[REBOL] Re: About View "Skinz" Contest
From: atruter:hih:au at: 26-Feb-2002 12:05
Since no-one else seems to have taken the bait ;)
<SNIP>Winamp is for Windows and Mac. It's true that 'many' people use
windows, but I don't know how you can make an Mp3 player for view without
multiplying the effort times the number of OS's people use/want. And I'll
explain why it's a waste of time trying...</SNIP>
The "browse" command is an example of a good way to invoke an external
service without regard to OS or utility provider. Perhaps a "play" command
. . .
<SNIP>I couldn't care less if MS went under tomorrow, or if it became the
only OS
out there. Frankly, I never cared about Apple one iota. They sold nice,
incredibly expensive PC's that no average person could afford. If Apple
had
a cheap clone back in those days, there would'nt be an MS today. Now they,
Apple, have 2.3% of the market. 2.3 PERCENT? Who are these people?</SNIP>
I use Windows and *nix and plan on getting an iMac. I like having a choice
as to what hardware, OS and software I purchase, use and develop for. Note
that "cheap" PC's are an illusion. Each category of component changes
regularly on a 6 month cycle with most consumers "compelled" to upgrade
after falling a generation or two behind. Add to this the cost of
versioning
whereby most software vendors encourage you to upgrade
software every two years or so. It always amazes me how much someone
actually pays to write a document on a PC (the most commonly quoted reason
for having a PC). Did the upgrade from Win95 to Win98 to WinME to Win2000
to WinXP with the matching office upgrades from Office95 to Office97 to
Office2000 to OfficeXP really enable a document to be written any faster /
better? What is the true cost of each document? (total cost of upgrades
divided by actual number of documents written).
<SNIP>All I care about is "What are people using today?" and what OS should
I
make software for first?</SNIP>
Which people? If I'm writting software for puiblishing or multi-media folks
I'd want to make sure it runs on a Mac. Server software better run on *nix.
Client side software better run on Windows. Different strokes for different
folks.
<SNIP>So, to answer that question lets turn to the facts... Here's a great
site to do just that called "Geeks with Guns"
http://geekswithguns.com/index.html
According to these stats, the Windows OS counts for 94.3%, Mac at 2.3%,
Linux 2% and Unix 0.3% with all the rest at 1.0%</SNIP>
I hope this wasn't just a plug for the NRA. Take a look at
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/, according to THESE stats 60% of web
servers are running Apache, 30% Microsoft. A survey 5 years ago I came
across stated that 95% of the world's data is stored on IBM systems. Over
40% of the world's DB's are Oracle. What does all this prove? That there
are many ways of looking at IT and that there are many "markets" within it.
The whole Microsoft, Mac, Linux thing is only one aspect of it (the Desktop
/ Server OS).
<SNIP>Someone earlier complained about a floating frame on my website.
Floating frames are cool, but only work with IE, and considering that IE
counts for 93% of all browsers out there, I'm willing, at this time, to
abandon the 7% of the rest. Then there's one more reason for Netscape
users
to abandon it.</SNIP>
One small thing to note is that mobile computing device (especially phone)
growth is faster than PC growth. Many of these devices (including consumer
devices such as fridges) are increasingly internet enabled. IE may have 93%
of the PC market now, but you won't find IE being part of too many embedded
devices (Opera is doing quite well in that market segment).
Microsoft loves it when people use it's proprietary extensions and file
formats as it locks people into using their products and paying for their
upgrades, but that's your choice.
<SNIP>At this time, for better or worse, Microsoft is the defacto standard.
If you are creating software for any other OS, you have seriously gimped
your market share. (Unless your creating something that is lacking in the
other OS, of which there is plenty... including Winamp)</SNIP>
It depends on what segment you are aiming for. If I am writing software for
server management / web mastering, etc it is likely that I will target
*nix. If I developing / maintaining software for my local bank it is highly
unlikely to be Microsoft!
<SNIP>This is not about which OS is better, this is about why even you, yes
you.. are using MS products. And don't tell me you don't, cause the
numbers
speak for themselves.</SNIP>
When I write a document I use MS*Word. When I surf the net or email I use
Opera (which avoids 90% of viruses - most of which are Outlook or IE
dependant, see http://www.theregister.co.uk/ for details). When I use an
ATM or fly a plane I hope to hell it is NOT using bugware from Redmond.
Funny thing about numbers though, if 100 people in my company are sitting
in front of a Wintel box accessing corporate apps on a mainframe or *nix
box, then we obviously have 100 Windows users, but do we also have 100 *nix
users. According to most surveys the true answer is that users = boxen so
we have 100 Windows users and 1 *nix "user". I also know that if I write
software for Windows I am competing against every Tom, Dick and Harry so
(unless I write for a niche area) I can't charge more than US$100 a copy.
When I write custom software for *nix the asking price is as high as
US$70,000 per copy (If you think this is excessive then ask yourself if you
would really want your bank keeping your financial records with the latest
version of EZY*Banking Pro for $10 from CNET).
<SNIP>PS - Windows XP sucks. Don't know about Linux, haven't used it...
probably
sucks too.</SNIP>
WindowsXP is based on the NT/2000 kernel and is infinitely better than the
DOS legacy-based Win95, Win98, WinME line. I like the product, but not the
way it is licensed - but that's my choice.
Regards,
Ashley
