Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical (Linux Wins)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
M

Moshe Goldfarb

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:


> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in have two
> routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance release like SP3. In
> any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most Microsoft customers are
> still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a teenager.

So?

What effect does this have on the Linux community?

You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster.
Then you had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or
something?
Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.

See a pattern here?

I doubt it.

The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent of
the desktop market while OSX is climbing.

Why is that?

Why can't a free operating system gain market share?


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most
>> Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a
>> teenager.
>
> So?
>
> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>
> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then you
> had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or something?
> Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>
> See a pattern here?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent
> of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?

Because people in the Market do not install or buy operating systems.
They buy "a computer" and use whatever comes on it. Most people are
completely oblivious as to what the it is they are actually using. As
long as they can click a little pretty button and their pictures come up
or their music plays they are happy. They don't care about how or why
this happens nor would most ever be able to even comprehend.

The people that actually install their own operating systems, be that
windows or linux, are a mere fraction and not nearly enough to tip any
scale in any direction on either end.

The only way *any* operating system is ever going to displace windows any
significant amount is by massive pre-installed distribution through the
retail channels.

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
____/ Stephan Rose on Saturday 08 March 2008 06:27 : \____

> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most
>>> Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a
>>> teenager.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>>
>> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then you
>> had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or something?
>> Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>>
>> See a pattern here?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent
>> of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?
>
> Because people in the Market do not install or buy operating systems.
> They buy "a computer" and use whatever comes on it. Most people are
> completely oblivious as to what the it is they are actually using. As
> long as they can click a little pretty button and their pictures come up
> or their music plays they are happy. They don't care about how or why
> this happens nor would most ever be able to even comprehend.
>
> The people that actually install their own operating systems, be that
> windows or linux, are a mere fraction and not nearly enough to tip any
> scale in any direction on either end.
>
> The only way *any* operating system is ever going to displace windows any
> significant amount is by massive pre-installed distribution through the
> retail channels.

The installbase of Linux is far greater than 1%.
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3687616

Microsoft keeps harping about the old FUD, selectively quoting figures from
niche sites. Ballmer said last week that Linux is Microsoft's #1 threat.

Trolls, response? #1 thread, no? Ask your boss, Ballmer.


--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | http://debian.org
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 25.9%us, 4.0%sy, 1.0%ni, 64.5%id, 4.2%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most
>> Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a
>> teenager.
>
> So?
>
> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>
> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then you
> had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or something?
> Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>
> See a pattern here?

There is a pattern, alright. For years, each new version of Windows
brought enough value to justify the upgrade. But Vista doesn't. And
unlike the situation with ME, Microsoft can't go back to the drawing
board and come up with something better, because this time the
fundamental problem is how people view computers rather than the OS
itself. Linux is not poised to take over the world's desktops... but the
desktop OS is poised to become a less profitable business.

>
> I doubt it.
>
> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent
> of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?

I would turn that around: how much longer will people continue to pay for
Windows? Microsoft's business model assumes a world where everyone
upgrades every 3 years to a new computer running a new version of Windows
that's even bigger and more complicated than what it replaces. But that
world is fading away. The real news with these UMPCs is not that they
run Linux... it's that people will actually pay money for new computers
with 900 mhz CPUs. Buyers are becoming more sophisticated in how they
evaluate technology. They have gotten burned in the past by assuming
that more is always better... now they can see the value of cheap,
compact machines that cover the basics and are easy to use. Microsoft
can compete against Linux for that market, if it wants to, but it won't
be very profitable.

Charlie
 
Charlie Wilkes wrote:

> Microsoft's business model assumes a world where everyone
> upgrades every 3 years to a new computer running a new version of Windows
> that's even bigger and more complicated than what it replaces. But that
> world is fading away.

Right. Vista is the wrong product at the wrong time. Just when the
computing world is really going mobile, M$ comes-out with an OS that
requires 4X the hardware to run adequately. They have really got to go
back to the drawing board, akin to what Intel did when they dumped their
"Netburst" (Pentium 4) architecture to design the far more efficient "Core".
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:19:50 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>
>> Microsoft's business model assumes a world where everyone upgrades
>> every 3 years to a new computer running a new version of Windows that's
>> even bigger and more complicated than what it replaces. But that world
>> is fading away.
>
> Right. Vista is the wrong product at the wrong time. Just when the
> computing world is really going mobile, M$ comes-out with an OS that
> requires 4X the hardware to run adequately. They have really got to go
> back to the drawing board, akin to what Intel did when they dumped their
> "Netburst" (Pentium 4) architecture to design the far more efficient
> "Core".

I suspect lots of people within Microsoft have known all along that Vista
is too clunky and basically out of sync with what is happening in the
world. But I also suspect that, at a certain level within the
organization, anyone who delivers that message risks being clobbered by a
flying chair. Hence the marching orders are to keep on keepin' on,
bigger is better, Microsoft will bend the market to its indomitable will.

Charlie
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:PZCdnReCgYhArE_anZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most
>>> Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a
>>> teenager.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>>
>> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then you
>> had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or something?
>> Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>>
>> See a pattern here?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent
>> of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?
>
> Because people in the Market do not install or buy operating systems.
> They buy "a computer" and use whatever comes on it. Most people are
> completely oblivious as to what the it is they are actually using. As
> long as they can click a little pretty button and their pictures come up
> or their music plays they are happy. They don't care about how or why
> this happens nor would most ever be able to even comprehend.

Sounds like the standard COLA excuse. Yet it's often been posted how many
100's of millions of downloads Ubuntu, SuSE and <insert-distro-name-here>
have had. So if Ubuntu and such have had all of these 100's of millions of
downloads as is claimed then there must be something seriously wrong with
linux since all but a few continue to use Windows.


> Stephan
> 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

Wow... a 1986 Pontiac Fiero!!! Almost as impressive as Spike's BS degree.
Save your money and one day you'll afford that 1992 Yugo.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:27:41 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most
>>> Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a
>>> teenager.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>>
>> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then you
>> had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or something?
>> Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>>
>> See a pattern here?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent
>> of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?
>
> Because people in the Market do not install or buy operating systems.
> They buy "a computer" and use whatever comes on it. Most people are
> completely oblivious as to what the it is they are actually using. As
> long as they can click a little pretty button and their pictures come up
> or their music plays they are happy. They don't care about how or why
> this happens nor would most ever be able to even comprehend.
>
> The people that actually install their own operating systems, be that
> windows or linux, are a mere fraction and not nearly enough to tip any
> scale in any direction on either end.
>
> The only way *any* operating system is ever going to displace windows any
> significant amount is by massive pre-installed distribution through the
> retail channels.

So how do you explain these "millions of downloads" of various Linux and
Open Source programs we see posted here all the time?

The fact is, people try Linux and people dump Linux just as quickly.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
____/ Charlie Wilkes on Saturday 08 March 2008 11:02 : \____

> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly. Most
>>> Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I was a
>>> teenager.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>>
>> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then you
>> had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or something?
>> Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>>
>> See a pattern here?
>
> There is a pattern, alright. For years, each new version of Windows
> brought enough value to justify the upgrade. But Vista doesn't. And
> unlike the situation with ME, Microsoft can't go back to the drawing
> board and come up with something better, because this time the
> fundamental problem is how people view computers rather than the OS
> itself. Linux is not poised to take over the world's desktops... but the
> desktop OS is poised to become a less profitable business.
>
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0 percent
>> of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?
>
> I would turn that around: how much longer will people continue to pay for
> Windows? Microsoft's business model assumes a world where everyone
> upgrades every 3 years to a new computer running a new version of Windows
> that's even bigger and more complicated than what it replaces. But that
> world is fading away. The real news with these UMPCs is not that they
> run Linux... it's that people will actually pay money for new computers
> with 900 mhz CPUs. Buyers are becoming more sophisticated in how they
> evaluate technology. They have gotten burned in the past by assuming
> that more is always better... now they can see the value of cheap,
> compact machines that cover the basics and are easy to use. Microsoft
> can compete against Linux for that market, if it wants to, but it won't
> be very profitable.

I still do all my work from a 1.8 GHz box. Very old one...

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz \ Switch to GNU/Linux. Visit http://www.getgnulinux.org/
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
 
____/ Charlie Wilkes on Saturday 08 March 2008 14:05 : \____

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:19:50 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft's business model assumes a world where everyone upgrades
>>> every 3 years to a new computer running a new version of Windows that's
>>> even bigger and more complicated than what it replaces. But that world
>>> is fading away.
>>
>> Right. Vista is the wrong product at the wrong time. Just when the
>> computing world is really going mobile, M$ comes-out with an OS that
>> requires 4X the hardware to run adequately. They have really got to go
>> back to the drawing board, akin to what Intel did when they dumped their
>> "Netburst" (Pentium 4) architecture to design the far more efficient
>> "Core".
>
> I suspect lots of people within Microsoft have known all along that Vista
> is too clunky and basically out of sync with what is happening in the
> world. But I also suspect that, at a certain level within the
> organization, anyone who delivers that message risks being clobbered by a
> flying chair. Hence the marching orders are to keep on keepin' on,
> bigger is better, Microsoft will bend the market to its indomitable will.

I can probably find the reference if I try hard enough, but even Gates admitted
this. He acknowledged that Vista was a pig (Allchin said this explicitly
before they both resigned) and it had him worried about the future. He's a fan
of mobile devices, tablets in particular.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz \ Switch to GNU/Linux. Visit http://www.getgnulinux.org/
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:02:13 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:27:41 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:53:25 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:26:56 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Some say that Microsoft might have no choice but to 'fork' XP, as in
>>>> have two routes for it -- a broken one (Vista) and a maintenance
>>>> release like SP3. In any event, Linux keeps evolving very quickly.
>>>> Most Microsoft customers are still stuck with an O/S from the days I
>>>> was a teenager.
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> What effect does this have on the Linux community?
>>>
>>> You have had your chance with Windows ME which was a disaster. Then
>>> you had Windows XP which didn't get updated for like 8 years or
>>> something? Now you have your chance with Windows Vista.
>>>
>>> See a pattern here?
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> The truth is Linux, despite being free, is still well below 1.0
>>> percent of the desktop market while OSX is climbing.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> Why can't a free operating system gain market share?
>>
>> Because people in the Market do not install or buy operating systems.
>> They buy "a computer" and use whatever comes on it. Most people are
>> completely oblivious as to what the it is they are actually using. As
>> long as they can click a little pretty button and their pictures come
>> up or their music plays they are happy. They don't care about how or
>> why this happens nor would most ever be able to even comprehend.
>>
>> The people that actually install their own operating systems, be that
>> windows or linux, are a mere fraction and not nearly enough to tip any
>> scale in any direction on either end.
>>
>> The only way *any* operating system is ever going to displace windows
>> any significant amount is by massive pre-installed distribution through
>> the retail channels.
>
> So how do you explain these "millions of downloads" of various Linux and
> Open Source programs we see posted here all the time?

I did not make those posts nor did I make those claims, therefore I can't
explain something I have no information about.

>
> The fact is, people try Linux and people dump Linux just as quickly.

Actually fact is, people don't even know what it is. People don't try
anything, they run what came on their computer pre-installed.

I did however have a co-worker at my office tell me about her computer at
home, windows me machine still, that was completely messed up. She was
wanting to buy a new computer instead for like $599 that would have had
Vista on it.

So I made a suggestion to her. Since she wasn't using her current
computer for anything (it was in no usable state with all the malware and
crap on it) and since she was planning on buying a new computer anyway
and throw that one away...why not try Ubuntu on it? Nothing to loose so
why not try?

So, next day she brings it in. I install Ubuntu on it. You know what
happened to her plans to buy a new Vista computer? They went down the
drain. She's perfectly happy now with her machine and saved herself quite
some money.

So that is one person who tried Linux and the only thing that was quickly
dumped was the idea of buying a Vista computer.

On that note, the other week she comes to me and actually mentioned one
of her relatives also running Ubuntu now after having heard about it from
her.

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com>
wrote:

>I install Ubuntu on it. You know what
>happened to her plans to buy a new Vista computer? They went down the
>drain. She's perfectly happy now with her machine and saved herself quite
>some money.
>
>So that is one person who tried Linux and the only thing that was quickly
>dumped was the idea of buying a Vista computer.

Fine. Not everyone has a guru to do installs for them.

Plus I'm guessing your install wiped all her data.
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0800, Paul Knudsen wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I install Ubuntu on it. You know what happened to her plans to buy a new
>>Vista computer? They went down the drain. She's perfectly happy now with
>>her machine and saved herself quite some money.
>>
>>So that is one person who tried Linux and the only thing that was
>>quickly dumped was the idea of buying a Vista computer.
>
> Fine. Not everyone has a guru to do installs for them.

That goes for Windows as much as it goes for Linux though. This person is
about as capable of installing windows as she is installing linux: Not at
all. I suspect that is the reason for the success of companies such as
Dell...preinstalled systems which don't need the user to know how to
install an OS. :)

>
> Plus I'm guessing your install wiped all her data.

Well obviously formatting a drive is going to remove the data on it, that
after all was the point of what we were trying to achieve. Though I did
advise her that this will happen. However since the only thing she was
going to do with the computer was throw it away so she didn't care about
the contents of the hard drive, there was nothing of any importance on
it. Just a malware and virus ridden WinME installation.

Though even had there been anything of importance, it'd have been trivial
to back up the data from the LiveCD before the installation.

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:57:54 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0800, Paul Knudsen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I install Ubuntu on it. You know what happened to her plans to buy a
>>>new Vista computer? They went down the drain. She's perfectly happy now
>>>with her machine and saved herself quite some money.
>>>
>>>So that is one person who tried Linux and the only thing that was
>>>quickly dumped was the idea of buying a Vista computer.
>>
>> Fine. Not everyone has a guru to do installs for them.
>
> That goes for Windows as much as it goes for Linux though. This person
> is about as capable of installing windows as she is installing linux:
> Not at all. I suspect that is the reason for the success of companies
> such as Dell...preinstalled systems which don't need the user to know
> how to install an OS. :)

The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in any
way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've seen the
same thing.

Charlie
 
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> writes:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:57:54 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0800, Paul Knudsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I install Ubuntu on it. You know what happened to her plans to buy a
>>>>new Vista computer? They went down the drain. She's perfectly happy now
>>>>with her machine and saved herself quite some money.
>>>>
>>>>So that is one person who tried Linux and the only thing that was
>>>>quickly dumped was the idea of buying a Vista computer.
>>>
>>> Fine. Not everyone has a guru to do installs for them.
>>
>> That goes for Windows as much as it goes for Linux though. This person
>> is about as capable of installing windows as she is installing linux:
>> Not at all. I suspect that is the reason for the success of companies
>> such as Dell...preinstalled systems which don't need the user to know
>> how to install an OS. :)
>
> The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
> systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in any
> way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've seen the
> same thing.

Nonsense. It might happen once in a blue moon but it is very rare indeed.
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost LaptopsImpractical (Linux Wins)

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> stated in post
pan.2008.03.09.08.31.01@users.easynews.com on 3/9/08 1:31 AM:

>> That goes for Windows as much as it goes for Linux though. This person
>> is about as capable of installing windows as she is installing linux:
>> Not at all. I suspect that is the reason for the success of companies
>> such as Dell...preinstalled systems which don't need the user to know
>> how to install an OS. :)
>
> The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
> systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in any
> way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've seen the
> same thing.

I think it is more true that old systems are sometimes replaced when things
go screwy because it is decided getting a new system is preferable to
spending the time / money to fix the old. The older the system and the
greater the need the more likely they are to replace it.

People do the same thing with cars and other tools.

With that said: I have on multiple occasions been able to clean up a system
that the user figured they would soon replace and make it so it worked well
enough for them to decide to keep it for several more years.

--
BU__SH__
 
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:fr07d7$9e1$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:57:54 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0800, Paul Knudsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com>
>>>> wrote:


>> The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
>> systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in any
>> way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've seen the
>> same thing.
>
> Nonsense. It might happen once in a blue moon but it is very rare indeed.

Not nonsense at all. The majority of my calls are from people wanting to
buy
a new PC when all they need is an OS repair or reinstall.

Tom Lake
 
"Tom Lake" <toml_12953@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:fr07d7$9e1$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:57:54 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0800, Paul Knudsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>
>
>>> The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
>>> systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in any
>>> way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've seen the
>>> same thing.
>>
>> Nonsense. It might happen once in a blue moon but it is very rare indeed.
>
> Not nonsense at all. The majority of my calls are from people wanting
> to buy
> a new PC when all they need is an OS repair or reinstall.
>
> Tom Lake
>


I will take your word for it that it is not nonsense that the majority
of people that call you might want that. It is nonsense to say that the
majority of people who do not call you want that. And one group
significantly outsizes the other.
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:24:33 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> "Tom Lake" <toml_12953@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fr07d7$9e1$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:57:54 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:01 -0800, Paul Knudsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:23:12 -0600, Stephan Rose
>>>>>> <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
>>>> systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in
>>>> any way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've
>>>> seen the same thing.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. It might happen once in a blue moon but it is very rare
>>> indeed.
>>
>> Not nonsense at all. The majority of my calls are from people wanting
>> to buy
>> a new PC when all they need is an OS repair or reinstall.
>>
>> Tom Lake
>>
>>
>
> I will take your word for it that it is not nonsense that the majority
> of people that call you might want that. It is nonsense to say that the
> majority of people who do not call you want that. And one group
> significantly outsizes the other.

Why do people need to upgrade? Just so they can run Vista?

As far as I can tell, the gaming and video processing are the two main
consumer activities that call for high-end hardware. The rest of it is
mostly surfing the web, email, downloading and playing music or TV shows,
and running office applications. That's 90% of what people do with their
computers. What value do such people get from an upgrade? Any machine
made in the last 5 years will do fine.

That is why these "ultra-mobile PCs" are selling. People look at them
and think, "how convenient." They don't care if the hard drive is
miniscule and the CPU is a 900 mhz clunker... because they know any damn
computer will be good enough for what they do.

That would not have been true 10 years ago. Back then, there was a HUGE
performance difference between a new machine versus one that was 3 years
old. That is why Bill Gates got to be the richest guy in the world. His
company was selling expensive software licenses that had to be replaced
every 2 or 3 years. But not any more!

Charlie
 
Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista Makes Low-cost Laptops Impractical(Linux Wins)

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:38:04 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> stated in post
> pan.2008.03.09.08.31.01@users.easynews.com on 3/9/08 1:31 AM:
>
>>> That goes for Windows as much as it goes for Linux though. This person
>>> is about as capable of installing windows as she is installing linux:
>>> Not at all. I suspect that is the reason for the success of companies
>>> such as Dell...preinstalled systems which don't need the user to know
>>> how to install an OS. :)
>>
>> The significant point (to me at least) is that people replace their
>> systems not because the hardware is too old or too slow or damaged in
>> any way, but because the OS has gotten screwed up over time. I've seen
>> the same thing.
>
> I think it is more true that old systems are sometimes replaced when
> things go screwy because it is decided getting a new system is
> preferable to spending the time / money to fix the old. The older the
> system and the greater the need the more likely they are to replace it.

That's half true. People think it will be almost as expensive to fix as
to replace... but that is only because they don't understand what is
wrong. They think their computer is getting worn out the way an old
engine wears out... but in fact, the hardware is as good as it was brand-
new. All they need is a fresh reinstall from the ground up.

Of course, the OEMs make it difficult for customers to get factory disks,
because they want people to buy new machines. But the disks are
available.

>
> People do the same thing with cars and other tools.
>
> With that said: I have on multiple occasions been able to clean up a
> system that the user figured they would soon replace and make it so it
> worked well enough for them to decide to keep it for several more years.

Exactly. I have done that as well. Sometimes all it takes is a registry
cleaner and a program to get rid of spyware.

Charlie
 
Back
Top