On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 05:49, Chad Smith wrote:
>
>
> Of course - but that all plays into MS's plan anyway. From the site
> that Gavin said orginially had the story posted, the next generation
> Windows OS ("longhorn") is going to need like 3.0 GHz 512MB *MINIMUM*.
> Bigger, better, faster, newer.... That's how Bill Gates got rich.
Forced upgrades through lock in and no credible competition.
Unfortunately for Bill the World is changing.
> Why would Microsoft want you to have to buy a new computer? Because
> that's the only way that they can be 95% certain that you will actually
> *PAY* for their operating system. Since they know none of the big dog
> computer makers would *DARE* sell pirated Windows, if you have to buy a
> new system to get Longhorn, then you *will* pay for Longhorn.
Or the'll decide the system they have is good enough and keep their
money. This seems to be increasingly the case so MS's best bet is new
customers or those needing to extend to more machines. The biggest set
of new customers are in countries like China, Venezuela, India etc who
have tended to just pirate stuff but who are under increasing pressure
to be legit. If they can't afford Longhorn they are going to look
seriously at GNU/Linux - in fact their government's have already
declared strategies to come away from Windows. So unless MS change their
wonderful market strategy Longhorn coud end up as a liability.
> The
> answer is don't run Longhorn. But if that's the plan, then buying a new
> system really isn't needed anyway. (Assuming the one you have is
> working, and if you're reading this email, it most likely is.)
>
> That all being said, you don't have to have a new system to run MS
> Office. Office 2003 runs fine on 500 Mhz with 128 MB.
Again why pay for this and go through the hassle of license admin. and
threats from the BSA/FAST when you can just use OOo? A client told me
that they got a threatening contact from someone claiming to have
information that they had unlicensed software. They thought they had
better talk to the person as they sounded official. Turned out to be
someone from FAST (Federation Against Software Theft) who then proceeded
to terrify her with threats of prison sentences and then sell her an
audit tool for �5000. Extortion is the act of demanding money with
menaces. So this is one person now seriously looking at OOo. We need
more software license enforcement and more education, that is all.
> I can't speak
> from experience any lower than that - but it works as well as OOo at
> that level. I mean, they are both slower than they are on a faster box
> - but neither is unusable. I've have Office XP on a 233 Mhz with 64 MB
> of RAM - same system ran StarOffice 7 just fine - ungodly load times,
> but once it got going.... I never put 2003 on anything lower than 500
> MHz, but I never saw a need to.
>
> I don't know the system requirements for this latest breed of MSO - but
> I doubt they'll be higher than 1 Ghz. MS can get people to buy new PCs
> for Windows - but not so much for Office.
They will have some success, but increasingly less as people get wise to
the fact that they don't need the hassle and expense of an upgrade. If
MS stop supporting their version of the software as too old, there will
come an increasing incentive to move to GNU/Linux especially as it will
continue to improve and increase the number of applications it supports.
--
Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ZMS Ltd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
