From: firstname.lastname@example.org (The little lost angel)
Subject: Re: TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) and future PC use for engineering
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:23:03 GMT
Organization: Yes please, I'm quite disorganized & lost at the moment
References: <3DC58036.335D721E@erckert-ibe.de> <3DC59C6F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
On 5 Nov 2002 06:58:30 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (N. Thornton) wrote:
>Yup, its bound to, but in a sense it doesn't matter. If they get one
>more round of upgrades out of it, and lose even as much as 10% of the
>customer base, they're still ahead financially. I hope it would lose
>them more, but presumably they don't think it will, and I think
>they're probably right. People have bought and signed the most
>outrageous crap so far, for the simple reason we don't have good
In the short term, maybe that 10% won't matter. but that 10% could
raise the alternative's mass to 20% of the whole market. With 20%
share, a full blown commercial industry centered on Linux could have a
chance to claw their way to a respectable position with better funded
companies churning out better products. Plus nobody in their right
mind would ignore 20% of the world market and thus TCPA will become an
option, not a compulsory choice.
That will be when MS starts finding themselves ostracized and Paladium
will be quietly switched off just as Intel's PSN was.
>Well, look at Linux. It keeps getting better, but it really lags
>behind Windows in significant ways. That's the result of relatively
>small scale efforts. The same would happen with splintered PC OSes,
>we'd see less progress, since every conceptual move forward has to be
>duplicated however many times, among numerous non compatible systems.
>It'd be a real mess.
It doesn't have to be that way no? Right now, I see the only viable
alternative splinter to be a Linux core sector, with various variants.
However, the key difference is they are still interoperable. Anybody
who uses a particular GUI would have no problem loading up the same
GUI on a different distribution/variant. Only the administrators/power
users would have to be bothered about certain nitty gritty.
With document standards like XML being pushed, it wouldn't be too
surprising to see the standard system to system interface basically
being the TCP/IP,HTTP, FTP type of thing. As long as they can talk to
each other, it doesn't really matter what's really under the hood.
>success is its an open thing. A closed PC system could be made far
>more efficient, but openness / compatibility really is king.
You can still have that with Open Source programs and such with a
>> It's not whether people have a choice... when MS controls the
>Perhaps you'd explain that.
MS controls pricing and supply of the software. What is a
system integrator to do, in these cut throat competitive climates,
when MS offers XP for less than Win2K and Win98SE?
Even if you choose to buy Win98SE to sell, you would have to
spend extra time explaining. PLus, most software vendors usually end
up ignoring the oldest OS and those customers will come right back and
scream why can't their newest game work on their PC now.
>Yep, yet almost everyone is still buying it nonetheless. People will
>put up with anything if its that or nothing. Businesses simply can't
>do without computers.
They are shifting slowly. I've personally been encouraging my
clients to shift to non-MS products and with the kind of clients I
have, citing cost is the most effective tactic esp for the bigger cost
item like a SQL server.
Most of them are on Eudora Lite for one thing, and I can point
out to them that for a fact, they have called on me on far fewer
occasions for virus clean ups than when they used Virus Express. Hmm,
come to think of that (and my starving pocket), maybe I shouldn't had!
OpenOffice is shaping up, though still have a revision or two
to go before I can safely recommend it to all my clients. I have no
idea why they couldn't just do some of the things that Excel does
that's pretty proven to be work-effective. Shifting cells around in OO
is a PITA.
>I think if MS had decided to make all their old OSes free for anyone
>to use, they'd sell 33% less, but they'd maintain a reasonable level
>of public goodwill, and be able to carry on and on. I honestly don't
I don't think they even need to sell those for free. If they just sell
all their OS for 25% the current price, I'm pretty sure they will
drive the pirates (which they claim are eating some billions worth of
revenue) out of jobs, and increase total revenues. But Billy's too
much of a control freak to dare to do something like that.
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)