Peachy Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 So, this news item (which I saw another place, yesterday) suggests that future Phoenix BIOS motherboards will be compatible with Microsoft operating systems only. So, it looks like Microsoft is using a hardware tactic to cut Linux off at the pass, to use a tired analogy. Remember those discussions about DRM and Palladium over the summer? As someone posted on Slashdot today, thank God for LinuxBIOS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThunderRiver Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 I see this as a good news if aned only if they are also working towards instant-on PC.LinuxBIOS has its own reason to stay, partly to save IT's life by being able to make a tiny BIOS changing across all 999999+ workstations with just few clicks?It is said that they only added 10 lines of codes to the Linux kernel, but the real question is how big is it? Does it actually fit in one chip? Or some part of the code has to reside in MBR? or first few section of the hard drive? and what happened if hard drive fails? system fails too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quint Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Thanks, Peachy, for bringing this most disturbing news to our attention. Why is it that when MS "steps in", someone invariably gets "stepped on"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzButt Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 I might be willing to go with a Windows only BIOS on my pc if the following conditions are met: The Mobo has a Dual-BIOS Setup The BIOS is switchable with a jumper or switch. (Important for the next item) The BIOS the supports Windows is Instant-on so PC is up in seconds. There is no DRM or OS ties to the BIOS Numbers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zox Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 I think what I read from the above that it is going to be possible to turn off DRM thing in BIOS.Anyway, it is good time to look to support "other" BIOS producer than Phoenix, such as Award, AMI, etc..All these things are just driving me more and more away from Windows.What is going to end up on the end, closed proprietary system with applications that work in it only if they are Microsoft certified and approved. (it will probably cost leg and arm for certification and you as well as your family will have to get "Security clearance" first)Thank you very much, I've seen enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 I just love how people rush and jump to conclusions... Remember when Intel tried some kind of CPU ID system? It did not go very far did it? What makes you think this one will either? Kind of hard to tell since it is not on the market yet...Perhaps the Linux commumity should acquire some motherboard manufactures to assure that the whole mb market does not fall into the hands of the evil MS...From a business standpoint... it makes sense. So why didn't the Linux community think of this melding BIOS to operating system idea first? Where's the innovation from OpenSource?It's always blame the evil MS for being smarter at business... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quint Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Hope I'm wrong, but I believe it all boils down to: Greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Classic business dilemma... How do you gain market share against an established competitor? Lower your cost. I think the Linux community has done that very well.Make and market a better product. Here is where it gets thorny.How do you market a product with so many flavors? What is the current distro count? The Linux faithful have sooo much choice. How does that play in the consumer market? How does the consumer make the choice with all the different distros?If I go into a computer store today what do I see? I see hundreds of machines with Windows and a row of Macs. The Windows machines are a single platform with some slight differences between Home and Pro. The major difference is in the hardware. Priced from the low low budget machine to the high end with all the bells and whistles. It boils down to price point.Now imagine this same computer store with a third section for Linux and UNIX. How do the different distro makers play for shelf space? If there are 20-30 hardware flavors sporting Windows how many different hardware setups for Linux? Do you show the different desktops? Apple has a unified desktop across all hardware platforms.You are trying to gain market share with consumers. Is the current approach working? Are consumers throwing their current PCs out the window in favor of Linux or for that matter Apple?How do you sell a non-unified product to consumers who want simplicity? You could innovate... You could innovate with hardware... You could advertise... Apple is doing both of those. But where is Linux?Microsoft considers a change in motherboards. Maybe melding the BIOS with the OS will give up a faster system startup. Consumers like faster... otherwise why keep upgrading our already fast systems?Some say this is just another form of MS greed. So MS should just sit back and coast pretty much like Novell did when Novell owned the network market? I thought a company main purpose was to return equity to shareholders. Keep growing the business. Dell wants to be a $60 Billion dollar company. They are currently at around $40 Billion. Is it wrong for Dell to succeed in that goal? Is it wrong for Dell to have 30% of its technology patients in the “process†of building PCs?In the end it is simply... All together now... build a better product. Build a better product... Then market the **** out of it...Whining about other companies and their greed is not going to get you market share... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus K Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 In the end it is simply... All together now... build a better product. Build a better product... Then market the **** out of it...Is this the way MS did it? Was Word better than Wordperfect? Was IE better than Netscape? Was Windows superior to Novell? No. Did MS jack (or should I say enhance) each version of Windows so their competitors had to basiacally rewrite their code each time? Or in Netscape's case simply temp people with a free, inferior alternative?The supplanting of Novell had nothing to do with the superiority of MS's product (it wasn't). Your last point should have been listed first, "Then market the **** out of it". Number 2 should have been "Throw constant roadblocks, via Windows at your competitors, till their revenues shrink and their ability to market and improve their product becomes impossible". Now with the competitors in shambles, build a better product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quint Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Marsden11 quote: Whining about other companies and their greed is not going to get you market share...Actually, I'm not whining...I personally do not care in the least, if every computer on earth ran a version of Windows, except mine...I just want that to be my choice. Thanks for your views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rons Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 I read about this about 6 months ago. Of course then it was only a rumor.Marsden11 is correct. A wait and see approach is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 <<Was Word better than Wordperfect?>>Nope... but why did Novell purchase it for a few billion and end up selling it for pennies on the dollar?Netscape lost the battle because they had lousy code from the start and were never able to clean it up. I never paid for a copy Netscape nor do I know anybody who did. The real money at Netscape was in the server products they sold. The real problem was they did not have a desktop OS to stick the browser on... When they realized they could not compete with their crapy code... they went whinng to the government. Build a better product... They figured the government would hobble MS and take the pressure off. That ploy didn't fare well for Netscape did it? Even with the government dragging MS through the courts they (MS) kept making money. It all boils down to "make a better product."The first few MS browsers sucked rocks. MS didn't stop, Netscape did... They had crapy code hence the fresh start with Mozilla.IBM could of had the market with OS2... it was clearly better and they beat MS to the market... only problem was IBM did not have a clue then about marketing or charging developers at least a kidney for the opportunity to develop for OS2.<<"Throw constant roadblocks, via Windows at your competitors, till their revenues shrink and their ability to market and improve their product becomes impossible". >>Sounds like the classic Netscape whin. Why did Netscape throw all their effort at the back side and not the browser? Netscape failed with build a better product... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.