Netware to Samba was possible.

    Even for Linux bases Slapd most likely would have been popular it was the only server for LDAP with out large billing to use yet still a full LDAP 3.2.

    Slapd is the base to OpenLDAP today. Slapd was quite mature by 1995. Its also a distant relation of 389 directory server as well.

    1998 you list becomes a lot broader.

    I guess you missing the 1995 announcement when LDAP become a accepted standard ch. Also missed Slapd release supporting ldap 3.2 in the same year.

    It was upto handling the scale you had as 1 domain in 1995 if you trusted it. Of course most businesses would have waited 12 months to let the new techs bugs be fixed.

    ch I guess you guys out sourced for the solution in 1997 and did not have any unix/bsd staff so never got offered the more cost effective.

  9. ch says:

    “We are talking NT 4 here yes 40 000 is the max safe settable SAM size.”

    Once again: Your own link disproves you. It’s a recommended limit, not a hard one.

    “NT 4 you could by mistake create a Trust circle with two domains named the same at different locations joined with different users creating some very strange permission approvals.”

    Fortunately our admins were more competent than you 😉

    “LDAP is kinda the key bit here to prevent trust disasters.”

    Which implementation of LDAP would you have recommended around 1997 ?

    “Thorsten Rahn my knowledge is not Google is really fixing NT up after business had it completely fail.”

    Sorry, but your knowledge has been shown to be non-existing a few times too many by now.

  10. oiaohm says:

    Thorsten Rahn
    –You could increase the SAM size, therefore upping the object limit.–
    We are talking NT 4 here yes 40 000 is the max safe settable SAM size. I am not kidding about write the 40 001 and explode if you have expanded the size to larger than 40 000. You are really out of space. The limit comes from a defect in NT 4 file handling of hives. So its not one you can magically avoid. Any larger and SAM completely dies due to a defective write into the hive rendering it not readable. The failure is all todo with object look up pointers. There is only 40 000 of them. After that you pull some random value from memory and write to that point in the file even possible attempt to write past the end of file so causing the what the? the sam file is a few G? how did that happen. Pray its not somewhere important. Same with read back from the file.

    Complete Trust Mesh comes in Windows 2000 with ADS does not exist as stable feature in NT 4.

    NT 4 has domain to domain trusts that are manually set between domains not a true Trust Mesh. NT 4 you could by mistake create a Trust circle with two domains named the same at different locations joined with different users creating some very strange permission approvals.

    Great fun nasty side effects if you pulled it off. Best was seeing NT 4 get lost and give a guest user in one domain equal to admin on another then magically promoting it in its own domain to administrator due to being completely lost in the trust system.

    There were a lot of manual made NT 4.0 trust nets that basically exploded with some nicely disaster results for companies.

    You are saying features that come in 2000 to explain the extra size. Complete Trust Mesh with sanity checking comes with the ADS. Before that was hold on a hope no one creates a trust circle or use Samba that did not have the bug. LDAP is kinda the key bit here to prevent trust disasters.

    NT4 was a stack of independent domains at locations. Not a integrated backbone. That you hope you wired up right with trusts.

    NT was much better as an application server. As just a member server NT could do this even with Samba running users.

    Thorsten Rahn 1 million+ in a single domain is supported safely by samba. No trust issues either. Samba had trust sanity checking.

    So all 400K users could be handled by 1 samba domain without having to setup trust relationships. LDAP replications yes to multi locations and rsync of profiles so allowing users to move between locations and profile follow. This is what I am talking about multi location support. I guess people did not move between offices and have profile follow automatically where you were ch.

    Thorsten Rahn and ch I guess where you were that no one made a mistake setting up trusts with NT 4.0 so did not see its complete nasty bad side.

    There were reasons why lots of places avoided NT up until 2000. Or tried NT and got badly burnt.

    Thorsten Rahn I can tell you back in 1998 I had a few people tell me that yes we could expand SAM past 40 000 objects as well. Let them do it have a script run until 40 000 object are created then have them create one more user and watch the complete thing go down. Never fixed in any of the service packs of NT 4.0.

    I guess neither of you were handling networks with insane number of users per domain or where trusts in NT 4.0 went wrong.

    Thorsten Rahn my knowledge is not Google is really fixing NT up after business had it completely fail.

  11. ch says:

    @Thorsten: Hallo Kollege 😉

  12. Thorsten Rahn says:

    Thorsten Rahn it was 10+ years ago. Thanks for the correction. 40 000 objects not 40 000 users. 40 001 objects you are out of space.

    Ahem, no, you’re not. I thought I cleared that up just now? The possible maximum number of objects depended on the type of objects and the SAM size. You could increase the SAM size, therefore upping the object limit.

    Also, ch never claimed that his company had 400k+ users utilizing the Single Domain model. Multiple Master and Complete Trust Mesh both allowed for unlimited users. So what’s your problem? You think that real Windows administrators (as opposed to Google-educated wannabes) didn’t know how to setup networks with 40k+ users? Funny stuff, because our Windows NT network at Siemens worked pretty much flawlessly back in ’98.

  13. ch says:

    Mr O,

    once again you fail at reading. From your own link:

    “the recommended limit for the number of security principal objects per domain is 40,000”

    It’s a recommendation, it does not mean that with 40,001 objects it dies. Further, if you had any knowledge of your own on NT you would remember the concept that allows you to easily use more than one domain in a big organisation.

    “lack of support for multi location.”

    Our company has sites in most countries of the world. No, that was not a problem.

    “Maybe you never looked in the Server room.”

    Actually, I have been in some of the server rooms over time. But of course that wasn’t necessary to know we were running NT.

    In the early 1990ies we used OS/2 LAN Manager (and NT when it was available), Banyan Vines, Netware and probably some other stuff, pretty much depending on division or even department. Sounds like a mess? It was – those were really the pioneering days. Somewhere around 1997 it was all moved to NT. Among the reasons:
    – Better licensing scheme than Netware
    – NT was much better as an application server
    – NT had full, real TCP/IP support from day one.

    And no, we didn’t even consider Samba.

  14. oiaohm says:

    Thorsten Rahn it was 10+ years ago. Thanks for the correction. 40 000 objects not 40 000 users. 40 001 objects you are out of space.

    –(although it had an upper limit)–
    Thorsten Rahn 40 000 objects is the upper limit you could put into the SAM with NT 4.0. NT 3.5 is a smaller upper limit.
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc961769.aspx

    –400k+ employees– as ch claimed is still not workable Thorsten Rahn.

    I forgot that users, groups and computers has to come out of the 40 000. That is why trouble started around 5000.

    Reality until you get to windows 2000 and ADS the windows offering is insanely small.

    There are no practical limit to how many users a Samba backed by LDAP could support back in 1997 even threw today.

  15. Thorsten Rahn says:

    To go past 40, 000 users before ADS in a single domain system you only options were netware or samba. Why because Windows NT domain controller dies once you try to add the 40,001 user.

    Yeah, sure. Except for the fact that the SAM size was not fixed (although it had an upper limit). Therefore 40,000 objects was not the possible maximum in a single domain.

  16. oiaohm says:

    ch Other thing I had forgot is if you went past 5000 users with NT its performance drops off as well with the pre 2000 versions.

    Yes reality Windows NT was not that great.

  17. oiaohm says:

    ch
    –MS was forced to release the SMB documentation, yes. But they were and are fully allowed to use and extend SMB, and AD is rather something seperate, anyway. So please try again to explain why MS had no legal right to use AD?–
    It only becomes legal once they have released the documentation and attending plug fests for implementations to be compared. Microsoft did neither after the release of ADS. The company that writes the protocol and sets the license sets the rules ch. IBM wrote the protocol they set the rules on how you could use there IP. Yes if you extended you were required to release the documentation and attend the plug fests.

    Ch the reality AD is not fully separate. IBM did a viral agreement over SMB and its hanger on protocols.

    This is why Microsoft could not win the Anti-trust case over ADS in the EU. They did not own or have the legal right to altered the protocol the way they did. IBM was fairly kind not to push its IP rights.

    –“Also in 1997 NT was losing to Samba”

    Nope, it was just picking up steam.

    “NT was not quality enough”

    As if you would know. NT was pretty much the backbone of our company (400k+ employees) at the time.–

    Not exactly I remember doing migration from Windows NT to Netware in 1998. Due to the lack of support for multi location.

    Some how I don’t believe you that it was your full integrated backbone. Windows NT domains have a user limit. 40,000 users maximum. You are saying you are 10 times larger than the Max Windows NT supports. Maybe you typed error.

    To go past 40, 000 users before ADS in a single domain system you only options were netware or samba. Why because Windows NT domain controller dies once you try to add the 40,001 user.

    Both Netware and Samba worked better in you huge companies of 400 000+ users particular due to Windows NT hard limit in until the year 2000. Maybe you never looked in the Server room. Samba reported to be NT to network with a bogus version number.

    There are a lot of people who will tell you in 1997 they were using Windows NT then you go and look at the companies IT records and you find they were using Samba and only migrated off it with the release of ADS.

    Until 2000 it was Netware vs Samba mostly. Netware was mostly losing to Samba. Users in a generic LDAP that other applications supported that samba did was a highly useful feature.

  18. ch says:

    “So when Lotus and Wordperfect worked out they had to release a Office suite to compete their was no way they could get their feet back under themselves effectively.”

    For a landlubber, you sure spin a nice yarn.

    “So same speed cable can more more data using netware.”

    Didn’t matter in the real world, Netware had simply lost it’s former speed advantage.

    “Also in 1997 NT was losing to Samba”

    Nope, it was just picking up steam.

    “NT was not quality enough”

    As if you would know. NT was pretty much the backbone of our company (400k+ employees) at the time.

    “ADS and extensions around that protocol are not allowed to exist not documented”

    MS was forced to release the SMB documentation, yes. But they were and are fully allowed to use and extend SMB, and AD is rather something seperate, anyway. So please try again to explain why MS had no legal right to use AD?

    “after Windows 2000 was release with ADS. Yes the thing MS did not have the legal right todo.”

  19. oiaohm says:

    ch
    –Nope, that happened much later when CP/M86 was already history.–
    The first contracts that were all machines made to pay for MS Dos were signed before CP/M86 died. Some of the first contracts MS signs after IBM in fact for MS Dos. You need to go read the anti-trust case and time line it.

    ch
    –This RTF story only exists in your fantasy.–
    To be correct its not fantasy. Microsoft got RTF accepted as a document standard in many countries including Australia where I am. So you wanted to submit something to a government department it had to be RTF. By altering it and not documenting it locked their competitors out of all those markets. This action prevented other competitors getting there feet back under themselves.

    So when Lotus and Wordperfect worked out they had to release a Office suite to compete their was no way they could get their feet back under themselves effectively. Microsoft was always going to have more money for development due to what markets they had locked in with the RTF anti-trust. So at that point we are not talking fair competition any more.

    Yes MS won first round by fair competition in the Office suite battle. What prevented the battle lasting many years with many strong competitors was an anti-trust action.

    There is also documentation that MS also withheld information on Windows ABI that gave MS Office speed advantage as well. Double cheating.

    ch
    — Sometime around 1997, NT was roughly as fast as Netware (both maxed out then-current 100Mbit lines).–
    Netware protocol was and is more compact that SMB. So same speed cable can more more data using netware. That is a protocol issue. Maxed out NT was not as fast because its protocols did not allow it. Maxed out cable does not tell that data is moving from machine to machine at same speed. Its just you have Maxed out the cable. The protocol cost per packet of data is a better measure.

    Also in 1997 NT was losing to Samba because Samba could LDAP back end as was not location restricted. Same advantage went to Netware. ADS is when Windows at long last get proper multi location support. 1997 Windows NT is basically key feature short.

    There are some other NT domain limits as well. NT was not quality enough to fully compete in real world deployments in 1997.

    ch
    –Care to explain?–
    Read the EU case. IBM is the official owner of SMB and all its latter protocols. ADS and extensions around that protocol are not allowed to exist not documented and not shown at implementation meet ups this is why MS faced huge EU files over it.

    Who is the official runner of the SMB implementation plug fests Samba.org. So yes samba is meant to know everything about the networking protocols MS uses.

    –It took a long time for Netware to really support TCP/IP.–
    Of course Netware avoided that. Since what they were using is more compact than tcp/ip. Switching to tcp/ip slowed Netware transfer rates down.

    Reality Netware had not really fallen until 2000 then they fell fast.

  20. ch says:

    “Chuckle. For a company unafraid of competition they certainly find lots of ways to avoid it…”

    They like it better without competition, sure. (Every company knows that life is so much easier without any strong competition.) But they sure can handle competition.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eT33eT30Uc

    Relevant part at 2:16, explanation in the “best comments”.

    “What would those things you cannot do on them be?”

    Anything that requires a much bigger display, precise input and/or more horsepower. For starters, try running Fritzing on a smartphone …

  21. ch says:

    Mr O, where do you get all those silly ideas?

    “MS Dos sold for lower price than CP/M.”

    Yep, and DR thought that $240 for CP/M86 was the right price even when IBM sold PC-DOS for $40.

    “Also anti-trust action where to ship MS dos you had to pay Microsoft for every machine you made even if it included CP/M so of course CP/M stopped selling.”

    Nope, that happened much later when CP/M86 was already history.

    “Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect. MS again under cut on price and committed an anti-trust action. The anti-trust action here was creating fake standard RTF for word processors.”

    This RTF story only exists in your fantasy. In the real world, the first Windows versions of 123 and WP were late (because they had believed IBM that OS/2 would be the future and developed for that first) and they were crap: Essentially DOS UIs inside a window. So Word and Excel – at the same price as 123 and WP – took over. The Office bundle was just the final nail in the coffin (and more directed against Freelancer and Harvard Graphics).

    “Netware. MS again under cut on price and committed anti-trust action same one that hit samba.”

    What does Netware have to do with Samba?

    “Netware only fell majorly after Windows 2000 was release with ADS.”

    They were already falling behind years before:
    – Sometime around 1997, NT was roughly as fast as Netware (both maxed out then-current 100Mbit lines).
    – Netware sucked as an application server, and Novell even cut support for those brave souls who dared write NLMs.
    – It took a long time for Netware to really support TCP/IP.

    “Yes the thing MS did not have the legal right todo.”

    Care to explain?

    “MS never over took symbian”

    I just can’t force myself to see Symbian as a real smartphone OS, it never was in the same league.

    “Of that list who owns there own factories any more.”

    And that matters because … ? The important thing is that there are lots and lots of machines with Win8 coming, so RP’s hope that somehow OEMs will desert MS seems to be in vain.

  22. ch wrote, “there’s too much stuff you can’t do reasonably on them, and so they aren’t general-purpose.”

    Ahh. What would those things you cannot do on them be? Run the Pentagon? Get real. One can run a GNU/Linux distro on many tablets and GNU/Linux is a general-purpose OS by any standard.

  23. ch wrote, “So MS isn’t afraid of competition.”

    Chuckle. For a company unafraid of competition they certainly find lots of ways to avoid it…

    M$’s Developer Relations Group:
    “It is our job to ensure that those choosing an operating system are presented with an overwhelming abundance of evidence and reasoned arguments in favor of our standards – so overwhelming that the choice of our standards seems obvious, or (ideally) that the developer is not even aware that a decision was faced, and a choice made.”

    That philosophy extends to all areas of M$’s reach. They like to make real choice unavailable to OEMs, distributors, retailers and consumers. It’s all about subverting competition, choices based on merits.

  24. oiaohm says:

    iLia
    –we simply don’t want that Linux was imposed on us by some government–

    I don’t want Windows imposed on me either by My government but I have to put up with it to submit my tax returns. Please note their is no OS X support either.

    Really I would prefer if governments dealt in open standards so people could use what ever OS they liked.

    –we simply want to share our personal experience and stop this stream of lies and FUD you are pouring on your readers.–

    Responding with FUD will see you flattened.

    iLia Cuban Communist Party makes there own Linux.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_%28operating_system%29

    The ISO downloads
    http://repositorio.nova.cu/releases/3.0/
    I am looking forward to reading your review on it iLia.

    This is the point. No one has the resources to build a new OS from nothing with all the hardware support. So all future competition to Microsoft most likely will be Linux of some form.

  25. oiaohm says:

    ch Problem is the prior battles don’t suggest this time that MS is in the right location this time around.

    MS Dos sold for lower price than CP/M. Also anti-trust action where to ship MS dos you had to pay Microsoft for every machine you made even if it included CP/M so of course CP/M stopped selling.

    Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect. MS again under cut on price and committed an anti-trust action. The anti-trust action here was creating fake standard RTF for word processors. Then extending in a closed way. This is why the rally around ODF was done and MS is being forced to implement OOXML properly. This is lock breaking.

    Netware. MS again under cut on price and committed anti-trust action same one that hit samba. Netware only fell majorly after Windows 2000 was release with ADS. Yes the thing MS did not have the legal right todo.

    “good enough” product is what FOSS is threat todo in different markets like Office suite. How do you under cut LibreOffice price tag.

    ch
    –while was leader in smartphones–

    Go back check your numbers MS never over took symbian. So never was the leader in smartphones. MS created that as a PR stunt. Lets keep on creating a define of a market until we exclude our competition.

    So other than the xbox 360 none of Microsoft market was gained by fair and open competition.

    ch
    –Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony and Toshiba–
    Of that list who owns there own factories any more.

    So those who don’t own there own factories any more are they really OEM’s.

    Reality MS is mostly dealing a few levels above the real OEM’s.

  26. ch says:

    So far, MS has always worked best when they were up against strong competition. They ultimately won against CP/M (former market leader in desktop OSes), Lotus 1-2-3 (former market leader in spreadsheets), WordPerfect (former market leader in word processing), Netware (former market leader in PC network OSes) – and they won gainst those with either a combination of better price and “good enough” product or better product at “good enough” price. Windows Mobile eventually took over the PDA market and for a while was leader in smartphones, the Xbox is doing quite well against strong competition. So MS isn’t afraid of competition.

  27. Thorsten Rahn says:

    People resist change including changing their mobile devices to that other OS.

    People resist change for the worse. Thus Linux doesn’t stand a chance.

  28. iLia says:

    That’s growth of 2% per annum for a technology company?!

    Blame Apple for it, GNU/Linux has nothing to do with it.

    Where Competition Thrives, M$ Dives

    Come on, mr.Pogson! In almost all markets where they are present MS has a much bigger market share than desktop Linux. And I actually have nothing against competition more competitors MS has better for customers. You see people who disagree with you about Linux are not MS funboys or shill or whatever oiaohm calls us, we simply don’t want that Linux was imposed on us by some government, we simply want to share our personal experience and stop this stream of lies and FUD you are pouring on your readers.

    MS has some strong competitors? Good! But on the desktop Linux is not one of them. If Google, IBM or Cuban Communist Party produces a good desktop OS I will take a look of it, if it works better than, at least, Windows XP maybe I will use it.

  29. ch says:

    “and 20% is millions of people”

    So what? You wrote: “Well, the small cheap computers have all of those albeit in tiny form…” But if ~80% don’t have them, what does that say regarding the judge’s definition? Right. Are you man enough to admit it?

    “The small cheap computers are general-purpose machines for many people.”

    Nope, there’s too much stuff you can’t do reasonably on them, and so they aren’t general-purpose. Especially smartphones are quite specialised.

    “the mobility that the old-fashioned PC lacks”

    Yes, that’s why so many notebooks are sold.

    “People resist change including changing their mobile devices to that other OS.”

    So far, anybody using a smartphone or tablet (except the few Windows-based tablets already in use) had to learn a completely new and different UI – even WinMobile’s UI had little similarity with a desktop Windows.

    “So, the trend to mobility does mean that other OS is being replaced.”

    So far, it’s mostly augmented but not replaced. Guess why syncing between PC and smartphone or tablet is such an issue.

    “small cheap computers”

    The best-selling tablet so far costs as much as a notebook.

    http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/10/found-in-a-gizmodo-comment-string.html

    “If M$ cannot get the OEMs”

    On a recent trade fair here in Germany, Win8 tablets were shown by Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony and Toshiba:
    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/myriad-of-windows-8-hybrid-devices-revealed-at-ifa/

    [quote from link]
    Two quick takeaways from the PC news coming out of the IFA show in Berlin: Hardware manufacturers are all about Windows 8 and tablet-laptop hybrids right now.
    [endquote]

    “What is sure is that */Linux will have major share of small cheap computers and that */Linux will be found more often on old-fashioned PCs.”

    Sure, the “year of Linux on the desktop” is just around the corner – as it has been for the last 10+ years. Just keep repeating that to yourself.

  30. oiaohm says:

    The key thing is you cannot build a good OS if the foundations are not good.

    Android is causing a lot of work on the foundations everything Linux depends on to make it better for desktop and mobile phone usage. Firefox on the Go phones that are coming also gain from this.

    Interesting future.

  31. ch wrote, “with PC sales slowing down (but still ongoing) it’s not so surprising that Windows sales might slow down, but that doesn’t mean that Windows is actually replaced in significant numbers by anything”.

    Young people, in particular, love the mobility that the old-fashioned PC lacks. When they grow up they will need stationary boxes less. Face it. Until “8” that other OS will have virtually no presence on tablets or smart phones. People resist change including changing their mobile devices to that other OS. So, the trend to mobility does mean that other OS is being replaced. You can tell by the rate of growth of small cheap computers compared to stagnation of old-fashioned PCs. For two years now, the sales of small cheap computers has exceeded those Wintel systems.

    The question remains how much of ARM will be absorbed by WARM. I doubt much. People already have two choices that are very popular. A third one will have an uphill battle just as GNU/Linux has had on the desktop. Add to that the price, the restrictions and M$’s inflexibility and the world won’t put up with M$ on ARM much if at all. Even the OEMs can see how silly M$ is about ARM. If M$ cannot get the OEMs, retailers and consumers lining up there is no chance that M$ will get a major share there. What is sure is that */Linux will have major share of small cheap computers and that */Linux will be found more often on old-fashioned PCs. Where price matters, */Linux will gain major share. Some small cheap computers are old-fashioned PCs at heart and */Linux will allow them to be smaller and cheaper. One cannot force back the tide, ch.

  32. ch wrote, “So 80% of tablet users don’t use a physical keyboard? Thanks for making my point. So who’s the idiot here?”

    You, ch. There are many millions of tablets in use and 20% is millions of people, probably the ones using tablets for textual content-creation. I noticed my little woman uses her camera in her smart phones quite often for image-creation. The small cheap computers are general-purpose machines for many people. I know from teaching that while I can teach virtually all students to type only a small fraction end up doing it in a major way. It’s about division of labour/skills/talent/need. Not everyone types. Those who do can type on a tablet. I think USB keyboards on tablets will be more common than bluetooth but I see lots of phone-answering going on with bluetooth. The little woman uses it with her car for hands-free communication. The little woman could use a tablet for just about everything if she had a stand behind it so she could use it instead of a monitor. Her eyes are much sharper than mine. I still like a big display.

  33. oiaohm says:

    ch 20% using keyboards by what is being acquired. Of what we would call a normal button keyboard that has been design for tablets that has a case for tablets.

    But remember when you upgrade your tablet you can use the keyboard you had from the prior. Lot of the blue-tooth keyboards are quite well made.

    That 20% does not cover people using projection bluetooth keyboards either. That some people have with their phones. They are small enough to fit in pocket.

    –They can use a BT keyboard, but while I see quite some tablet users I have yet to see one of them actually using a physical keyboard.–

    ch you see it more in business. You have a calendar app on your tablet. Typing new entries in by touch screen is painfully slow.

    The other thing they are bluetooth for a reason. I see a few business men where the bluetooth keyboard for the ipad tablet does not leave there work desk. Since that is where they update calendar and do longer emails.

    This is the thing about a Tablet if you are looking around a cafe you might see all tablets no keyboards. Yet when they get back to their room or somewhere with privacy they can get keyboard out and type that private email. Really think how many people with a laptop at a cafe do you see typing. Then think where you are looking for tablets with keyboards. Are you looking were people avoid using the keyboard anyhow if so you are not going to see the keyboards.

    Only way you will see them is like me where you are integrating into business networks.

    Of course you are aware 1 blue-tooth keyboard on a desk can be docked to many different tablets one at a time.

    So 1 to 5 sales is not exactly a clear picture.

    20% for sure could be a max of 50 percent using keyboards. Remember you can be docking and using a usb keyboard as well.

    I was only counting bluetooth keyboards that are made for tablets. Its about 1/5 for those.

    There are other keyboard options for these tablets as well. So 20% is low. Your claim 80 percent not using keyboards cannot be made from the numbers I have.

  34. ch says:

    Mr O,

    sigh. Just sigh.

    “Most tablets today use a bluetooth keyboard of some form.”

    Correction: They can use a BT keyboard, but while I see quite some tablet users I have yet to see one of them actually using a physical keyboard.

    “Keyboards for ipad and android tablets sell about 1/5”

    So 80% of tablet users don’t use a physical keyboard? Thanks for making my point. So who’s the idiot here?

  35. ch says:

    “Still ch is in denial of the reality that small cheap computers including thin clients are taking over or at least taking the place of growth in the old thick-client regime.”

    Reality really can be so many things to different people 😉

    When I look around, I see the good old PC (with Windows) still ruling. However, what’s changed is that hardware performance has finally outgrown software requirements: A several-years-old PC will do most jobs still fine, so why buy a new one? (I just bought a used notebook – it came with Vista pre-installed, so that gives you an idea about its age. I installed the previews of Win8 and MSO2013, and performance is just fine. To give you an idea: I opened Outlook and Word, did some stuff in them, then opened your site in IE, and finally checked memory usage in Task Manager: It was all of 900MB.)

    So with PC sales slowing down (but still ongoing) it’s not so surprising that Windows sales might slow down, but that doesn’t mean that Windows is actually replaced in significant numbers by anything (except pirated copies in developing countries).

    Smartphones and tablets are obviously taking off right now, but usually they are a complement to the PC, not a replacement. (This might change to some extent with Win8 tablets with keyboards attached, meaning they can double as notebook surrogates.)

    And do you have any evidence regarding the rise of thin clients?

  36. ch says:

    Mr k,

    “Who ever is not using a keyboard and mouse now, others will not need them either.”

    The good news: You’re still successful in being annoying.
    The bad news: You utterly fail at reading comprehension.

    The matter is not whether smartphones and tablets should have keyboards and mouse but whether they currently do have them, and if you had bothered to read the article you might know why I brought up that issue.

  37. Thorsten Rahn says:

    Where Competition Thrives, M$ Dives

    Where Pogson’s at, sanity takes its hat.

  38. oiaohm says:

    ch
    “Very few smartphones and virtually no current tablets have a keyboard, let alone a mouse. Printer?!?”
    You are idiot as normal.

    Most tablets today use a bluetooth keyboard of some form. This normally is normally in protective case you can put the tablet in that makes the tablet very much like a netbook.

    Visit android store and you will find lot of printers for android. Samsung MobilePrint. Then quite a few repackaging cups. There are very few things with 2800 printer drivers. Some developers make a good living selling this stuff. So there has to be users out there doing it ch. I never paid but I do it from tablet for record notes. Somethings has to be on paper.

    Basically anything you can print to from a OS X machine you can print to from an Android phone or tablet then some once you have a cups based printer solution installed.

    Mouse android devices support Bluetooth and USB of that. If you would exactly need that.

    Keyboards for ipad and android tablets sell about 1/5 ie for each 5 ipads or android tablets sold about 1 keyboard sells for them.

    smartphones I have also seen people using blue-tooth projection keyboards. Faster to email with a full keyboard.

    The thing is like the google glasses plan the small screen device in a phone might not stay that small.

    Wienux died but it was a complete distribution from nothing.

    LiMux is still alive and well. Its has always been customised images of other distributions. LiMux is a lot in the same model as Google custom Ubuntu that is Google currently most dominate OS.

    LiMux is not unique. Lot of companies have there own custom internal images of Linux called different names so the company images are the company images without question. When you are doing something unique you take a high risk.

    ch
    –Once again, the operative word is “can” – and then there is this ongoing trend towards notebooks in business.–
    Close the trend is really towards notebooks and tablets with keyboards. With keyboard in case the tablet gets placed in. Mostly because of the remote delete features a lot of android and ipad devices offer if lost that a notebook normal does not.

    Yes I know that delete feature might not work but businesses see the feature and go that is cool want that.

  39. ch wrote, “How can a factual prediction (“decline will continue”) logically follow from a possibillity (“can run”)?”

    So sorry. I assumed you had read M$’s financials. Check out the client division and read the bad news in Digitimes and IDC. Quarter after quarter of low thick client sales… Still ch is in denial of the reality that small cheap computers including thin clients are taking over or at least taking the place of growth in the old thick-client regime.

    2008: M$ client division revenue – $16.86billion

    2012: M$ client division revenue – $18.37billion

    That’s growth of 2% per annum for a technology company?! They used to have 10% per annum year after year. Meanwhile 60million more PCs are shipping per annum. M$ is losing share in a big way.

  40. kozmcrae says:

    ch wrote:

    “Very few smartphones and virtually no current tablets have a keyboard, let alone a mouse.”

    So why are there millions and millions of them in use? What difference would it make if there were a couple of billion in use? Who ever is not using a keyboard and mouse now, others will not need them either.

    You seem to think that some day everyone using a smartphone or a tablet will suddenly say “Hey! Where the hell is my keyboard!”

  41. ch says:

    Just in case: Yes, I know that you can print from some smartphones to some printers. And maybe one day I’ll meet someone who actually does that.

    Oh, and while on the matter of “can”:

    “The one thing the big PC does better, production of stuff in business, can mostly be done better with thin clients, too,”

    Once again, the operative word is “can” – and then there is this ongoing trend towards notebooks in business.

    “so the gradual decline of M$’s cash cow will continue there because the thin clients can run GNU/Linux.”

    How can a factual prediction (“decline will continue”) logically follow from a possibillity (“can run”)?

  42. ch says:

    “When Lose ’95 was inflicted on the world, M$ bundled its browser with the OS and did anti-competitive actions to boost its presence.”

    And what good did all that bundling do MS? IE market share was still way low, until IE4. Thre simple reason was that IE1 and IE2 simply didn’t cut the mustard, so almost everybody was using Netscape. IE3 was only slightly behind the contemporary NS3, so a few people started using it. Then IE4 was released, at it was actually better than NS4. So what happened? A million people downloaded IE4 just in the first few days (and that was before broadband!), so it didn’t matter what was pre-installed:
    http://penguinday.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-ancient-past/

    (Same with WMP: Before WMP could play MP3s, most users had Winamp or some other player. Only when WMP became good enough was it actually used.)

    “There’s nothing like seeing a different OS everywhere to raise awareness that M$ is not the only game in town.”

    The real core of MS’ success is its position in business IT – and do you believe for a minute that at least the bigger companies don’t know about Linux? The “awareness” is there all right – and so is the memory of LiMux (and maybe even Wienux 😉

    “Well, the small cheap computers have all of those albeit in tiny form…”

    Very few smartphones and virtually no current tablets have a keyboard, let alone a mouse. Printer?!? And the small displays especially on smartphones makes a lot of difference regarding things that you can do reasonably well on those devices.

    Once again: Words have meanings, and there is a reason those devices are called “tablets” and “smartphones” and not “PCs”. A PC is a general-purpose computer, a smartphone is a specialised device.

    “The judge was also quite limited in his outlook. A GNU/Linux PC can serve multiple users and be a server as well.”

    In which case it is … a server. Seems that the judge knows more about computers than you.

Leave a Reply