1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Microsoft unveils "Windows 8"

Discussion in 'General Software' started by MxPhenom 216, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. Thatguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    666 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69
    This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree, first thing on the list. Breakup microsoft, demonopolize them. Thats the first step, the rest will happen on its own.One of the other things that could go a long way, kill software patents as we know them and redesign teh system to make sense.

    Those 2 items would break the alternatives open rather quickly. Also mandate by law if needed no OS is to have more then 15% market share in a for profit scenario.

    Non profits are a entirely different matter. Applications, who cares. Posix could be a very powerful tool, if the monopoly was ended.

    it'd piss off some greedy corporate bastards, but fuck em, they don't mind doing you first.
  2. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    And I want to make the world flat.:rolleyes:
  3. Thatguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    666 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Thats called making the world round. It is currently flat and inovation is stifled by the microsoft monopoly. they control the entire PC market.
  4. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,382 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    that is a terrible idea. businesses operate the best when fully homogenized. it makes purchasing computers easier, tech support for them easier, deployment and use of software easier. business to business relies heavily on that kind of interoperability as well. microsoft is a very well run company for being as large as it is. using government force to break it up would lead to chaos in the industry as corporations pay bribes to politicians to hold a piece of the pie for them. when they broke up AT&T back in the 80s there was already a bunch of competing companies with fully interoperable infrastructures set up. you are taking away consumer choice by using government force on business. instead, let microsoft continue to innovate and use its leverage to make a profit (that's what businesses are supposed to do). the game is just beginning afterall. look at google and the inroads it has made despite microsofts dominance. the tech market is the most open market in the world and you can see how quickly innovation happens. i say keep the government's grubby mitts off my tech!
    Jack Doph says thanks.
  5. Thatguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    666 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Your deluded. Microsoft has already illegally become a monopoly. the breakup of microsoft would usher in some new ideas, designs and likely a better computing experience. Profits aren't everything, at some point humanity needs what it needs and a homognous operating system culture and software ecosystem are not good for us all. Not only that, but theres nothing wrong with open document formats, open interface standards etc. Those are the things that count.

    thats how the computing world could be better. Open standards and compliance. It give the people writing the applications alot of freedom to innovate while flattening the data to a something everyone can acess.

    I am sick of hearing about profits, I own a bussiness. I get "profit" but microsoft isn't out to make a fiar profit. They illegally got where they are by destroying everything around them. This isn't some conspiracy idea, its the way they do bussiness.

    software patents are dubious ground, look at patent troll mpegla. what a bunch of douche nozzles.

    these are the thing destroying innovation. Microsoft must be broken up, they aren't pushing tech. They are cuasing it to stagnate.
  6. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,382 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    Point to real world evidence that demonstrates breaking up a massive tech company will lead to increased innovation and then you have an argument. Until then you are simply spouting socialist garbage. Your ideas fail in the real world. Google has thrived despite Microsoft. The open-source movement has grown tremendously in the past 10 years despite Microsoft. Apple has grown incredibly thanks to Jobs despite Microsoft. All of this anti-Microsoft talk is demagoguery from the anti-business crowd who wish to take away consumer choice under the guise of social justice and wealth redistribution.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2011
    Jack Doph says thanks.
  7. Red_Machine

    Red_Machine

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,680 (1.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Location:
    Marlow, ENGLAND
    @Thatguy: You ignorant jackass. The industry depends on Microsoft, it would collapse if it was broken up.

    Dell would have to start selling more Linux PCs, which nobody would buy and the remaining Windows PCs would be bought up within weeks. Dell's bankruptcy would shortly follow. During and after this, the rest of the OEM PC companies would follow suit.
    nVidia would go bankrupt, AMD would go bankrupt and in all likelihood Intel would go bankrupt too.
    Apple would either have to switch back to PowerPC CPUs, but I doubt that's possible anymore, or they would go bankrupt, too.

    Within a year of Microsoft being broken up, the PC industry would cease to exist. Where would the innovation come from then?
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2011
    Jack Doph says thanks.
  8. jpierce55

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,335 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Yeah, it looks like Windows for Facebook and Youtube. It looks like an Ipad system ripoff. It looks like a resource hog that will surely strain older systems. It will keep the g-card warm.

    For those of us used to a pc we probably won't like it. For those of us who game, we aren't going to like it. OLDER PEOPLE who are scared of computers will probably feel more comfortable with it because of the visuals.
    remixedcat says thanks.
  9. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,384 (3.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,086
    Ipad ripoff how? And what do you base that resource hog claim on? It looks like a UI made for tablets which are pretty low powered to begin with.
  10. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    That guy(ha) sounded like a agitated communist spouting the same old crap from a century ago.



    You want to run a full OS under that shell on processors that are weaker than Atom?
  11. remixedcat

    remixedcat

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,587 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    529
    and try runnin that on a 200 dollar tablet? not happenin.
  12. Neuromancer

    Neuromancer

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    379 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Location:
    South Jersey
    $200 doesn't get you a smartphone (with out a 2 year contract and $30 dollar a month data plan on top of $50 a month basic package).. why would it buy you a decent tablet?

    Actually the new ARM processors should be more capable than the ATOM. The ATOM was a suck-cess because it failed to include Out of order processing which everything has done since the Pentium was introduced.
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2011
  13. remixedcat

    remixedcat

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,587 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    529
    well there's some 200-250 dollar droid tablets on tigerdirect and newegg and I was wondering how MS is gonna compete with those. or if they are gonna bother or pull an apple and release windows phone 7 and put it on those like apple did with the ipad and ios. that would actually be better for lower end tablets imo than a full os meant for ALL PLATFORMS.
  14. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,332 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Neuromancer: Atom isn't sitting idle either. Intel is shrinking it like there's no tomorrow.
  15. remixedcat

    remixedcat

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,587 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    529
    What's scary is some hosting companies are using Atom procesors. Not a good thing.
  16. silkstone

    silkstone

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,824 (1.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    474
    I find it funny when the socialist arguments come out. Most people don't even know what socialism means. But.. i think politics is against forum rules. It just annoys me when people living on a certian continent label certain things as socialist, when they are not.

    May i point out that both google and apple have done well in growing markets. They have by no means taken a sizable amount of microsoft's market share. The % market share that competitors have taken does not reduce microsoft profits, microsoft has only been getting bigger, as would be expected in a growing market.
    It would be quite strange if a single company was to be able to corner multiple markets in the way being discussed. To see how big an advantage microsoft really have, you'd have to wait until the market stopped growing, and then see which company took dominance.
    erixx says thanks.
  17. Thatguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    666 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69

    Thats such a total and utter amount of BS, the pc industry would function just fine, very likely it would function alot better. you can't have competition with a monopoly and you certainly can't have competition when the goverment is picking winners and lossers, BTW microsofts largest customer is the US goverment from the local to federal level.

    Your doomsday scenario just isn't feasable anyways. first of all legacy OS carry over would keep current systems up for some time.

    Imagine if there was one car company, you could only buy a GM vehicle, and you could only get a chevette and the only options you could get where leather or cloth interior with or without cassete player.

    Thats what the market is today, Calling me a socialist for wanting to break up a monopoly which is essentiall socialist, is a redherring and maybe you should try using a dictionary. Socialism has nothing to do with breaking up monopolys. In fact its is healthy for a free market system to be free of monopolys not the other way around.You get no competition with a monopoly, who is microsoft going to compete with right now ?

    Your problem is that you buy into alot of propoganda that simply isn't true.Intel should likely have been broken up years ago as well.
  18. remixedcat

    remixedcat

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,587 (1.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    529
    thing is would you rather have several smaller-medium sized companies making only a few products each, but were extremely high quality and nice.... or would you rather have a few huge companies that make mediocre products...? take your pick?
  19. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    @Thatguy - Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Your argument is flawed.

    No, you would just have a bunch more medium sized companies still making mediocre products.
  20. silkstone

    silkstone

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,824 (1.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    474
    I think the argument for breaking Microsoft up is a valid on and this is why.

    If Microsoft were to be broken up into different companies, (i.e. their internet browser into 1 company, antivirus into another, office into another and so on.. not breaking microsoft up into multiple companies doing the same thing) then if one campany were to produce poor results, or a poor product, it would be allowed to/forced to fail.

    As things are, if a certian division of microsoft were to produce a piece of crap and actually make a loss, the corporation could soak up those losses and still push their product. This gives them an advantage that not many smaller companies have. The ability to produce a pos piece of software and still be able to profit from it.

    I think people believe it would make to market more competitive because as things stand, certian divisions of microsoft are under no pressure to innovate or produce quality pieces of software when they can be supported by their successful products.

    It is also a little unfair, as when you install a microsoft piece of software, you automatically get the other microsoft crap. You install Windows 7, and you get IE8 + Bing. You install IE8 and you get MS Messenger etc. Now for us, this is not an issue as we can uninstall what we don't want (how many people actually use IE8?) But for the every day user, they will stick with that product forever.

    I don't think that breaking microsoft up would be bad at all, their successful products would still turn profit for the companies and continue to improve, but their pieces of crap software would be allowed to die leaving the market open for new competitors and forcing innovation.
  21. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    The popularity of their N editions of Windows suggest that people are just fine having a browser and media player bundled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bundling these things with your OS. Almost all OSes do this.

    Splitting MS up is not going to help individuals that just want their computer to work without any effort (which accounts for the vast majority). If it's good enough for them, then your point is moot. They don't need to look at alternatives. If the bundled software is not good enough, MS does not stop them from using alternatives.

    MS is not a monopoly. They shouldn't be punished because they simply have superior marketing.
  22. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,317 (6.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,342
    Location:
    IA, USA
    ...and there's zero chance of that happening now that Apple is raking in more money than Microsoft. Apple is under greater threat of being broken up (namely, breaking off iPhone and iPod products into separate businesses) than Microsoft now.

    Oh, we can't forget their monopolistic practices of requiring that iPhone apps be purchased directly from them too. From what I hear, Apple has a more zealous court of lawyers than Microsoft does these days suing for everything that remotely resembles iBlasphemy.


    Microsoft's only wildly successful product these days is Windows and they spend billions of dollars every year to keep it that way.
    snuif09 says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  23. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,382 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,218
    There will always be a group of people who believe that successful companies are only successful because they are somehow gaming the system. You cannot convince those people otherwise.
    Easo and Bundy say thanks.
  24. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,317 (6.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,342
    Location:
    IA, USA
    There are certain practices that are illegal which "bar entry" into the market (e.g. price fixing and buying out competitors); however, the federal government hasn't had any major anti-trust legal battles for a long time. Me thinks it is because they're just as corrupt as the rest of our worthless government.

    At the same time, the EU practically put Microsoft in this situation because of their ludacris fines. Where the US government doesn't pursue anti-trust enough, the EU pursues it too readily to fill their own coffers.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  25. silkstone

    silkstone

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,824 (1.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    474
    I assume people are just fine with it as they have no choice. If they were broken up, i'm sure the install of windows N would give an option as to which Media player, web browser etc could be installed at no additional effort for the end user, at the end of the day, they have to install the OS, a couple of extra clicks choosing which software components they would like installed wouldn't be a problem. I'm not saying that they shouldn't bundle any extras with their OS, just that they should give users a choice. Not just microsoft but all OS'

    That's the point, they don't have to do any marketing for most of their products as they come as default and are a pain in the ass. I wish there were a way to uninstall IE, WMP, etc as they cause me no end of problems.

    You are right in that they are not a monopoly, but again, that's only because the market is still growing. whether they "should" be broken up or not, i don't know, but my opinion is that if they were, it would be beneficial to the end user, not all gloom and doom like is the opinion of some other users.

    It's not black and white, i would say microsoft on a whole was so successful due to the innovation and quality of some of it's products. If you were to think of why IE is so successful, could you say it was because of the quality of the product and that the market share IE holds is purely due to it being better than it's competition?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page