Will Unix-based operating systems overtake the M$ Windows monopoly someday?

[Asher]

Gameboy looks like it'll be in trouble shortly too, once Sony conquers that market as well.

And Pokemon's popularity isn't what it used to be.

[Ted Striker]

Linux servers are more entry level servers, they don't scale very well.

Which is why it makes sense that alot of people would upgrade to Windows 2003.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Gameboy looks like it'll be in trouble shortly too, once Sony conquers that market as well.

The same company set to give us the pile of crap called PS3 is going to conquer the handheld market.

And Pokemon's popularity isn't what it used to be.

I just threw that in for amusement value.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The same company set to give us the pile of crap called PS3 is going to conquer the handheld market.

They took over the N64 with a pile of crap called the PlayStation, why can't they do it again?

It doesn't take much to dethrone Nintendo these days.

[chequita guevara]

I just installed Linux on Bunnygrrl' computer this weekend. I was amazed by how easy to install it was, and how easy it was to add new programs. Some of the graphical user interfaces are really amazing too. As long as you go for stable and not unstable, things seem prtty simple. Heck, even Bunnygrrl (not a techie) was loving it.

[Asher]

Linux distros are incredibly easy to set up initially these days.

Report back in 2 weeks.

And try gaming.

[mrmitchell]

I've got news for you Optimus - everybody loses money on console hardware sales. Sony, Ninetendo, and Sega when they played the game.

!!! A standard myth about the console gaming industry. Microsoft is the most publicised example--they lose a lot of money on each XBox they put out. Until recently, Nintendo stayed out of the losing money scheme, but I believe they started selling the Gamecube at minor losses. (A shame.) However, Sony sells PS2s at a massive profit, something like fifty to a hundred dollars per machine.

Then again, they keep the price up because 1) they know everyone is going to want and buy a PS2 even if they have to sign over their firstborn son, 2) they like money, and 3) if they suddenly dropped it a hundred bucks people would lose the irrational feeling that they're getting their money's worth.

[Asher]

The PS2 makes $20 per machine.
The Gamecube breaks even.
The Xbox is at like $20-$50 loss per machine.

But the N64 was a massive money-loser initially for Nintendo, as was the PSX and PS2 initially for Sony.

The costs come down over time, all companies lose initially and make up for it. One of the exceptions was Nintendo which actually profited initially, because they were cost-conscious.

MS can afford to lose far more initially than everyone else, and they will do that. Halfway through the life of the Xbox and they're already dropped the price drastically. Soon they're going to unveil a much smaller Xbox (and much cheaper to make) using the 90nm process rather than 180nm and 130nm.

Plus now that the install base is around 10M, software sales will continue to grow, which continues to increase MS' profit from it.

The people who predicted, and continue to predict, doom for the Xbox was pretty silly.

[Asher]

Also interesting: Some of you may remember UR posting a thread and dancing about talking about how Munich is buying 14,000 Linux PCs? It turns out, 80% of those are running...windows.

Also note that no thread from him exists about that, curiously.

http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=115336

Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use

Although the Munich city council has voted to migrate its IT infrastructure to Linux, the actual migration won't start until 1Q04. If the migration succeeds, Munich's 14,000 clients would visibly boost Linux on the desktop. However, the city hasn't completed detailed planning for the migration, so don't view this announcement as proof that desktop Linux is ready for the general-purpose knowledge worker.

Munich hasn't yet disclosed the business case behind its decision. Gartner understands that Munich has many older versions of Windows installed, including Windows 3.1. We believe enterprises with very old infrastructures can cost-justify this type of migration more easily.

Gartner estimates that Munich's migration to Linux will cost around 30 million euros. It would have cost 27 million euros to upgrade Windows, before some reportedly very steep discounts from Microsoft. The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux; instead, the bulk of applications requiring Windows will probably be Web-enabled and accessed through a browser. Munich will accommodate any remaining applications using virtual machine software, such as VMware. Too many VMware implementations or other workarounds will reduce the benefits of the Linux migration, and the residual reliance on Windows would likely be higher than planned. The planned implementation is reportedly a traditional fat-client architecture.

The state of the project by year-end 2005 will better indicate Linux's maturity for the desktop and for knowledge workers in particular. If your enterprise is considering Linux, make sure that the expected benefits of migration will exceed the costs. Also, governments may take additional external factors into account in making this kind of decision — factors like local job creation or increasing local competition — that may not be relevant to your enterprise.

More info from Paul Thurrott of Windows Magazine:

And speaking about Linux stories you don't hear much from the Linux-loving mainstream press, consider the following. Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those "Linux desktops" will be used to run … Windows. I'm not a big fan of Gartner, but they've issued a report, correctly titled, "Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use," that raises some interesting issues. First, many of the Windows desktops they're migrated are very old Windows versions like Windows 3.1, making the switch to Linux less painful (it would be equally painful to switch to XP). Gartner says the cost of switching to Linux will cost 30 million Euros, or 3 million Euros more than it would cost to switch to XP, not including any steep discounts Microsoft would have no doubt provided. And finally, because most of the Linux machines will use VMWare to run Windows anyway, Linux is really being used as a hosting environment, and not as a replacement. In other words, this isn't exactly a good business case on which other companies can base a decision to migrate to Windows desktops. And, not coincidentally, that's why we're not reading about a lot of other high-profile Linux switchers.

[Velociryx]

Short answer: Not if Asher has anything to do with it....

-=Vel=-

[Wraith]

--"Aye, the corportations sure are getting the shaft with support for MS."

Many of them are, actually. You're just purposely misreading what he means by support.

And that TCO for Windows being lower thing isn't backed up by about half the studies I've seen. The other half being Microsoft sponsored, of course.
Corporations keep buying Microsoft for a few big reasons. One is that there is a big company behind it. Another is because it's been done that way for a long time. MS Office is another reason. Not ease of use for the most part, or features (since 99& of the users aren't going to touch 98% of the features), but the file formats.

--"Linux servers are more entry level servers, they don't scale very well."

True enough, but it has been getting better. I wouldn't say that Windows scales particularly well, either. You'd need to go with something like Solaris or OS/390 for that. Haven't really played with 2003 much yet on big boxen, though.

Wraith
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson

[mrmitchell]

The PS2 makes $20 per machine.
The Gamecube breaks even.
The Xbox is at like $20-$50 loss per machine.

But the N64 was a massive money-loser initially for Nintendo, as was the PSX and PS2 initially for Sony.

I was under the impression that Sony spent massive development costs on the PSX and PS2 and that was why they priced them to be expensive enough to turn in large profit, even to begin with.

[Agathon]

Look either M$ is doomed or we are.

Monopolies for the most part are very bad things. Either M$ continues it's virtual dominance of the desktop which means users will suffer, or some remedy is found that enforces the use of open standards to ensure a competitive market.

What's even worse is that M$ is trying to own, not only a monopoly on desktop OSes but on media delivery and web services. If this comes to pass it will be a disaster for all computer users. If record companies tie themselves in to M$ distribution system then M$ will slowly but surely take over the recording business. Same goes for other sorts of digital content.

Every time someone buys a copy of Windows they are slowly but surely shooting themselves in the foot. You can rant about technology all you want but it's simple economics. M$'s business strategy appears to be nothing more than to leverage it's monopoly - that is not a strategy that benefits users. Why do you think their security is so crap? One contributing reason is that there is no real competitive pressure on them to sort it out.

[Asher]

How long until the sky falls?

And MS' security isn't "crap". 40M lines of code, and you're going to get a few vulnerabilities. Particularly when all the acne-faced computer geeks get a kick out of targetting you.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why do you think their security is so crap? One contributing reason is that there is no real competitive pressure on them to sort it out.

One thing about Winblows compared to OS X is that Apple rarely releases any security fixes for it's operating system, while M$ releases security fixes for Winblows just about every day!

That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!