Blitzen 0 Posted May 29, 2007 Let's say Microsoft is found guilty of an ENRON type scandal. What would happen? With so many people totally dependent on their products, could the government(s) let a company like that fall for ANY reason? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted May 29, 2007 Linux Would governments invest a lot of cash into linux to make it an even better alternative? I mean I have it on my laptop and I think it's already fine but it's not like that for everyone. y2k? Are you saying that this cannot possibly happen to MS or that if MS goes under, there will be no major ramifications? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 29, 2007 Let's say Microsoft is found guilty of an ENRON type scandal. What would happen? With so many people totally dependent on their products, could the government(s) let a company like that fall for ANY reason? It's apples and oranges. Microsoft's business is actually built on software sales and services, not cooked books. That being said, where there is a gap, the market will usually adjust. Mac OSX? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 29, 2007 I doubt it would happen with MSFT. Too much cash in the bank to cover just about anything. I could foresee the gubmint attempting to force Microsoft to split up to foster competition, however. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,611 Posted May 29, 2007 Microsoft is the best run company in the history of the world. Why would they possibly need to cook their books? Also, it's not Microsofts fault no one can compete with them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted May 29, 2007 It's apples and oranges. Microsoft's business is actually built on software sales and services, not cooked books. That being said, where there is a gap, the market will usually adjust. Mac OSX? The market can adjust but how would people adjust after decades of addiction to MS products? Also Nortel was built on product sales and still cooked its books. It's not like it's impossible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,611 Posted May 29, 2007 Besides. The products would still work. It's not like if Bill Gates goes to jail, he can flip a switch to make his software stop working. or can he Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 29, 2007 The market can adjust but how would people adjust after decades of addiction to MS products? Also Nortel was built on product sales and still cooked its books. It's not like it's impossible. Nortel was a lot smaller and younger. That being said... Have you ever evaluated Staroffice? It's actually pretty good. What about Thunderbird for email? If all of the sudden Microsoft Exchange got destroyed, there would be an alternative out in no time (6 months). Also, it's not like if Microsoft flips a switch, every Microsoft OS shuts off. What would happen is that people and companies would seek and find alternatives and start making the transition. It all doesn't really matter because in 15 years, everything will be browser/on-demand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted May 29, 2007 Besides. The products would still work. Actually, I would argue with you on that point that they don't necessarily work as it is. Since the last XP update, Outlook slowed to a crawl for me and I eventually switched to Thunderbird. It works great and it's free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,611 Posted May 29, 2007 If all of the sudden Microsoft Exchange got destroyed, That's just the thing. If Microsoft blew up, the software would still work. It's not like I'd have to change from Exchange server, it's still going to work. No one can take it away from me, it's on my servers. I may not get support for it, but I haven't needed support up till now, why would I need it then? Actually, I would argue with you on that point that they don't necessarily work as it is. Since the last XP update, Outlook slowed to a crawl for me and I eventually switched to Thunderbird. It works great and it's free. Well that's silly. it does work, just some people know more than others and have less issues. My point is still the same. If you purchased (or stole ) a copy of Office 2003, no matter what happens to Microsoft, the product is always going to work for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted May 29, 2007 Nortel was a lot smaller and younger. That being said... Have you ever evaluated Staroffice? It's actually pretty good. What about Thunderbird for email? If all of the sudden Microsoft Exchange got destroyed, there would be an alternative out in no time (6 months). Also, it's not like if Microsoft flips a switch, every Microsoft OS shuts off. What would happen is that people and companies would seek and find alternatives and start making the transition. It all doesn't really matter because in 15 years, everything will be browser/on-demand. I could switch my other machine over to all free non-MS products in about half a day if I had to. I've tried most of the free stuff. The only issue for me is that my wife uses all MS at her office so she doesn't want us to switch at home. She does like Thunderbird an awful lot however so I may be convincing her slowly. About browser/on demand, is that what the gurus are saying? Well that's silly. it does work, just some people know more than others and have less issues. I know an awful lot about my machine's inner workings and Outlook just started working REALLY slow right after the last XP update. I have checked every trick out there and it is already optimized as much as it can be. It just became unworkable for me and I ditched it. The other MS products I have are fine, but Outlook sucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 29, 2007 It all doesn't really matter because in 15 years, everything will be browser/on-demand. That is what Scott McNealy was saying 8 years ago. I think that the SaaS (Software as a Service) thing is sort of like us all traveling in space by 2001. There was a lot of predictions and not a lot of actions. For some applications, SaaS makes sense. For a lot of others, it makes no sense whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 29, 2007 That is what Scott McNealy was saying 8 years ago. I think that the SaaS (Software as a Service) thing is sort of like us all traveling in space by 2001. There was a lot of predictions and not a lot of actions. For some applications, SaaS makes sense. For a lot of others, it makes no sense whatsoever. Our current issue is bandwidth. 5 years ago, we could barely get broadband. Now we can get broadband through a cell phone. In 15 years, we will have gigabit throughput using direct connectivity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 29, 2007 Our current issue is bandwidth. 5 years ago, we could barely get broadband. Now we can get broadband through a cell phone. In 15 years, we will have gigabit throughput using direct connectivity. Not really. The issue is not a technical one. It is a practical one and much of the basis is in cost and changing features and functionality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 29, 2007 About browser/on demand, is that what the gurus are saying? The difference is now they are actually prototyping and implementing the technology. https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogi...epage&nui=1 There were always people promoting SAAS, and the browser capabilities will be the key along with bandwidth. Not really. The issue is not a technical one. It is a practical one and much of the basis is in cost and changing features and functionality. So you are saying when bandwidth increases to the point to where it takes 2 secs to download the entire Excel client and run it, that people will still be buying the software to install on their computer rather than just downloading it on demand? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,611 Posted May 29, 2007 I thought by 2010 we were all going to live like the Jetsons and have flying aircrafts instead of cars? I don't even think I'll have Verizon FIOS in my city by 2010. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 29, 2007 The difference is now they are actually prototyping and implementing the technology. https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogi...epage&nui=1 There were always people promoting SAAS, and the browser capabilities will be the key along with bandwidth. So you are saying when bandwidth increases to the point to where it takes 2 secs to download the entire Excel client and run it, that people will still be buying the software to install on their computer rather than just downloading it on demand? The costs are prohibitive and many people do not want to be bound by the version that the provider gives them. In addition, you also have to realize that the rate in which we increase bandwidth is about the same as the rate that the size of applications increases. Again, there are situations where it fits today. Microsoft already has its Office Live set of applications. The challenges today are the same that they were in 2001 when everyone predicted that ASP's were going to take over the software world. Many people lost a lot of money betting on it then. Now, several years later and I don't see us any closer than we were back then when it failed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
