Tim Sweeney Outs More Win10 Concerns - MS wants to Break Steam

2% per month is nearly 25% a year. Meaning in two years or less even with slower adoption rates, Windows 10 will overtake Windows 7.

 

no, because raise rate will drop further.
especially from august '16 on when w10 wont be free anymore.

obviously you must have forgotten.

 

He's just a $team $hill, as if Steam is some beacon upon the hill for everyone to aspire to.

Meanwhile, Steam is ****ing trash, it's literal garbage. It doesn't even support multiple user profiles on the same machine, you have to log in every time you open the thing. The DPI scaling on it is terrible, and you can't even scroll without tearing. That's been a bug in the client for months now. It's totally unacceptable and frankly despite having a steam collection worth over 4k dollars I'm ready for a capable competitor, I'd leave steam in a heartbeat.

They're just a really ****ty ecosystem member. All they do is masturbate Linux all over the place despite the fact that it's basically never done anything for them and nothing good has ever come of it.

 

It overtook Windows 7 on Steam a while back, now it's something like 46% for W10 and 37% for W7.

Nearly a 4% increase for June, July will likely be even higher if people rush to take advantage of the upgrade offer that ends today, likely brake the 50% mark next month.

It will obviously slow down after that, but with a lot of big DX12 games coming this year it won't slow down that much.

 

Fact: Microsoft can NOT legally take the "walled garden" route with Windows. It's illegal. MS has to permit competition in ALL markets they exist in. That includes software distribution.

 

Considering that might include every corporate pc ever also. W10 will see a boost when companies start to upgrade from w7. Our company employs 60000+ and pretty much everyone has w7 computer atm. Last time I checked W10 had least open vulnerabilities out of any OS but that might have changed.

 

Obviously you only pay attention to that which you believe aids your opinion. It's called confirmation bias. Win 7 will continue to decline in usage. There is no disputing that, period.

 

I don't even know what his argument is. It seems to be just another avenue to complain about something.

 

Yeah he quoted my post to dispute something, then when i replied showing him things were different to what he thought, he skipped my reply to say the same thing to someone else.

I don't get his thinking when the facts say the opposite. Is he going to wake up one day thinking "How the f*ck did that happen? That came out of nowhere"

 

That's quite an ignorant statement! No offence is directed towards you. But without M$ there might have been a whole slew of OS if M$ didn't muscle them out. If you go back in time, anyone with a new idea was destroyed or bought the company out to make Windows the success it is today. SO don't try and make out that Windows was doing it for our good! It was for themselves and themselves alone!

Most of us do want Windows gone! I've wanted it gone since XP... Linux was a hopeful, but no idea why it never really got off the ground. Yes I've tried it and it's a pain. But in time like Windows 3.1 was a nightmare would have evolved. M$ could evolve their product, because they were basically the only one's out there who's prodcuts were selling! So the more money they make the more they could invest!

 

Still incorrect. If you go back in time I suggest you take a look at OS/2 (the beginnings of Windows as we know it today). It began as a joint project between IBM and Microsoft. Telling me that they were trying to muscle out anyone else is simply not true. If there was ever a company that tried to muscle out the competition it was Apple. Read up on your history before spewing all this false information.

 

At the end of the day MS is a big fat monopoly and we all know how those things go.

The UK government made one of the biggest monopolies ever (BT) give up it's own rights and forced them to sell off huge parts of it's infrastructure so that others could profit from BT's own wired system.

Unfortunately MS is more secure in it's monopoly and therefor can do whatever the hell they want = bad news for us. No government can force MS to sell up or split and it's up to someone else to create new OSes.

Again unfortunately this is not so easy because MS has the internal API that controls most of the software available.

How do you even go about trying to create a new OS from scratch that will work with today's games and apps and the answer is you can't unless the government steps in and forces MS to allow other OS builders to use their API.

You see with BT it was mainly down to infrastructure that had already been built and spread to 100% of homes and the only way for fair competition was for UK gov to force BT to share it's own paid for infrastructure.

With software how do you even begin the process because there is no infrastructure even though they have nearly 100% of the market.

The government tried to stop MS from holding all the cards by forcing them to remove Media players, IE and other software from default installing so that others could have a chance but that's impossible with other OSes because the API is integrated into the OS itself.

SteamOS did have a chance at becoming mainstream but without DX it's never going to take off and i don't know if there is any way around that.

The day an OS comes out with Browser, Media player Music/Video and all back catalog of games working then Windows would be a thing of the past and they know it because people only use about 10% of Windows and the rest is bloat.

 

MOST of us do NOT want Windows gone. We all owe Microsoft a huge debt of gratitude for giving us what we have today and what we have had over the years. Windows 10 is quite simply the best OS there has ever been.

It's no surprise to me that Linux never took off. I have tried multiple flavors of it and guess what? They all stink compared to Windows. Nobody wants to go back to an OS that will eventually force you to resort to DOS like behavior just to get things to work or install properly. It has failed not only in the desktop arena but also on the mobile front. Even Android which is very good for mobile is not suitable for the desktop environment. (I'm not saying that Android is Linux because it's not no matter how much Linux fanboys want to say it is). The SteamOS is a joke and hardly even worthy of comment.

 

Yes, and if the US never went to Vietnam, 9/11 would have never happened, because i say so.

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's good, now understand that's what you're doing.

You don't know what could have happend if microsoft didn't exist. You think that would have happened? You know what i think? I think apple would have become larger, and had the same mentality they do now, and would have tried to, and possibly successfully, copyrighted the whole idea of an OS, preventing anyone from ever creating another OS. Furthermore, it'd be only Apples programs on there with Apples hardware.

Think mine seems far fetched? Actually, it's much more likely then yours.

The biggest problem with your idea, is the fact that you think there'd be "so many OS's to choose from". Really? Have you forgotten the masses ability to not want to choose between more then 2, 3 at most, options? The general populous when dealing with electronics/OS's don't want tons of choices, they want what is familiar, or what their friends have. If what were to happen as you suggest, it wouldn't last long. In, lets just say 1995, there's be 50 OS's to choose from, and by 2000, i would guarantee 90% of them if not more would go out of business due to flooding the market. Then you'd be right back where we are now, with a small amount of "known" OS's, and 2, maybe 3 actually popular ones.

Uh...huh? I'm not sure you know what monopoly means. A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. None of that applies to microsoft. Everything Microsoft has made, has counterparts from other companies. Be it OS's, hardware, or etc. You think they are a monopoly because of windows? That just doesn't make any sense. Windows is not the only OS out there, and not only that, but there being windows does not prevent others from making an OS. This is not the definition of a monopoly. They do not "have exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service", they only have a product, that is popular, and is more supported by other companies because it is popular.

Let me give you an example of what a monopoly is: If a cable provider is the only one in an area, and prevents any other cable provider from even trying to get into the area, this is a monopoly. They would have exclusive control of the area.

 

You need to research Linux a bit. It caters to users of all experience levels. Linux actually IS the dominant OS, btw. If you look at all computing devices, Linux dominates the market quite easily. People seem to forget that Android and ChromeOS, are in fact Linux based. ChromeOS is a fork of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is actually pretty damn user friendly. In some aspects, it's more user friendly than Windows 10.

Microsoft and IBM worked together on OS/2. Then Microsoft took what they learned from that and developed Windows. Then MS went to OEMs and talked them into signing contracts to install Windows on their systems that forbid them from installing any competing OS on any systems they sold. Sounds like MS was trying to force out any possible competition to me.

How exactly did Apple try to muscle out competition? Apple developed their own systems and their own OS. To get Apple OS, you had to buy an Apple computer. They were proprietary systems running a proprietary OS. If Apple was trying to muscle out competition, they wouldn't restrict their OS to their own branded devices. Sure, all their patent lawsuits do give the impression that they are trying to prevent competition....but Apple can't legally use patents to prevent others from competing against them.

 

The other problem with his analogy is that not only do the masses only want just a few options to choose from, but software companies are not not going to waste time, money, and other resources to support a plethora of OSes. As it is they have a hard time keeping up with Windows, OS X, and Linux, and making sure things work across the different versions.

 

Microsoft previously required OEMs to sign a contract that banned them from offering products with competing operating systems. While that particular contract clause was valid, MS effectively was a monopoly (in the retail/OEM PC market)

You speak of Linux like it's a single piece of software from a single entity. No software company tries to support "Linux". They attempt to support their preferred Linux distribution (Ubuntu, SuSE, Debian, Fedora, etc).

Apple would have never been able to copyright or patent the entire concept of the OS due to copyright laws at the time. The original "operating system" was developed by Bell Labs. The "graphical user interface" was originally developed by Xerox. Apple had no grounds to patent of copyright either idea because previous work existed. Previous copyright and patent laws prevented companies from being granted a patent or copyright based on evolvement of someone else's work. Apple actually tried to copyright the graphical user interface....and tried to sue MS over it. Apple lost out in both endeavours...

 

Have you read the book, "The Road Ahead" by Bill Gates? He explains in it very well that Apple tried to block any sort of OS that used a GUI other than their own until 1995.

 

Apple v. Microsoft: The End at Last?
A little history of what really happened....

Apple had a copyright on the "look and feel" of Apple/MacOS. Coincidentally, Apple never went after IBM over OS/2.....only Microsoft and HP. Apple had no grounds to prevent anyone from creating an OS that utilized a GUI. They did have grounds to protect their copyright, which covered how Apple/MacOS looked and certain aspects of it's functionality. Which MS and HP tried to reproduce.

 

That's not a monopoly unless they have a contract with all OEMs in the market. Not only that, but the post, of which i replied to, said that Microsoft IS a monopoly, not was.

But again, if i make a product, and then i go and tell companies if they want my product they can't sell my competitors, that's not a monopoly. I'd agree that would be Microsoft trying to BE a monopoly, but it, itself, is not a monopoly. It's just an anti-competitive practice to try to force a monopoly.

Do...you not keep up with apple? The things they try to copyright, sue over, and actually win, astonishes me, so no it would not surprised me if in an alternate universe where microsoft was never a thing, somehow, apple would have copyrighted the entire OS. It's what they do. It's apple.

The point of the matter is not that it WOULD happen, but rather it be more likely to happen then the persons post i quoted as saying without microsoft we'd be in a plethora of OS's and that it's microsofts fault there's so few.

The MOST likely scenario if microsoft never existed, or scenarios, would be that there MIGHT have been a different company make an OS that was actually popular, with apple being the biggest, and linux trailing in 3rd still.

Realistically, right now there's a ton of operating systems that people don't know about, so without microsoft, we'd likely be right where we are now, still.