PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical question



EM man
July 29th, 2009, 11:56 PM
I just bought my first new computer in five years, and have been waiting for this time to switch to Linux. I have long detested Microsoft's shady tactics, its shoddy software, and its anti-consumer attitude.

I have a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering, with an emphasis in electromagnetics. I did research in vacuum electronics (specifically, TWTs) for the latter. During my undergraduate years, I took one course in C++ and one in MATLAB, as well as a few courses that pertain to Computer Engineering, for my degree requirements. I also studied computers on my own during my teenage years. My knowledge of the hardware and software aspects of computers is therefore greater than what one would find in a layman, but less than people who study these areas intensively. I know the basics of programming and I know about logic gates, flip flops, BJT and FET transistors, TTL and CMOS logic, etc. However, there certainly are a lot of areas of computer science that I have only a basic familiarity with, and a few that I am moderately familiar with (signal integrity, power consumption, etc.).

I have a question for my first post. I was wondering what is stopping Microsoft from bribing, or otherwise pressuring, computer manufacturers to develop a new type of computer that has the OS pre-loaded into the ROM. That way, they could prevent the use of anything but Windows on the vast majority of new computers (unless the user does a lot of unsoldering and soldering, or simply builds a conventional computer from components). Despite my formal and informal technical education, I do not know if this is feasible. Thoughts?

coldReactive
July 30th, 2009, 12:02 AM
One alternative: Help develop ReactOS to be stable.

tc3000
July 30th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Because the FTC and the EU wouldn't let them make something like that, since it would be anti-competitive.

HappinessNow
July 30th, 2009, 12:23 AM
One alternative: Help develop ReactOS to be stable.
...or devote your life to making a better coaster.

MaxIBoy
July 30th, 2009, 12:27 AM
It would be legal if Microsoft manufactured all the computers itself, which is what Apple did with the classic Mackintoshes (newer Macs no longer keep the OS in ROM.)

But pressuring computer makers to do it for them would be a big no-no, and would most likely get their products banned in the EU. Suggesting politely is okay, but pressuring is not (and offering "special deals" or other incentives would also violate the law.) And the computer makers wouldn't do it voluntarily, they'd loose significant market share and raise their manufacturing costs as well.

I think. But then again, I'm not a lawyer.

earthpigg
July 30th, 2009, 12:28 AM
I have a question for my first post. I was wondering what is stopping Microsoft from bribing, or otherwise pressuring, computer manufacturers to develop a new type of computer that has the OS pre-loaded into the ROM. That way, they could prevent the use of anything but Windows on the vast majority of new computers (unless the user does a lot of unsoldering and soldering, or simply builds a conventional computer from components). Despite my formal and informal technical education, I do not know if this is feasible. Thoughts?

hopefully, our governments are.

past that, the 2% of potential customers that use linux/unix.

after that, the 5% of additional potential customers that know what linux/unix is and/or understand software freedom and vendor lock-in concepts. hopefully, people's experiences with iCrap have taught at least some of the general population what vendor lock-in is about and my 5% guestimate is not an order of magnitude to high.

beyond that, nothing that i can see.

hyperAura
July 30th, 2009, 12:36 AM
u r suggesting why doesnt microsoft play dirty to gain monopoly.. well even if they wanted there are many large corporations to stop them, for example: companies that use linux servers and microsoft servers know that on average a linux server has about 5-10 years more durability and is quite more stable than a microsoft server.. when it comes to that i think people will react and avoid it..

Old_Grey_Wolf
July 30th, 2009, 12:37 AM
I have a question for my first post. I was wondering what is stopping Microsoft from bribing, or otherwise pressuring, computer manufacturers to develop a new type of computer that has the OS pre-loaded into the ROM. That way, they could prevent the use of anything but Windows on the vast majority of new computers (unless the user does a lot of unsoldering and soldering, or simply builds a conventional computer from components). Despite my formal and informal technical education, I do not know if this is feasible. Thoughts?

That is actually not a new type of computer. In 1980 Tandy Corporation (now Radio Shack) had a TRS80 Colour Computer that had 32 KB of Memory, of that 16 KB was an Interpreter for the Basic programming language stored in ROM. The Basic Interpreter was used as the Operating System. I had one, and wrote my own text editor, chequebook program, games for my children, etc.

We did not have the World Wide Web in those days, email, viruses and other malware. There was no need to patch or upgrade the operating system.

If the "New Type of Computer" had some sort of reprogrammable memory so that patches or upgrades could be installed; then, someone will figure out how to flash it with another Operating System.

Edit: Actually, after I upgraded the computer to 64KB of memory, I bypassed the ROM and ran a UNIX OS, known as OS9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS9) on that computer from RAM.

Chemical Imbalance
July 30th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Here's an interesting patent filed by Microsoft I came across from an article a while back that I think may be relevant:



EDIT: article: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/microsofts_metered_pay_you_go_patent_its_trusted_c omputing_mark_two_worse

and here is the patent they filed: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080319910%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080319910&RS=DN/20080319910

_

tadcan
July 30th, 2009, 12:42 AM
I know very little about hardware or software.

However I would have thought that developing hardware is an expensive gamble. You can't be guaranteed that the new rom system would match the current x86 systems. I would imagine if the new system was different enough that people would complain. Like what happened with vista.

Also I would imagine that all the software that runs on windows would suddenly become incompatible. Thus MS would lose their biggest advantage, of running the many commonly used desktop programs.

In short it would rock the boat to much and force people who normally don't care to look at the OS they use and question if its still worth it.

EM man
July 30th, 2009, 12:48 AM
That is actually not a new type of computer. In 1980 Tandy Corporation (now Radio Shack) had a TRS80 Colour Computer that had 32 KB of Memory, of that 16 KB was an Interpreter for the Basic programming language stored in ROM. The Basic Interpreter was used as the Operating System. I had one, and wrote my own text editor, chequebook program, games for my children, etc.

We did not have the World Wide Web in those day, email, viruses and other malware. There was no need to patch or upgrade the operating system.

If the "New Type of Computer" had some sort of reprogrammable memory so that patches or upgrades could be installed; then, someone will figure out how to flash it with another Operating System.

Edit: Actually, after I upgraded the computer to 64KB of memory, I bypassed the ROM and ran a UNIX OS on that computer from RAM.

Indeed, right after posting, it occured to me that updating would be an issue that they would have to deal with. In this hypothetical, there would be a "skeletal" component, stored in the ROM (e.g., the OS itself), and a "flesh" component, stored on the HDD, comprising the user's preferences and settings. Perhaps updates would be pushed to the "flesh" component that would counteract elements of the code stored on the ROM that needed to be updated.

Chemical Imbalance
July 30th, 2009, 12:55 AM
Indeed, right after posting, it occured to me that updating would be an issue that they would have to deal with. In this hypothetical, there would be a "skeletal" component, stored in the ROM (e.g., the OS itself), and a "flesh" component, stored on the HDD, comprising the user's preferences and settings. Perhaps updates would be pushed to the "flesh" component that would counteract elements of the code stored on the ROM that needed to be updated.

Here is their official patent with details:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080319910%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080319910&RS=DN/20080319910

Sporkman
July 30th, 2009, 01:41 AM
I have a question for my first post. I was wondering what is stopping Microsoft from bribing, or otherwise pressuring, computer manufacturers to develop a new type of computer that has the OS pre-loaded into the ROM. That way, they could prevent the use of anything but Windows on the vast majority of new computers...

How would they deliver system/security updates?

Sporkman
July 30th, 2009, 01:42 AM
I posted prematurely ("really ma'am, this never happens to me...") - system updates were already addressed.

MikeTheC
July 30th, 2009, 02:35 AM
There are other games Microsoft could play. None of them would be cheap, but they do exist.

One thing that comes to the top of my head would be to subsidize a high-performance CPU competitive with the i7 but costing like 1/4 as much (or less) in both the retail and wholesale channels, and then dangling it like a carrot in front of PC makers. Make it to where it's sufficiently incompatible with the x86 baseline that the kernel and the rest of the OS couldn't run on it, yet apps could.

Make sure to give it a nice, attractive roadmap to ensure adoption and future loyalty.

That would completely shut out Linux.

In theory.

EDIT: Well, not *completely* but enough to start doing serious damage to Linux. Oh, and I implied it above, but let me be specific: the APIs and anything else a kernel/OS developer would need to know would be deliberately made proprietary and trade secret, and would require some kind of expensive license to have access to.

EM man
July 30th, 2009, 03:00 AM
There are other games Microsoft could play. None of them would be cheap, but they do exist.

One thing that comes to the top of my head would be to subsidize a high-performance CPU competitive with the i7 but costing like 1/4 as much (or less) in both the retail and wholesale channels, and then dangling it like a carrot in front of PC makers. Make it to where it's sufficiently incompatible with the x86 baseline that the kernel and the rest of the OS couldn't run on it, yet apps could.

Make sure to give it a nice, attractive roadmap to ensure adoption and future loyalty.

That would completely shut out Linux.

In theory.

EDIT: Well, not *completely* but enough to start doing serious damage to Linux. Oh, and I implied it above, but let me be specific: the APIs and anything else a kernel/OS developer would need to know would be deliberately made proprietary and trade secret, and would require some kind of expensive license to have access to.

What would stop us from obtaining new computers that have conventional CPUs?