[ale] Re: [ale-unemployed] Mission Statement / Business Model

[Irv Mullins]

On Saturday 09 February 2002 11:15 am, jeff hubbs wrote:
>
> For one, even though I am not a rabid tree-hugger, it bothers me that MS
> OSses and software seem to drive a cycle of diesktop hardware upgrading
> that is resource- and money-wasteful.  I've almost gotten to the point
> where I feel like a PIII on every desk in most office situations is
> egregiously wasteful.

But, they do make solitaire run *so* much faster :)

Seriously, Microsoft no doubt realized long ago that the market for 
Operating Systems was finite, and the only way to perpetuate their 
cash flow would be to force upgrades.

They do that in several ways. 

The least objectionable (to me) is to add new functionality, so people will 
want to upgrade. There's a limit to what people want and need to do, 
however, and a built-in disincentive as well, i.e:  
"if it ain't broke....don't fix it"  That's why busineses were still using 
DOS long after Win95 came out.

Then there's the horsepower race - get people to buy new faster computers, 
they'll have to buy a new copy of Windows along with it.  The easy way to 
do this is to come out with software that runs too slowly on existing pcs.
Microsoft has been a leader in that field.

Even that wasn't enough, apparently, so now they're devising schemes for 
mandatory upgrades, and will, I believe, eventually go to a subscription 
system where you'll have to pay by the month to use Windows. 

<snip>

> It shouldn't be too hard to imagine that in most cases, given that MOST
> computer hardware is desktop hardware, companies get ludricously low
> amounts of returned value for their financial outlay for IT.

I would add that *because* it is desktop hardware, and *because* it 
runs Windows, they also get a certain degree of _reduced productivity_ 
for their investment. 

> So, if this "cooperative" wants to offer something that would really
> impress the typical business owner, come up with a pre-engineered
> solution that primarily utilizes existing hardware of most any age and
> covers 90% of the company's IT activity right out of the box.  I think
> that among all of us, we can probably agree on what the final result
> should look like and make it so that it can be ported to all kinds of
> hardware.  Companies that utilize this shouldn't expect to get away with
> paying nothing for hardware - if there isn't a decent server with
> hot-swappable disk drives, then one has to be bought or built - but, my
> gosh, compared to the money that companies are paying now for the pretty
> boxes from Dell, etc. and the MS tax, how bad can that be?

Someone want to do a cost-comparison for a couple of different-sized 
companies?

Regards,
Irv

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.