By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Is Microsoft losing their edge to competitors?

Fei-Hung said:
1) I am not a fanboy. Anyone claiming I am is being nothing short of judgmental and spiteful.

2) I never mentioned Windows 95. I gave a general overview of MS as a company from my standpoint. I didn't state everything I am writing is factual, but expressed my point of view.

3) I have nothing against MS nor do I favor the Sony brand.

4) Bill Gates is not the richest man anymore (he is giving away majority of his fortune to charity). The arabs oil sheikhs are worth more then Bill Gates. E.g. The Sheikh family who bought Man City is worth about a trillion.

5) I never said MS are going bankrupt. I said they are losing their edge. there is a big difference in your interpretation and what I actually wrote.

6) Having jokes in an article is not forbidden. It's the lack of humor that should be questioned.

7) Some of you totally missed the point of the article. The idea was to make it easy to read not to fill it with jargon that most people won't understand. I don't get paid to write on here as you can imagine, so I won't be sat here researching and revising hard facts and making notes to quench the thirst of MS fanboys or Sony fanboys. It is meant to be a simple easy read and it shouldn't be taken as anything more then that.

8) 5% may be a small percentage, but convert it into actual numbers and tell me the numbers are still small. No company wishes to lose 5% of their business. If you were a shareholder in a company, would you like your companies shares to drop 5%? If the interest rate on your credit card or mortgage increased by 5% would you consider it small? Suddenly 5% isn't a small number anymore. You need to look at the 5% in context.

9) As for the 360 and PS3 arguments; I didn't say the PS3 was successful, but I mentioned that possible threats it may give to the 360 and how the 360 could have made the console more profitable had it not been for the mentioned facts. A problem is still a problem until it is solved. No one in this forum can disagree with this fact and as long as the problem still exists (which it does), it is worth considering and looking into before it gets worse.

10) If the online issue wasn't such a big deal, why is it MS themselves spoke about it as a "problem" during a documentary screened on BBC? Why is it they have tried to buy out Yahoo if it isn't such a problem? Why would they even care if it weren't a problem? just because IE is the most successful browser at present time doesn't mean competition can be ignored, nor does it mean they are not a problem (please note that a problem can be something other then losing money e.g. health).

11) Anyone claiming I am bashing MS has clearly misinterpreted the thread. How can an article which compliments a company for it's good and bad points be MS bashing? Considering the topic was a question not a statement; followed by a jist of what MS has done; both good and bad proves the thread is not about MS bashing but trying to understand where things may have gone wrong or possibly why. e.g. Why has PS3 not done as well with the PS2 this gen? If i were to list the facts or generally spoken about arguments, would that mean I am Sony bashing? The logical answer is "no". Therefore the only conclusion to anyone calling someone a MS basher if such a topic is raised; it is the the person who calls someone a "basher" who is the actual basher.

12) Rather then not answering the question posed in the thread and calling people "bashers", and if one knows the facts as well as they claim to know, wouldn't it be more sensible to actually answer the question then to avoid it all together? Considering the thread has clearly stated for individuals to come to their own conclusions (what fanboy/ MS basher would allow such a thing?), wouldn't it be more sensible to use this offer to raise your points of view and state your opinions (after all, this is what the thread is asking for).

13) Try not getting too worked up over a thread, psychologically it doesn't benefit anyone, nor does it add to the discussion in the topic in any intellectual way, shape or form.

just ignore all the hater kid, i know what you was trying to say and i agree with what you said mate. People on this site just like to use the words faboy and troll. there vocabulary does not extend much beyond that.

 



Around the Network

@Squiliam: You were just saying the thing i was pointing out; people stick to what's familiar for them. But as for web duties, there's really no standards that would "force" you to use M$ standards, but M$ would like there to be.
As for your Linux points:
1. They can't bully HP due to authorities, but they can bully Asus despite of authorities?
2. For work, you are right mostly for the tech support personnel (btw, IBM offers Linux tech support, as do Micro$oft too), but for a standard office user, not really, since the office programs on Linux based operating systems tend to be compatible with M$ Office, and a number of office programs, that are not M$ programs, are used practically everywhere.
For home user, outside the possible lack of driver support, for example Ubuntu is a lot easier to work with and faster to learn for the basic functionalities needed to use it. Basically the biggest differencies are that you don't go to Google to search a program you need, you open Synaptic, enter your password and search your program there and it's installed automatically. And another major difference is, that you don't browse the drives as "C" or "D" etc., and lastly, when you need to change settings on your computer, you don't need to browse the computer "control panel->internet settings->local area network->wireless connections->" or "program files->xxx->xxx->xxx", nearly all of the needed stuff is on a menu a little similar to Windows "Start" menu.
When i installed my first Ubuntu, i had a hardware that worked "out of the box" with it and never had any problems with Ubuntu on that hardware and everything worked better than they did with XP (i even got flash working). Of course, this isn't the case with all hardware, but still, propably the biggest reason for low Linux OS market share is low OEM adoption (of course, this doesn't mean that Linux would suddenly raise being dominant on the market).

@786_ali: Their edge is their market dominance. They aren't very good in competing if the competition has to be done with something else than money.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

@bdbdbd They can't bully Asus either, the anti-trust lawyers are always watching.

Another reason why corporations can't run Linux is because none of their propritary programs will run on it. They are hesitant to upgrade to Vista because of compatibility concerns so I doubt they will be willing to try running Linux and this is a major factor in their switching operating systems.

Oh and while Ubuntu may be great to download and use, but its not something which is easy to support by *Paid* software companies. Linux developers are just as apt to reverse engineer and clone your software then offer it for free like they have done numerous times.



Tease.

@Squiliam: M$ have been putting a pressure on the manufacturers. For some it's more effective than for others.

You're right about the compatibility issues, but aside that, the companies aren't too happy to pay the cost assossiated with the OS upgrade. Besides jumping to new Windows system requires training the tech support anyway.
About jumping to Vista, i believe that quite a few companies are willing to do that, since quite a few skipped XP.
Some companies already have jumped to Linux, and the companies proprietary software shouldn't be a problem in the change, since your programs may stop working even when upgrading to newer Windows.

Anyway, the commercial side of things is a bad excuse, since the nerds are coding their open source equivalents from commercial software for Windows in the same fashion they do for Linux systems. And there already are commercial Linux distros and programs you have to pay for. The problems with the commercial software are with a centered location where you'd get software for free and the lack of registry that would register your trial versions (although, the current trend seems to be that the trial versions have only limited features but unlimited use for the "trial" features). In any case, you still can distribute your commercial software in the same fashion you distribute Windows software; you just provide the code to be copypasted to terminal and apt-get handles the rest.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.