The Last Days of Windows 7

For the Net/Email/Odd Letter class of "average" user Windows 7 is usable "out of the box", more so with the systems that this type of user buys, from the major OEM suppliers with their Extras Packages.

I would personally class the "average" windows user as one who uses Office in Work, in addition to their personal home system.

The issue with Linux that prevents it becoming more than a very minor player is that the big names in software development simply do not support it. Yes you can get an office suite or a graphics package for Linux but they do not compare with those available on The Windows, or even the MAC, Platforms, Microsoft Office is one of, if not, the biggest sellers in MAC software.

What we have to realise as Industry professionals or enthusiasts is that the vast majority of users of computers do not care about the operating system they use, they just want the Office program at home to operate the same as the one in work.

You would be amazed at the number of users who consider either Office or Internet Explorer to be "Windows". I offer clients the like of OpenOffice where cost is important but often have the users state "no I want Windows Office". I have set up many systems where Office components are included in start-up and some users may not actually interact with the OS at all, even performing all file management within Office.

The great selling point of Windows is that it works for everyone at all sorts of levels, on all sorts of hardware, for everyone from an occasional user to a full time graphics artist, for the avid gamer, and it also runs a lot of real time scientific and industrial processes

Barman58 said:

For the Net/Email/Odd Letter class of "average" user Windows 7 is usable "out of the box", more so with the systems that this type of user buys, from the major OEM suppliers with their Extras Packages.

I would personally class the "average" windows user as one who uses Office in Work, in addition to their personal home system.

The issue with Linux that prevents it becoming more than a very minor player is that the big names in software development simply do not support it. Yes you can get an office suite or a graphics package for Linux but they do not compare with those available on The Windows, or even the MAC, Platforms, Microsoft Office is one of, if not, the biggest sellers in MAC software.

What we have to realise as Industry professionals or enthusiasts is that the vast majority of users of computers do not care about the operating system they use, they just want the Office program at home to operate the same as the one in work.

You would be amazed at the number of users who consider either Office or Internet Explorer to be "Windows". I offer clients the like of OpenOffice where cost is important but often have the users state "no I want Windows Office". I have set up many systems where Office components are included in start-up and some users may not actually interact with the OS at all, even performing all file management within Office.

The great selling point of Windows is that it works for everyone at all sorts of levels, on all sorts of hardware, for everyone from an occasional user to a full time graphics artist, for the avid gamer, and it also runs a lot of real time scientific and industrial processes

Exactly!

Barman58 said:

Microsoft Office is one of, if not, the biggest sellers in MAC software.

It is funny to look at the best sellers for software on Amazon, and seeing Office Home and Student for the Mac at #4, with the family pack version at #9.

cluberti said:

Barman58 said:

Microsoft Office is one of, if not, the biggest sellers in MAC software.

It is funny to look at the best sellers for software on Amazon, and seeing Office Home and Student for the Mac at #4, with the family pack version at #9.

Before I bought my new Dell with WIN7, I had a moment of temporary insanity and considered going for an iMac. My Best Buy has an Apple section, and the first software you see on the shelf is Microsoft Office Home and Student and Office Business for MAC.

If it weren't for Steve Jobs, Apple may have eventually died out at the turn of the century. However, if it weren't for Microsoft (and Bill Gates, mostly), Apple may still have died out with Steve Jobs at the helm - $150 million in cash for non-voting stock and an agreement to continue selling Office for the Mac for 5 years (in exchange for dropping the lawsuit Apple had against Microsoft - it wasn't all altruism, or perhaps none at all) was ultimately what put Apple on their trajectory. Office for the Mac was important then (and Steve Jobs knew it, hence why he wanted the 5 year agreement to continue making it available on Apple's platform), probably more so than it is now. Also, there is rumored to have been much more cash exchanged (the schedule B portion of the deal that was secret) than the $150 million reported, as Apple lost over a billion or so dollars over the previous two years, and had another billion lost on revenues (and reported only $1.2 billion in cash holdings at the time) and yet ended in the black and maintained their investments (and even started accumulating cash) very quickly after that point, without a huge uptick in sales to account for it - interesting indeed, and it would still have been nothing for Microsoft (or even Bill Gates himself) at the time to do without affecting anything in either's lives. Also, Microsoft got access to Apple's labs and R&D over that same 5 year span, so it seems like both companies' cultures were affected positively by the deal, regardless of what it ultimately was behind closed doors.

Viewed in the lens of Apple as a hardware company, and Microsoft a software one (mostly, anyway), it makes sense Microsoft would write Office for the Mac, as that's what Microsoft does. It's a little odd because you'd think they'd want to push Office licenses for Windows instead of the Mac, but I doubt it makes a huge difference or impact on Windows' dominance in the market. It makes money, and probably isn't a threat to Microsoft's market position(s) at all; thus, as long as that stays true, Microsoft will gladly take money from whomever is willing to give it to them - be it a Mac user or a Windows user .

FranzB said:

You can argue long and short about it but 70-80% of W7 users have no need for all these extra gadgets but they are - in essence - subsidizing the 20-30% who use them. It's a straightforward calculation how much W7 with all the gadgets would increase in price for those 20% if those 80% did not pay the full price but maybe half. Now you are forced to pay for something you will never use.

How is that any different from any for-profit OS? Your argument is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of how software is developed, tested, released, and marketed anyway - without all the bells and whistles to satisfy as many corners of the market, the software (in this case, Windows) would by design be useless for the portions of the market to whom it wasn't specifically designed for. Given the immense R&D and actual development/test costs of the software in question, yes indeed you are in fact "subsidizing" all of the features and functions of the software, including features you "don't need", so that you can get the ones that matter to you or your organization. It actually costs less to do this when it comes to software development, than to release versions with multitudes of features for each at the scale Microsoft releases software.