[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Dell or XP? Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email]  (#32) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:55:59
In Reply to: Dell or XP?, MisplacedYankee  [Profile/Gallery]
, Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:37:09
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
I run XP here at home on a couple systems, and so do all my roommates as well as just about everyone I know. I'm the last "dinosaur" running Win2k on my main desktop. There is no reason why - XP is faster and every bit as stable, and actually does a number of things better. I just haven't upgraded yet.
No one I know has a name-brand system, but similarly none of us have ever had a problem with XP. If Win2k will run, so will XP. It installs easily, cleanly, and quickly. Doesn't crash, doesn't hang *except* on one system we have, which is a 800MHz P3 overclocked to 1.1GHz. That one locks up once week or so, but it hardly surprises me - and the extra CPU cycles are worth it... :)
Microsoft has only as much power as the consumers grant it. Technological superiority has never won the battle of the marketplace - witness Saab. :) People buy what mostly works and doesn't cost too much and is more or less easy to use - witness Toyota. If Microsoft was producing such a terrible product people wouldn't buy it, and/or wouldn't use it. Back in the '70s (late '60s, whatever) you had a choice between Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler until Max Hoffman brought over a couple BMWs, and until Honda started selling little CVCCs in America. None of these cars were particularly good, but they were better than most of what Detroit was offering. People choice to buy cars that were better than the domestic product, and lived the nightmare that was public ridicule and difficult-to-find service. They *chose*, endured the challenges that resulted from making an unpopular choice, and ultimately supported "the better product." Now Honda sells more cars than Ford, and BMW more than Lincoln and Cadillac combined.
IBM tried OS2, Mac tried OS(whatever), and now the Linux community is giving it a go. *All* of these choices were/are widely publicized and as easy to buy as going to the local software store - or even downloading from the net. Nobody cares, because for all the technological superiority these products may or may not offer, Windows does a damn fine job and does it cheaply.
Microsoft is where it is today because of smart choices. They don't make the best product or even the most advanced product and probably never did or ever will. But they make an adequate product and make it accessible to everyone. That's just good business, and they've been rewarded with success.
The government can step in and take action against MS if they want, but I'd argue readily they're hurting the consumer more than anyone. I *really* do not look forward to going back to (heh) the days when I gotta fork over $500 for my OS, $1000 for my office suite, or spend hours compiling and configuring my web browser. I'm personally *happy* I can buy a PC and get all that stuff thrown in effectively for free, and know that it will all work. I'm pretty sure my customers are too, 'cause they don't have to pay me $120/hr to set up their bleeding config.sys anymore. I would feel utterly differently if Microsoft was gouging anyone for their products, but the fact is they aren't - prices have gone DOWN since competition dropped off. They have killed off all the competition pretty effectively, but the end result is not a typical monopoly scenario. Microsoft *knows* that a single misstep on their part *would* mean people jumping off to look at Linux (or BeOS - hehe) - many California agencies have done just that. They're being careful not to irk the consumer, and personally I think the government should spend my tax dollars repairing my roads or building public transportation or feeding the homeless instead of wasting it on a problem that, in my eyes and probably 90% of the American public, doesn't even exist.
Don't get me wrong. I wish Microsoft made a perfect product, and I realize they don't. But as a career IT guy, I wouldn't consider putting anything else on the desktop. It works, it's easy, it's cheap. I run, at least in my own head, the application that's right for the job at hand, taking into considering the time value of money for downtime and setup, and the efficiency/power of the product. The http/dns/sendmail/firewall sitting next to me is Linux. The MP3 streamer in my bedroom is QNX. Would I give these to my receptionist or junior accounting? Hell no. Too much to deal with. There *is* room for competition in the market, but someone has to produce something competitive to induce it. It needs to be cheap, reliable, and easy to use, and so far no one's done it. Should Microsoft be punished for Sun's inability to control their prices? For Linux's inability to pull together some bloody decent and concise documentation? For IBM's inability to produce an OS with decent hardware support? No, they shouldn't. I'm pretty sure I'll be alive when my desktops don't say Starting Windows anymore, but it angers me think the reason is because the government willed it so.
My $0.02....
-Justin
posted by 64.166.4...
, Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:06:36, Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:37:09, Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:55:59 <-- Viewing This Message, Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:54:38, Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:05:23, Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:20:12
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
