Jump to content

Windows Vista


Swad
 Share

653 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Actually, it is possible to have a larger market share AND be able to grow rapidly. Google is the prime and number one example of that very scenario. Furthermore, if company "A" grows, regardless of its size...and another company "B" remains stagnant, or grows slower than "A", then that means that company B is infact losing market control.

 

Bad comparison. The online advertising market is completely different from the computer market when a competitor has 95% of a market.

 

If you have such a huge number of sales, when your sales increase, it won't seem as high percentage wise. Even if you have 2 billion sales and it increases by 100 million, the percentage is only up by 5%. But when your sales are only 100 million, and your sales increase by 20 million, thats a 20% sales increase so it must be good. But when you match the numbers up, it just doesn't work out as much.

 

Remember when the IT industry was at a 17% growth every year? That's because it hadn't gotten to its full potential. Now that it has, growth slows down and mellows out. That's how all industries are when they first start out and if they remain small. Big jumps in sales occur when you're small naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many others, I would RATHER have XP than vista :D

 

I've been using Vista for a couple of months and in the beginning I thought the same way, however, as I grew more accustomed with Vista I drew the conclusion that Vista is far more refined then XP. You just need some time with it (and the gaming world needs to catch up a bit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad comparison. The online advertising market is completely different from the computer market when a competitor has 95% of a market.

 

I don't see how it's a bad comaparison. It's perfectly correct. MyMac8MyPC is right on...your mixing up market share with sales increase. Both of them are companies, and both of them have their prime sectors. Microsoft has also an advertising sector (though its not as widely known), and Google also has an application sector (online/desktop, and free, which is known to the same level as Microsoft's advertising sector), and neither of them make the PC, it's just the software....so it's a perfectly equal comparison from any angle you look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using an iPod as a source for iTunes and how that is monopolistic is no different than what Microsoft does with Zune, and the Zune marketplace. It's the exact same thing. Except, that one MP3 player is better than the other (not coming from me...just the internet in general). This might change in the future, but that's how its Outlook (pun intended) is now.

 

 

To be fair - Zune does not have dominant market power. That is why Apple is in a sort of underprivileged position here. That's why there was this European initiative to force iTunes store to sell tracks that could be played on other mp3 players. It is crazy - when you are too good with your business you will be punished by competition authority.

 

Competition is healthy only where it is needed.

from consumer perspective competition id defenitely needed in CE, software and computer market.

You could argue whether state-owned airlines, railways and firebrigades are more effective and reliable then private ones but for commercial services and goods competition is a must

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just need some time with it

Well it's not going to get that time! I try to learn from other peoples mistakes and FAR TOO MANY people have complained about vista problems so I will not be giving microsoft my hard earned money for it. Besides, with Leopard coming out why would anyone even want to buy vista? In other words, why buy bologna when you can eat steak? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vista is pretty good aslong as you dont pay loads for it! i got mine from the good old piratebay ;) If OSX ran games and you could put it on a normal PC probs every1 would be running it. 64-bit doesn't do much i ran XP X64 and it was slower than 32-bit due to all the applications being 32-bit. Vista uses too much memory though you need 2GB+ for it to run really smooth on games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not going to get that time! I try to learn from other peoples mistakes and FAR TOO MANY people have complained about vista problems so I will not be giving microsoft my hard earned money for it. Besides, with Leopard coming out why would anyone even want to buy vista? In other words, why buy bologna when you can eat steak? :D

Far too many people? I have not run into any problems with Vista, and I don't even use a virus protection program. It still runs as smooth as day one with no hardware conflicts at all either. Don't see why anyone would come to that conclusion (except for people who hold dearly to junk computers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL :) Look forward to reading about you here :(

Look forward to a good, long wait. Myself I've run, well I guess forever, which translates to decades, without the bloat of active virus protection or software firewalls. I do run a scan for virus/malware every once in a while but it keeps coming up empty [edit]of real threats, I've gotten the occational warning about VNC or such but that doesn't really count since I know exactly what that is, why it's there, and the potential threat it could represent. ;) [/edit]. I firewall using a $50 router.

 

As for Vista, yeah I wouldn't even consider stepping back to XP unless I was switching back to older hardware. Which is where there are problems for Vista. Of course I didn't personally shell out the cash for Vista. Is Ultimate worth the $230 or so? *shrug* I hadn't really put that much thought into it. Probably, if your hardware is up to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look forward to a good, long wait.

Are you psychic, or is that just your opinion? BTW, that's a rhetorical question :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...on second thought if you're psychic, you wouldn't happen to have next weeks lotto numbers would you? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you psychic...

No. Just someone with a penchant for pointing out to the clueless what should be obvious. :D Someone that knows WTF they are doing is very unlikely to get bit by a Windows virus, or even malware, and that anti-virus software is more likely to cause problems than prevent them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone that knows WTF they are doing is very unlikely to get bit by a Windows virus

 

As true as that may stand, you do realize that you are speaking for a fraction of a fraction of a minority of Windows users right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As true as that may stand, you do realize that you are speaking for a fraction of a fraction of a minority of Windows users right?

A fraction of a fraction might be overstating it. Unless you are saying something like a 1/2 of a 1/2, which would instead be optimistic. :D Certainly the larger chunk of all the people that step up to a keyboard are at significant risk. You know, if you include all of them EDIT: bummer, that site doesn't like bandwidth thieves. Hrmm, I like the poem so linking to the whole page is probably a good idea. :) . (( I hope you'll excuse my not having a recent pic of MyMac8MyPC :P )) But we aren't really talking about the pedestrian here, are we? In the context of my post I certainly wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fraction of a fraction might be overstating it. Unless you are saying something like a 1/2 of a 1/2, which would instead be optimistic. :D Certainly the larger chunk of all the people that step up to a keyboard are at significant risk. You know, if you include all of them EDIT: bummer, that site doesn't like bandwidth thieves. Hrmm, I like the poem so linking to the whole page is probably a good idea. :D . (( I hope you'll excuse my not having a recent pic of MyMac8MyPC :) )) But we aren't really talking about the pedestrian here, are we? In the context of my post I certainly wasn't.

 

Nah, I know you weren't talking about the common windows user, but the sad truth is that most Windows users (and when I meant fraction of a fraction...I meant it as really small percentage) are not aware of proper browsing habbits. Heck, I know tons of Windows users who still fall for the "shoot the ducks and get a free ipod" ads on websites...many of which have malware backed up. What I am trying to say is...even though you might be proactive....the vast majority of Windows users aren't, and the company (Microsoft) should take the statistics of the vast majority of the people and implement a way to improve security. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the vast majority of Windows users aren't, and the company (Microsoft) should take the statistics of the vast majority of the people and implement a way to improve security.

Oh certainly I agree. And, looking under the hood with Vista, that is indeed what they did. Sadly they really munged one of the linch pins of it, the UI bungle that is UAC. Not that that was going to be an easy area. With 30 years of all-root-access-all-the-time there are certain expectations that Windows (formerly DOS) users have. It's hard to take that away without them squealing like a stuck pig.

 

But outside of that Vista, particularly in the area of internet and network access, the out-of-the-box configuration cleaned up and closed up a lot of security holes. For example there are precious few opportunitys to connect via anonymous login to named pipes, shares, and such anymore. Remote access to the registry has been pared way back. They finally dropped defaulting support for the 20ish year old LAN Man network security that has long been cracked and represented a security hole. Some of this was done already in Server 2003 and XP x64, but not to the same extent. Also IE7 on Vista (and Vista alone) runs in such a way to limit the security expose to the rest of the machine (part of the program runs in low integrity mode). They also made it much, much tougher for buffer overflows to inject machine code and so on. The list goes on and Vista x64 goes even further.

 

It is an interesting reflection on the collective mindset of Windows users that lot of the security stuff is what rubs people the wrong way about Vista. "I don't want some overbearing OS getting in my way. It's my machine!" *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's not. You're confusing market share with sales increase, which is not necessary the same thing :P
Instead of comparing the percentage of market share, why not compare the number of computers sold by each company out their? You'll still find that Dell and HP sell far more PC's then Mac's ever do.
Nah, I know you weren't talking about the common windows user, but the sad truth is that most Windows users (and when I meant fraction of a fraction...I meant it as really small percentage) are not aware of proper browsing habbits. Heck, I know tons of Windows users who still fall for the "shoot the ducks and get a free ipod" ads on websites...many of which have malware backed up. What I am trying to say is...even though you might be proactive....the vast majority of Windows users aren't, and the company (Microsoft) should take the statistics of the vast majority of the people and implement a way to improve security. :)
What more can one company do then pop up a dialog box asking for the administrative username and password? If the user passes that on every single time, you don't have a security problem. You have a user problem. Get the difference?Before you say anything, this is exactly what Apple does too. You can't help it when the user just doesn't pay attention.
when you are too good with your business you will be punished by competition authority.
No, when you deliberately lock out competition using your monopoly is when you get in trouble. When you are a monopoly, you can't tie together 2 products and not let any other products that could be compatible with it. Simple as that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not compare the number of computers sold by each company out their?
Because PC's don't have the lifespan that Macs do, that's why :) It has been shown that when you compensate for this effect Macs do very well, thank you very much :P
when you deliberately lock out competition using your monopoly is when you get in trouble.
Yeah, just ask Microsoft. LOL :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...