Microsofts New Market Stratagy
Swiftspear
Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Important questions must be asked!</div> <a href='http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3101' target='_blank'>The artical of DOOM!!!</a>
I don't know about you, but to me, the fact that these bids could essentially make microsoft the center of all computer design alltogether is a very bad thing. If people don't fight this it will definately strike a major blow to open soursers and small scale manufactures all at once. If microsoft acctually intends to put the market in a place where every PC acctually REQUIRES something from them to run properly, it means big trouble for the universal standards we enjoy in the PC market today, and essentially it put them at the forefront of all future PC development and technologies. Definately a huge monopoly move on thier part.
I don't know about you, but to me, the fact that these bids could essentially make microsoft the center of all computer design alltogether is a very bad thing. If people don't fight this it will definately strike a major blow to open soursers and small scale manufactures all at once. If microsoft acctually intends to put the market in a place where every PC acctually REQUIRES something from them to run properly, it means big trouble for the universal standards we enjoy in the PC market today, and essentially it put them at the forefront of all future PC development and technologies. Definately a huge monopoly move on thier part.
Comments
You think they'll stop at just his pinky toe?
Just look at Microsoft getting sued on so many fronts in the EU. Microsoft is trying to make Windows so fat and bloated with Microsoft programs that are comparable to 3rd party or independent programs so that the average user won't go elsewhere. Windows Media Player is one such example.
Right now they're getting gangbanged over Streaming Media, but they're probably going to try and come out on that front as well.
It's not disturbing behavior, it's simply "natural selection" in the computer industry. The Open Source communities need to create something that is so much better than anything Microsoft has that Microsoft loses customers. In the process, Open Source communities will become "closed source." They will become true businesses, and begin seriously competing with Microsoft at that point. They will become like Microsoft.
It is disturbing behavior. If the plan pans out the way it looks like it probably will, all computer standards will be controlled by microsoft.
For instance, right now IE isn't following a bunch of standards, and several people mock them because of it, and hence we get a bunch of opensourse and freeware browsers that do things properly. In the future, if microsoft doesn't like that, all they would have to do is change the standards to how ever they want it, and now everyone else HAS to follow thier lead, and pay them money in order to do it.
Don't buy an Xbox.
Buy a Mac.
Problem solved.
Otherwhise, all you can do to help the cause is joining one of the various
<a href='http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=archives&date=2004-10-11' target='_blank'>interest groups</a> and be <a href='http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=archives&date=2004-10-16' target='_blank'>politically active</a>.
You could also just talk to the people personally and convince them with <a href='http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=archives&date=2004-10-20' target='_blank'>more subtle methods</a>.
Not as long as they fund the republicans presidential elections and win ;P.
Microsoft had realy hard struggles with international laws and was about to be
split. Remember Gates resinging as chairmen?
What saved microsoft back then was Bushs election....
Don't buy an Xbox.
Buy a Mac.
Problem solved. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not opposed to microsoft persay, but when they try to turn PCs into microsoft brand Macs (which is really what buying all computer standards will be doing) I have some real issues with that. Microsoft makes a decent operating system and some decent office software, not to mention a few games that aren't compleatly terrible either, but they have no buisness screwing over the open soursing comunity.
Don't deceive yourselves here, oh liberals of the board. Had Kerry been elected, it wouldn't have made a shred of difference to Microsoft.
This is ruthless business at its heart, and the only way to take it on is by using ruthless business by expanding Linux evermore into the consumer world. I've been contemplating changing over myself, but I really dig being able to play Half Life 2. Until the "Open Source" world can get its act together and form a real solid user base to take on Vole, it isn't even worth resisting. Until Linux becomes a real business in itself that is profitable but still far cheaper than Microsoft, the possibility of slowing down the monopolization of the computer industry is impossible.
I know it doesn't sound nice to make a business out of something that was originally open source, but at this point is there any other way?
Doesn't matter who wins, they fund the democrats too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't deceive yourselves here, oh liberals of the board. Had Kerry been elected, it wouldn't have made a shred of difference to Microsoft. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is probably the only statement illuminex will ever make that I agree with.
Currently there are no Open OSes poised to take over the destop if MS pulls a stunt like this. However, I suspect that if they did PPC hardware would gain marketshare significantly. OSX is pretty good and runs on (IIRC) runs on generic PPC hardware, this could replace Windows for many.
The key is to create programs that are more user friendly and reliable than their windows counter parts, while being able to read and convert from a Windows format (.doc, for example) to whatever format said program is using. That way changing from Windows to this newer version of Linux is relatively painless.
But enough about that, let's just talk about Microsoft for a second and why they will win. Microsoft created the first really good OS that was truly user friendly. It came to dominate the world as Windows, crushing every competitor in its wake. Now, most users have 0 interest in having to download a new browser program, a new media player, etc. Microsoft invented their own exclusive programs to run and support these functions. Good business, right? Yep. The user now needs to do nothing but install Windows to get all of their basic media and websurfing needs met.
It's all good business. And, since the consumer of said product is what decides, in the end, what a company will provide or won't provide, Microsoft simply gave users what they wanted: simplicity.
The average user buys a Dell or HP because of a service plan. Building a computer on your own is cheaper, but with a Dell, you know you can just plug it in and it will work. The average user doesn't know anything beyond Windows. They don't even know what an OS is. They don't want to either. You start talking about Operating Systems and people's eyes glaze over. They want it to play music, surf the web, check email, and work on some business stuff. That's it. Windows is a neat little package of all of the above that people are familiar with.
Internet Explorer sucks.
Outlook sucks.
Windows Media Player sucks.
But they give the average user what they need.
That's why, to fight Vole, you must become Vole. You must give users an OS that is cheaper, better, and just as user friendly. The average user doesn't want to even think about compiling his own customized OS. They don't even want to think about the OS at all. They just want it to meet their needs. And Windows has does that since it came to the industry, and has gotten better at it with each version.
That's where the fight is. Microsoft doesn't care about me or you. We are not its true target market. We are a different market that it sells to, but is losing sales to Linux. I have many friends who simply aren't going back to Windows at all.
But the average user doesn't even know Linux exists. And Windows owns that market.
So, in theory and practice, Microsoft has been doing great business. Linux may be a better program, but it's up against a business. To win against Microsoft, the Open Source community must create an organization that is a business, selling a standardized OS that meets the same standards/expectations that Windows does <i>but better</i>.
Then we have a real fight on our hands.
I beg to differ.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember, it's Linux that keeps Bill Gates up at night. Linux is too good, too successful, too customizable for Gates to ignore. If someone took Linux, made a version of it that was dumbed down so that users lose some customizability, added emulators to support many Windows applications, etc, I could see Linux be considered to be a good operating system for home user or business. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is basically what OSX is. Granted they used the Mach kernel instead of Linux, but they did make a UNIX OS that is a dream to use. Windows emulation isn't included but is available for a price. Unfortunatly no such Linux exists at this time, I blame zealotry in the community and a ridged adherence to archaic concepts. If an Open Source OS was going to take the lead anytime soon, then my money is on <a href='http://www.haiku-os.org' target='_blank'>Haiku</a> or <a href='http://syllable.sourceforge.net/' target='_blank'>Syllable</a>. If there is any Linux distro on earth that I think has a chance, its <a href='http://www.hardline.org/kb/MoslixTechnology' target='_blank'>Moslix</a>. Which is still early in its development stage and can barely be called "Linux" anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The key is to create programs that are more user friendly and reliable than their windows counter parts, while being able to read and convert from a Windows format (.doc, for example) to whatever format said program is using. That way changing from Windows to this newer version of Linux is relatively painless.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such programs have been being written for a long time. Take a look at <a href='http://www.openoffice.org' target='_blank'>OpenOffice</a>, it reads PowerPoint, Excell, Word, ect. formats and can save in them as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But enough about that, let's just talk about Microsoft for a second and why they will win. Microsoft created the first really good OS that was truly user friendly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No they didn't. Apple beat them to it (MacOS 1.0: released January 24, 1984. Windows 1.0: released November 20, 1985) and let me assure you, MacOS was far superior to windows until about Windows 3.0 (and even then MacOS was still superior, just less so).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It came to dominate the world as Windows, crushing every competitor in its wake.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, though they did have alot of help from Apple, which was notorious at the time for making stupid business decisions (like never creating a Mac at competetive price, and failing to interoporate with currenlty existing PC networks).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The average user buys a Dell or HP because of a service plan. Building a computer on your own is cheaper, but with a Dell, you know you can just plug it in and it will work. The average user doesn't know anything beyond Windows.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the average user doesn't even know Windows. They know how to operate IE and Outlook, maybe Word and Excell. Thats about it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, in theory and practice, Microsoft has been doing great business. Linux may be a better program, but it's up against a business. To win against Microsoft, the Open Source community must create an organization that is a business, selling a standardized OS that meets the same standards/expectations that Windows does <i>but better</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree that it needs to be a business or that anything need to cost money. However I will agree that there needs to be standardization in the environment. This is one area where Linux is sorely lacking. It wouldn't be so bad except that: a) every Linux distribution feels the need to have Linux somewhere in the name, giving people the impression that they are the same; and b) Even within a single distribution there generally isn't a well defined base system, leaving the developer guessing as to libraries and such they can expect to be available, and leaving users guessing as to what libraries and software they actually need.
EDIT: In case there is any doubt about the claim of superiority:
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/macos/macos10/macos11' target='_blank'>MacOS 1.0</a> - January, 1984
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/windows/win10/win101' target='_blank'>Windows 1.0</a> - October, 1985
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/macos/macos40/macos42' target='_blank'>MacOS 4.0</a> - March, 1987
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/windows/win20/win203' target='_blank'>Windows 2.0</a> - December, 1987
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/macos/macos70/macos70' target='_blank'>MacOS 7.0</a> - May, 1991
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/windows/win31/win31' target='_blank'>Windows 3.1</a> - April, 1992
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/macos/macos75/macos753' target='_blank'>MacOS 7.5</a> - May, 1996
<a href='http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/windows/win95/win95osr2' target='_blank'>Windows 95</a> - August, 1996
As you can clearly see, Windows was playing catchup for about a decade.
A: The ability to read and write to microsoft software formats with at least the quality and ease of use of microsoft office hardware.
B: The abilities to preform development functions as easily as microsoft and windows compatible development software.
C: Decent equivalent artware programs
D: Compatability to games, weather that means built in emulators for old games and game companies just giving it enough respect to compile to that particular OS in the future, or something else. The nessesity is that users don't have to do too much more work to use old software then they would have to do using that software in current windows builds. Most of the time that means just installing and clicking the startup icon
If an alternive OS can do all these things and keep the costs under windows software, then it will at least be in a compeditive position to take a signifigant portion of the market. At that point, any move from microsoft to alienate itself from the general market would be a bad buisness tactic, since from thier prospective, making incompatable nonstandard technology will just create a massive drop in sales when the alternitive standard equivalents come out.
No. Windows XP, for instance, is no operating system. It is a compiled security leak.
During my studies I had XML-courses. The lecturer is a member of the <a href='http://de.selfhtml.org/' target='_blank'>self html</a> community and was sued by Microsoft because he said this on the self html discussion boards. (or one of them said it, I don't remember the details) However, the court was in Germany and the lawsuit was decided against Microsoft. Looks like the judge decided the lecturer was right <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the games.....No, they are not and never made by Microsoft. Microsoft just looks for enterprising small development groups and then makes them an offer they cannot resist. (pun intended)
Then, they rescedule the development so the game is first released for the xbox(if not exclusively).
Take Halo. Halo was so darn hot when the first images of the completed engine were available, everybody creamed his peants over it. It was innovative and great. However that was only the ability of the game engine which was developed first. Bungie inteded to make a gameplay that equals the graphics in quality. There was talk about cooperative multiplayer, strategic elements, ressource management, troop depolyment, research....
What has it become? A rather obsolete shooter. Honesty, Halo is really not a great game. It loooks nice, however at the time it was finally released for PC its was nothing special. The gameplay was dull too.
Microsoft does not develope good games. It prevents other companies to develope them by simply buying them out. In that process, it overall lowers the standards.
Its not important if it could be better, as long as nobody else has it.
If MS would buy NS out of Flyras hands, you surely would see classic-gameplay gone, as it it not portable for the Xbox.
Combat 2 on 2 multiplayer only.....yay!
No. Windows XP, for instance, is no operating system. It is a compiled security leak.
During my studies I had XML-courses. The lecturer is a member of the <a href='http://de.selfhtml.org/' target='_blank'>self html</a> community and was sued by Microsoft because he said this on the self html discussion boards. (or one of them said it, I don't remember the details) However, the court was in Germany and the lawsuit was decided against Microsoft. Looks like the judge decided the lecturer was right <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the games.....No, they are not and never made by Microsoft. Microsoft just looks for enterprising small development groups and then makes them an offer they cannot resist. (pun intended)
Then, they rescedule the development so the game is first released for the xbox(if not exclusively).
Take Halo. Halo was so darn hot when the first images of the completed engine were available, everybody creamed his peants over it. It was innovative and great. However that was only the ability of the game engine which was developed first. Bungie inteded to make a gameplay that equals the graphics in quality. There was talk about cooperative multiplayer, strategic elements, ressource management, troop depolyment, research....
What has it become? A rather obsolete shooter. Honesty, Halo is really not a great game. It loooks nice, however at the time it was finally released for PC its was nothing special. The gameplay was dull too.
Microsoft does not develope good games. It prevents other companies to develope them by simply buying them out. In that process, it overall lowers the standards.
Its not important if it could be better, as long as nobody else has it.
If MS would buy NS out of Flyras hands, you surely would see classic-gameplay gone, as it it not portable for the Xbox.
Combat 2 on 2 multiplayer only.....yay! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine, thier the Devil!
But it doesn't change the fact that they are still the biggest software company for OS and office software by far. WinXP might be a security issue, but it is one of the few operating systems that can preform half the tasks it can preform relitively bug free. In all honesty, much of its online and networking support and capabilties are close to unparalleled, and certianly not by an OS with as much low level user freindlyness.
The internet is a major threat to microsoft though. We have already seen from the success of firefox, which in a matter of a year blasted open the third party browser market to the point where they acctually nearly compeat with IE. If a good, ironclad OS were to appear that was able to preform all the functions of WindowsXP (minus maby game compatability, that is a developer issue, not an OS issue) and complimented with the software to acctually make it a comparable buisness model, at a highly user friendly level; Internet distribution of this product could corner microsoft into an area where thier evil plans would no longer be viable, simply because they would be alienating half the purchasing population by makeing thier software incompatable with standard design hardware.
Seriously. Gates is a genious. He manages to sell a bugged software to virtually everybody and amost nobody is complaining about it. Yet it will become interesting when finally all greater sofware devolpers will only update their software or develope future software for MS operating systems....
What is the most annoying thing on XP is that is is nothing but a big pile of phone home software. The whole piece of software is one big tool for market research.
I hate to break it to ya, but...
How many PCs have windows on them? 98%.
How many PCs have MSDOS on them? 2%.
How many PCs have other operating systems on them? 0%.
Macs are a different story. Windows operating systems will not even work for macs. This is deliberate, and while they could merge the technologies if they wanted to, this is very much a deliberate action. Microsoft plans to monopolize macs too by simply causing the demand for PCs too high to ignore.
It's hard not to know how to operate a computer this day in age without knowing how to navigate a windows operating system. The two are practically synonymous. Microsoft has been a monopoly for a very long time now.
The monopoly started the moment windows started giving away its Windows 95 to new PCs, and as a consequence, everybody got familiar to it. Now to ask an old man in the head of a major cooperation that knows nothing else but how to navigate Windows to switch to another operating system is the heart of why Microsoft will always be king.
In a way, they hender new developments. If something comes out that revolutionizes the computing industry, Microsoft becomes a part of it if it isn't already. If they do not cooperate with Microsoft, they are sure to make sure none of their software is compatible with this new revolutionary thing. Consequentially, no money, no business, and you're done for. You'll find that any business interested in making money will always go with Microsoft .
You'll also find this is the reason macs and linux users are still fighting Microsoft.
I'm going to assume that this number overlaps with the 98% who use Windows via Win98,95,ME.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
How many PCs have other operating systems on them? 0%.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, your close. Linux makes up about 0.24% of the PC market. It would be very slightly higher if you added the BeOS and FreeBSD users in there. I'm going to assume that you aren't counting MacOS because it doesn't run on x86 hardware.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Nov 15 2004, 10:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 15 2004, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's hard not to know how to operate a computer this day in age without knowing how to navigate a windows operating system. The two are practically synonymous. Microsoft has been a monopoly for a very long time now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not really true. I know alot of people who "operate" computers, yet only really know how to click icons on the desktop. The ammount of money I've made "fixing" somebody's computer after they "deleted the internet" is way more than it should be (and not because I rip them off [much], I only charge $20 to drive out to the place and for something like this I don't charge extra). Clicking on icons is a GUI paradigm as old as the GUI itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The monopoly started the moment windows started giving away its Windows 95 to new PCs, and as a consequence, everybody got familiar to it. Now to ask an old man in the head of a major cooperation that knows nothing else but how to navigate Windows to switch to another operating system is the heart of why Microsoft will always be king.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Microsoft never "gave away" Windows. What happened was that they made exclusive deals with Desktop PC retailers to only sell PC preinstalled with their OS. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the cost of Win95 wasn't passed on to the consumer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'll find that any business interested in making money will always go with Microsoft . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See: Google.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'll also find this is the reason macs and linux users are still fighting Microsoft.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is part of the reason. Microsoft has a nasty habit of "embracing and extending" open standards to the point that they are no longer open. However, these OSs have other problems that keep them from being mainstream:
Linux: Virtually no standardization of the environment leads to developer nightmares. No developers == virtually no commercial software. Among other problems.
MacOS: Only runs on pricey hardware.
AFAIAC Linux will never make it as a desktop OS if it isn't fundamentally changed. See: <a href='http://www.hardline.org/kb/MoslixTechnology' target='_blank'>Mosilix</a>. MacOS has a very real chance, or rather, it would if PPC hardware were cheaper and more readily available.
The real money being made comes from the bundle word 2000 type software that came with it. That stuff teh businesses did have to pay for. In the beginning, if you wanted that with your computer, you had to pay a little extra. It was obviously cheaper than if you bought it straight from the store, but still.
Most of the money microsoft gets now is from xbox, strangely enough. A lot of what microsoft does now is to take over the market, not to make gobs of money.
We're a direct target of Microsoft because of this: see any game built exclusively on Direct X (Half Life 2). The average user buys a new computer because the average user's son wants to play CS with more than 30 fps. We are where a private battle is being fought. The only reason I won't leave Windows now is because Half Life 2 is worth have Windows.
But you see, Linux is growing. The average gamer is a part of at least one online community, if only passively. We're the hope of non-Windows OS. We also just simply dislike Mac's, since we aren't familiar at all with their technology and they're too pricey. We want the same hardware with a different OS, and that's why Linux is appealing. So, if someone can make a standardized Linux-based OS that has end user appeal (the fact that there are no viruses and no spyware make Linux very appealing for many users) and make a move to get at least some computer firm, even if it's something like Alienware, to have this new OS, then the world is open to this new OS.
The gamers have a lot of influence right now, and more every day. We learn, we educate, and we game game game. We teach other gamers that we befriend what we know, and vice versa.
There are only 2 ways that a modern Mac differs from a modern Windows PC (besides average price). 1) They use a different processor architecture called PPC (PowerPC), this is pretty much only important for developers 2) It uses a different OS. Thats it. A user switching to Linux has to learn just as much as a user switching to MacOS X. Long ago this was different, but nowadays Macs use PCI, USB, Firewire, ect. all the main technologies relevent to desktop hardware.
There are only 2 ways that a modern Mac differs from a modern Windows PC (besides average price). 1) They use a different processor architecture called PPC (PowerPC), this is pretty much only important for developers 2) It uses a different OS. Thats it. A user switching to Linux has to learn just as much as a user switching to MacOS X. Long ago this was different, but nowadays Macs use PCI, USB, Firewire, ect. all the main technologies relevent to desktop hardware. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The closed box architexture is the main turnoff to me... That and obviously the lack of gaming goodness.
The whole reason that I don't want microsoft to go through with this new plan for global domination is that if they do, open box architexture, as we know it, dies. Sure, the essential ability to pull parts out and put new parts in may still exist... but all those parts would be microsoft architexture and small developing companies would be screwed over by the nonstandardness of the whole thing.
The thing is, if you own the standard hardware, you can force people to code optimized for that standard hardware, and you can even patent certain techniques that are nessicary for achiving the best preformance. Microsoft is trying to get in a position where every open sourse product comparable to thier own would need to pay them signifigant ammounts of money just to exist. BASTARDS!
Don't buy an Xbox.
Buy a Mac.
Problem solved. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
surely you'd want to buy an xbox since they sell them at a loss <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can blame Microsoft for buying one of the best game companies ever (Bungie), who also happened to be big Mac fans. As far as the closed box archetecture, it only exists on iMacs. Go by a G5 tower and you'll find it easier to open then your average PC case, probably doesn't even require a screwdriver. Working with its internal components is very similar to a desktop PC, SCSI is used instead of IDE (IIRC), though that will probably be replaced in the near future by SATA. PCI cards are there, just like with x86 PCs. Wanna plop in the lates greates nVidia card? Go ahead, same way you'd do it with your current system.
Microsoft was a lonely child in the begginning. He quickly made a lot of friends the day he invented MS-DOS, and later Windows. All those that opposed him, Microsoft said, "That's okay, we won't play with you." If Microsoft really wanted that friend, he said "Please play with me? I have a million dollar contract in my pocket that says you will." And he quickly became friends with him. His arch rival Linux, Mac, and Unix have no friends, because you cannot be friends of Linux, Mac, and Unix and be friends with Microsoft.
The end.