To maintain its developer ecosystem and protect its apps business, Microsoft has no choice but to loosen its grip on the Windows source code and drive down costs.
no it wont that is why google will beat microsoft when they release there operating sys
Um, er, yeah, sure.
Right, google will come out of nowhere and release an awesome OS what the market leader has been taking 30 years to pull off. The google OS will be like the Google browser, fun to try, will be no good for a long time to come. Besides, more OS's will only cause more fragmentation in the pc gaming market. One of them has to be the best, or there will be no pc market at all.
Building an Operating System that can compete with the likes of Windows is an astronomically monumental task. When it comes down to it, today there's only about 4 different core Operating Systems out there. Google, despite all it's grandeur, couldn't produce their own Operating System, the best they could do is produce their own variant of Linux and it would inevitably be "just another Linux distro". Google would be far better off contributing to a project like Ubuntu to make it more user friendly and then maybe make their own branch of it that comes with Google apps installed by default. The biggest hurdle with getting people off of Windows is compatibility. Vista is proof that it's difficult to get people to upgrade even between versions of Windows for fear of compatibility issues, a completely separate OS would be even worse so until projects like WINE and RactOS get to an extremely mature level, chances are we wont see a mass migration any time soon (I'm aware that WINE is pretty good these days, but it's not perfect by a long shot). This article is extremely flawed, Microsoft has no need to open source Windows any more than Google needs to Open Source their search - they own most of the market and as long as other systems have trouble running Windows software, it'll stay like that.
is that A LOT of people already use google for A LOT of things.. so they are familiar with the system. Even thou it would be almost impossible for it to gain over 50% of the OS market it's the only real candidate of making it, because neither yahoo nor other company has a chance.. And unless apple releases an OS that would work on any pc (extremely unlikely) there is some open space there for the taking.. which i think google could fill in.. specially releasing a kick ass OS for around $49. But what do we know.. we're nothing but humble consumers..
If Linux couldn't do it what makes you think Google will? The fact is Microsoft is giving companies what they want, Vista was a blunder but a OS I still like, because of Vista their is all this bad heat around the Windows brand which Windows 7 can easily turn around.
god doesnt care about microsoft so hes going to disagree wih you
If God didnt care about Microsoft, then Apple would be market leader right now.
"If God didnt care about Microsoft, then Apple would be market leader right now." WHAT??? LOL!! Besides, if you take a look into the "playbook" that Microsoft bases their business practices on, it appears more written by Satan than God... ;-) Last I checked, God is pretty generous (open-source), where Satan/Lucifer is all about greed (closed-source)... :-)
Yea all that charity work Microsoft is involved in and what was essentially the Apple bailout in the 90s...your right, Satan indeed. Also, how does Microsoft rank in equality tests? One of the very few companies to achieve #1 last year was it? Where do the competing "open source" companies stand?
gdrive is going o be revolutionary it will be part of googles os
Cloud Computing will fail. GDrive will fail just as much because the thousands of people do not want to trust a big corporation with their confidential data. Cloud Computing is wishful thinking only to those who vy for a cheap computer solution <$100.
not to mention how painfully slow it will be most peoples upload speed is slow. I can imagine it now spending 1-2 hours copying a simple 500 mb file to the online hard drive.
There's a reason Microsoft holds around 90% OS Marketshare for the past 20 years, despite competition from Apple and free Linux Distros, despite the viruses and insecurities, despite Vista, despite competition from Firefox, and Chrome. Naysayers underestimate Microsoft's history and influence. Open-Source is not coming anytime soon.
can you spell M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y? Look at the current console war. Who has the cheapest console? Because that's the start of a monopoly. Cheap strategies like MS did with the 360 launching it a year before the other 2 just to have a year head-start without competition even knowing the reliability problems of their console. They didn't care about the consumer. Look at Vista. Most of the hardware companies(Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.) are with MS and because of that they could force Vista in all their models of comps to then in less than 2 years switch to a new OS (Windows 7) like nothing ever happened because those Hardware companies have strong binds with MS. MS has so many hardware companies in the palm of their hand that it will be pretty difficult for another OS to take on Windows. Linux tried to take a little bit of share with help of Dell but... You probabbly know the story.
Do you even know what the definition of monopoly is? Because that entire paragraph was completely irrelevant. Monopoly is a term that states there is only 1 maker and many buyers. Obviously from the very first comment, there's more than that.
gdrive will change the face of the internet like google and youtube did and what do you know they are all from the same people that made google
Youtube was bought out by Google. Youtube wasn't created by Google. Therefore your post is invalid. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...
Dude, we get it - you like Google! I like Google as well, but I didn't feel the need to post the same thing 3 times (albeit worded differently).
Yeah woooo, open source windows, that would be good for the pc gaming industry. the pc gaming market is already having major problems with all the different types of hardware out there, if you add a constant changing OS environtment, that will also be out in too many flavors, and youl officially have killed the pc gaming market. Which in turn will making people stop buying high end hardware for private usage. Which in turn will give our already sensitive economy an even bigger blow.
You've never heard of standards have you. I mean look at all those firefox clones. I don't know which firefox clone to choose now that there are so many. RIght?
What are you talking about ? How many Windows games run on the mac, or on linux ? ZERO, because Operating systems are not interoperable, you cannot design a game to run on two different OS;s So a standard isnt possible. A standard on browsers is different, because in the end it runs on the same OS. @below Sims 3, Starcraft 2, dawn of war 2, Demi God, Diablo 3, Cryostasis, and a whole lot of games that also get released on consoles, but then in superior fashion. Use facts, not BS that you spawn in with your insolence.
LOL!!! Other than MMORPG's, and a handful of successful PC titles here and there, the PC gaming scene is ALREADY DEAD... And to think that you consider PC gaming a big enough market to cause major financial issues if it went away is just mind-blowing... Let's face it... at LEAST a good 80% of PC's sold WORLD-WIDE are FAR from "gaming rigs". Back in the late 90's I knew plenty of PC gamers (ahhh, the fond memories of LAN Parties... ;-), but now I hardly know any other than WoW players... MMORPG's, RTS, and the occasional FPS are the only things really keeping PC gaming alive. How well did the PC version of Halo 1 or 2 sell? How well did the PC version of Gears of War sell? How well did the PC version of CoD4 or CoD:WaW sell (especially compared to the console sales of CoD4 and CoD:WaW)? I gave up on PC gaming years ago due to the insane cost of keeping your rig up to date and able to play the latest and greatest PC games. I would MUCH rather just buy a console and be DONE with hardware purchases for at least a few years...
it's obvious you don't use your head. Regardless of what linux system you use the standard is open GL. In windows is Direct X. Regardless if windows went all the ways open source those standards would continue to exist un affecting their respective platform.
or user friendly is the equivalent of saying that SkyNet will be come Human Tolerant.
If you consider Windows not to be user friendly, then you must be quite frustrated with the alternatives of windows, as those are a lot less user friendly.
Not so much "user friendly" more like a users must conform to Windows rather then Windows conforming to users. Really, just look at Vista were PC geeks blame the ignorance of the less experienced user for its failing. Meanwhile base CPU memory has gone from 1/2GB to 4GB.
Actually, vista base memory requirement is 2g, while xp is around 512 mb. Windows 7 eats 1 gb. Your exaggerating with the 4gb. And cpu memory doesnt exist, you mean ram, the cpu load when using vista is like 10 % on an average processor.
Look at any off the shelf Vista PC ad in a recent paper and say I'm exaggerating. Yeah, yeah. CPU/RAM=brain fart :p
so, should OSX go open source too? hah! some people are stupid enough to think that things are black or white and Open source should be the only model out there. Each have it's place. We already have a large enough Open Source ecosystem where developers and people can built wherever they want to make. We also need proprietary non-open source where companies dedicate their own time and money to support their product... charge us a fee and give us a 1-800 number. Linux and open source is great for developers trying to find a quick way out of having to write lots of thing on their own and not have to pay a fee or royalties. it can be a huge problem when you just want to get the solution and never see the client again... for example I have clients that I want to write code for get paid and never see them again.
MS will, and has, sabotage any competition before they consider any remotely to making an open sourced Windows.
Be glad, otherwise there would be no pc gaming. @below, thats because Apple wont sell their software without a pc, and the pc's they sell lack serious power compared to what pc's that run windows. Also because OSX has a low market share it just aint worth it to develop games for OSX. But go a head and keep sympathizing with the losers, il just be enjoying my games on windows instead. Oh, and apple OS has been around longer then Windows, Apple could have been market leader if they made the right decisions, but they didnt, at least Microsoft gave users the option to buy their software without having to buy a whole new pc.
Games for Windows is MS's attempt to unofficially monopolize "PC" gaming. Have been the main reason there are so few games on MAC.
Helping out game developers and essentially being one of the last crutches of game development? Yea your right, Games for Windows is so the devil incarnate.
Try giving them an excuse to say they've still got their foot in the PC gaming market, that they are the PC gaming market, while they quietly abandon it for consoles.
Funny how the world likes to ridicule when they only have half the story. Regarding the Ensemble closure, how do we know the guys at Ensemble didn't want the studio to shut down so they could form a second party studio? Or how it will play into the grand scheme of things, compare the layoffs at Eido`s to those at Ensemble previously, how many ex Ensemble employees came out and revealed all the dirty little secrets? Games for Windows is a huge initiative that is definitely helping not only Microsoft but PC gaming in general. No one is holding a gun to the developers head and telling them to make their games for GFW, its something they do because they like the benefits such games receive.
thank you google for beating microsoft with google search and youtube now plz buy adobe for there flash so you can beat microsoft silverlight
Microsoft has a Youtube equivalent? Check the Alexa rank, right now Live Search is sitting at 4th while Google is at 2nd, the reports of Live search being a failure are GREATLY over exaggerated. If you hate Microsoft why are you supporting their supposed tactics of buying out companies?
(...the "cloud computing" version of Windows) will be made open source by 2012, probably under a license like the Apache license. This way, Microsoft could take this little-known set of technologies and turn them from an "also-ran" cloud offering into a major disruptive force in the "war in the clouds" that many analysts believe is looming. MSFT needs something like this to gain mindshare in areas it cares deeply about: hetrogeneous enterprise computing and High Performance Computing. To be sure, it would produce a tidal wave of "hell freezes over / Windows goes open source!!" sensationalism. Given what we already know about Ray Ozzie (the chief architect behind Azure), MSFT would benefit from an infrastructure requirement that ensures it a continued OS business model (see the company's recent changes to CAL pricing on virtualized servers for a clue that leads in this direction), and it will provide the large enterprise customers (which, if you read MSFT's stock market filings, have consistently provided solid growth for the Server and Tools business in recent years) with the flexibility this market segment increasingly demands. In a way, it's a little like the way open-sourcing "Darwin" didn't really hurt Apple's OS business.
humans will be long gone.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.