I must apologize... 10080
I must apologize... 10081
Oh they were desperate measures all right, else why would Microsoft risk the wrath of the DoJ and others. They end off BeOS and with...
5 years ago I would have said they have nothing to fear on Intel equipment. Not from Linux, or OS-2, or BeOS, or anything else.
Today they would be wise to fear Linux and the MacOS on Intel, as well as Linux on AMD. It's kind of shocking to see the pace of change in the OSS world. I say change and not innovation because so much of the OSS world is just copy and refine from other sources. But the distros get better and better every release: easier to install, more integrated, better apps, easier to configure, more focused, etc.
And all for little or no cost, if you don't want to pay. The lack of money earned by Linux vendors, and dedicated to marketing Linux to the public, is a great hindrance. And some of the 'battle for standards', ala` KDE vs Gnome and .deb vs .rpm aren't helpful.
I must apologize... 10083
Peter Hayes Hmmmm....why didn't they stick with DR-DOS? You mean the pattern of the world choosing MS-Windows, of course. There was no app barrier to...
I can't speak for them. Those were the terms they wanted, and the terms many OEMs agreed to. As far as I know, today all OEMs are free to offer whatever OS they want alongside Windows in a dual-boot or multi-boot config.
For an OEM, being able to offer it and wanting to offer it and successfully offering it are all wildly different and important decisions and strategies. I think trying to sell dual-boot systems would increase system-build costs, result in no or very few incremental sales, and greatly increase technical and support after the sale costs.
According to cola bozos - who claim nobody besides them knows what an OS is - dual-boot systems would only confuse many consumers.
It's probably better for OEMs to offer single OS lines of systems. Down the road there probably will be Win, Lin and Mac offerings on Intel - and hopefully on AMD.