I wonder ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| TxtEdMacs Jul 09, 2009 8:22 AM EDT |
If Chrome OS does gain significant market share, rapidly ... could MS become a supporter of clean machines*? YBT * No OEM loaded OS |
| jacog Jul 09, 2009 8:37 AM EDT |
Yeeah, maybe.. but Microsoft would insist that the "clean" machines get labelled something like "Microsoft-Windows-Ready Pre-formatted Personal Computer TM" or some such bollocks. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 09, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
I don't think Microsoft has anything in mind aside from preloads. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 09, 2009 1:30 PM EDT |
@Steven_Rosenber I agree -- Microsoft will not quietly stand by and let other OSes get pre-loaded. You can bet that every vendor who sells Linux or Chrome OS or whatever has MS hounding them on a regular basis about it. But bare machines... That MS really hates to the point where they've consistently insinuated that every bare machine sold is going to be used to run pirated Windows. True, that does happen sometimes (especially in some foreign markets), but a lot of machines force-pre-loaded with Windows get over-written by other OSes too. No way to know how many, but I'd bet MS isn't getting short changed too much on their Windows license revenue when all is said and done. At any rate, you can bet that MS will do whatever they possibly can to try to kill pre-loaded Chrome OS, even if it means they have to give away XP or Windows 7 or even pay hardware vendors to pre-load Windows. It appears they've already done this with Linux on netbooks and that's with a far less visible name pushing them. And I think that Microsoft is paranoid enough that they see Chrome OS as possibly a bigger threat than it really even is. |
| jdixon Jul 09, 2009 1:36 PM EDT |
> And I think that Microsoft is paranoid enough that they see Chrome OS as possibly a bigger threat than it really even is. History indicates that you are probably correct. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 09, 2009 2:52 PM EDT |
Hey Janitor, Put down your broom for a moment to contemplate my supporting your contention, albeit partially. That is, I think when Thailand was giving out preloaded Linux laptops MS shills and others* were saying it was coming to naught because that as soon as these units were distributed a pirated copy of Windows became the OS. Where we diverge is the ease MS will have in discouraging the significant number on Google's list that have signed on to do Chrome OS machines. Note that Google is also capable of destroying sensitive parts of the anatomy once they dropped the "Do no evil" covenant. That is, MS is no longer deep sixing an unknown, poorly designed preloaded Linux variant it is confronting an adversary with sharp teeth and fangs. That's why Ballmer throws chairs in the safe confines of his MS office, because a real blood fight might be too dangerous. Who knows, for MS a clean machine could be the lesser threat if it could persuade locals to do after purchase Windows installations and configurations. Linux will never be a majority choice** OS. That is, unless or until it becomes the default in secondary education. Thus, they may see this as the lesser risk. Moreover, leveraging a near monopoly status could not be used against them. YBT * I never got my checks so I did not participate. ** Fighting words***, I know. But do you really want Linux to be a Windows like OS with nearly all its faults to make it so easy it can be mistaken as just another clone? *** Linux can win just by having a significant share, that breaks the monopoly of proprietary options. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 09, 2009 3:07 PM EDT |
@TxtEdMacs Whether Google is willing to "do evil" or not, they don't have the hardware makers by the short hairs the way that Microsoft historically has. MS has allegedly over the years used threats of using pricing on Windows as a stick to beat hardware makers into submission to keep them from shipping bare machines or other OSes. I do agree that in order to "win" Linux does not necessarily need to become the "majority choice" OS. It doesn't necessarily even have to break MS's de-facto monopoly on OS shipments all by itself either. I'd be more than happy with a world where there were 3 or 4 viable alternatives with significant enough market share to have more or less ubiquitous support. We had that in the "personal computer" market before Microsoft shoved everyone else out in the late 1980s. Apple (including Macs), Commodore (including Amiga), the IBM clone world and a few other smaller players all had distinctly different architectures that had vibrant communities and 3rd party hardware/software support. Unfortunately it seems like certain forces in the world hate diversity, Microsoft especially. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 09, 2009 6:23 PM EDT |
Having a second well-funded OS competitor in the desktop PC space (OS X doesn't count since it doesn't run on non-Apple hardware) is extremely huge. The year of the Linux desktop (or the year of the non-Windows desktop at any rate) won't happen until somebody sees fit to throw money at the situation, and only someone like Google, which stands to make money off of more Google users either through fees or advertising, can make it happen. The good thing is that any uptake of and publicity for a Google OS based on Linux will only highlight how many other excellent open-source operating environments are out there ... and presumably any work that gets done in terms of drivers will benefit not just Google Chrome OS but the rest of the Linux community as well. It could be a win-win-win (but no-windows). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!