This has been in my head for a while--I mentioned it in another thread and the responses told me that it might merit more discussion.

Tagging MS with the label of "monopoly" is perhaps not technically correct. I typically use the term "de-facto monopoly". By this, I mean that many consumers have---within their personal environment---no practical alternative. This could be the result of many factors--including someone simply telling them that "you need Windows to....." and them having no basis for questioning the assertion.

The same consumer that lacks the resources to challenge the assertion that Windows is the right choice may often use a computer in such a way that another OS--eg Linux--could easily meet all of their needs.

Thus the paradox:
My wife typifies this group. The consumate anti-geek, she has not used anything BUT Linux for two years now. Granted, the local SA has influenced this....

I think the "monopoly" is just in the heads of those people, like you mentioned. No salesman, even Microsoft's, can sell products if nobody wants to buy. And another thing is that the open source community does not, and maybe does not need to, want to "take" the customers that could "switch over". Many open-source projects have no money in this thing, unlike Microsoft. For MS it's the only way to live to make most of the people buy their products; open source community can live without the masses, just as long as at least some people stick with GNU, Linux etc.

I like it when people are presented with alternatives, and some like it when they can choose. Some like it when they save money by switching over from Microsoft's products. And some dislike it when they're interfered with. Nowadays I've found that slowly growing amount of people are trying to force-feed people with Linux and it's magical world; that's something I dislike.

The problem of those who could get to a better situation by switching over (and could do it, because the tasks they do with computers can be done with Linux just as well as with Windows) is sometimes more difficult; some may have bought licences that are so expensive they can't afford to dump Microsoft because it would be too big a waste. And when the licences started getting older, suddenly they have had to buy more licences and there they are again. If the switch could happen in one night there were no problems like this, but the truth is that not everybody, especially those who aren't "geeks", dare to make the change in one night (I wouldn't, either). It takes time, and time costs money -- some just don't have it. And some have so much money they don't care, as long as somebody "from HP or MS or something" does the job for them.

So..silly poll. Politics. Grr.

I agree--I would never want to be seen pushing Linux on anyone. At the same time, I think it IS appropriate to lobby to be sure people have choices.

Imagine walking into any of the large retail chains and finding only one brand of TV, stereo, camera, etc etc. Further, imagine not knowing that there even WAS a choice beyond what they were offering...

Imagine buying MS Office and then learning that you could have gotten similar functionality FREE.

I did NOT intend for the poll to close on April Fool's Day---honest!!!

I don't know where everyone got the idea you have to be a monopoly to be illegal. OPEC is an oligopoly for example. Anti-trust law says you can't collude to fix prices. That's what Microsoft has done. If it cost everyone, small and large system builders alike, $200 extra to bundle Vista with a PC I assure you many more companies would be using Linux. It's only because Compaq pays $20 a copy that Windows is so pervasive.

There is 90% of the PC world who only know 10% of what's out there. (Tech-wise)

The other 10% of the PC world are the ones who know the rest of the 90% of the stuff is there.

Microsoft will die before allowing Linux to take over the 90%. The reason? When people use it, they'll be more educated, or at least they'll be less willing to move once more. Microsoft couldn't care less about the 10%. Odds are they'll bounce from Linux to BSD to Solaris and back again, without a care in the world.

There's one way to break the "monopoly".

Introduce Linux at schools.

introduce(some say force though) linux to those desktop users who like to play with multimedia things with externel devices ... those apps that came with externel devices are really messy , slow and too heavy ... i believe they will like linux but you need to "setup" everything nice nice for them ...

and whenever you know a device is using linux under the hood , you must let people know , dont just keep quite you know ...


.

Amen!!!
I would love to see some statistics on the adoption rate of Linux and OpenSource as a function of age group.

developers and builders are afraid of old and malfunction people ... they prefer younger people ... i mean there will be tons of ready excuses ...

>> "Introduce Linux at schools."

only when schools plant their own sweet potatoes ... if not , thats not going to work in the long run i believe(but i hope not though)...


.

I am old, but I am not malfunctioning---what exactly is your point here....?

What on earth are you talking about?????

>> "I am old, but I am not malfunctioning---what exactly is your point here....?"

i was refering to those who are both old and malfunctioning ... i mean the majority of the old men and women ...

>> "What on earth are you talking about?????"

its an earthly thing actually ... and its somewhat viral in essence no-matter from which point you started ... and i presumed its at the point of "complaining and asking for more" after you finished flourishing like nobody else's business but ofcause , unless they go directly straight to the "essence" point ... so , stop dreaming , its terribly earthly ...


.

I draw my terms out thus for anyone who is still using Windows: "You want help with fixing your computer, then you install this disk (points to Ubuntu disk). You choose a crappy product, knowing that it was a crappy product, because you are too stubborn for change; meanwhile you keep depending on your friends to fix it all the time."

NOTE: They must install Ubuntu on their own so that they can't blame you if they forget where the ON button was on their computer again.

Why people put up with the suffering, I have understood. But I do know that I don't want to contribute to the perpetuatation of this crisis and I no longer help anyone with any Windows related issue, unless they are trying to back up their files so they can migrate away from Windows.

Wow! Some of the comments in here I am just going to ignore. I am too *old* and wise to be baited that easily.

Most MS people have no interest nor intent to learn anything more about their computer than is absolutely required. Push this button. Click here. Have fun. I don't mind taking their money to clean up their munged file systems or recover files from systems they have trashed.

Windows has made PC's so popular and easy to use (abuse?) that they have become dirt cheap. I'm in favor of that I don't think there is really a monopoly. I buy bits and pieces of computers and assemble a system with no OS, then install Linux. No MS tax. No monopoly.

Bill

In a narrow sense, I agree that there is no monopoly. This is why I call it a de-facto monopoly. It's about the segments of society that lack the resources or sophistication to look beyond the store shelves. The often-discussed restraint of trade that goes on cuts these people off from even knowing that they have options.

From another perspective, where is the fine line between overt monopoly and simply an excess of power? Watching the various skirmishes in Europe over MS abuses, what do you think the 1000-pound gorilla would be like if they were based in --eg-- France?

I don't think that Windows actually has a "monopoly." The business is simply changing too fast.

Look, for example, at Apple OS/X. No, not just on desktop systems; how about the iPhone or AppleTV? Or (probably) the cell phone in your pocket? Or any of the other myriad places where Linux/Unix is happily installed, and Windows cannot go?

You simply cannot escape noticing what Apple has been able to do during the period of time that Microsoft has been slaving away on a mostly-emasculated Windows-Vista release. Six years and six billion dollars later, and this is all that MS has to show for it? Meanwhile, Apple has released four major versions of their system, and ported it to one or two entirely-new hardware platforms, and done it all for less money and in less time than they said they would? That's engineering!