• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Should Microsoft...

Should MS start building their own PC's, I mean their keyboards and mouses are good. It would put them in the same boat as Apple, it would give them a better chance to make hardware more specific to their OS' (not sure how more specific, but if anyone could do it MS could). I mean I read that their in the process of developing Windows without the use of Dos. Which could be very interesting...

Thoughts???
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
Well yeah Apple makes all of their own hardware (or most of it anyway) but one thing about PCs that appeal to the general public is the fact that they are so much cheaper.

Microsoft making all of their own stuff would cause the prices to go up a lot.

I know people that like Apple Computers just because they're more expensive than PCs, in other words it's way more expensive for what it nearly the same, it makes it a status symbol if anything. I don't think MS can compete with that, Apple has always been more expensive and as such it's been interpreted as nicer automatically, if they're equal in price everyone would go for Apple.

If MS can find a way to make their own hardware without making their computers too expensive I wouldn't be opposed to that. They are definitely great at making hardware.
 
I see what you mean. Another thing is Apple's OS' has only one version not a handful like MS, and I think that's one reason why their computers are so expensive. As for OS MS needs to learn that lesson from Apple.

The only way I see MS making their PC's and beating Apple at it, is to figure out how to run Windows without Dos, have higher quality hardware and have one version of Windows with it all being at a cheaper price...I don't really see them doing that, but with MS being as huge as they are...I don't think it would hurt them.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
They'll never have to worry about beating Apple in price since Apple has no concept of "consumer friendly pricing".
 
You got that right, but I do say MS needs to have just One version of Windows...that would really help them against Apple.

Btw nice pic man.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I don't know why they need one version. That's Apple's problem, one version of everything. Then once something new comes out, they poop all over the old one. Microsoft's game and other PC companies' games are customization, something Apple is violently allergic to. Cheap and customizable? It's a wonder Apple is as successful as they are.

They'll never be business standard anywhere without a serious change in their pricing.
 
Yea...I wasn't as specific as I meant to be. I mean one Main version, then if the customer wanted to customize it than so be it. I really haven't been a fan of home, pro, ent., and ultimate. I just felt that was too much.

I just think one Main version, unless the customer wants it customized to their own liking...It might just be me, but I've always thought that was the more logical way.
 

Arathald

Registered Member
If you walk into a retail store to buy windows 7, they will only have home and pro on the shelf. Anything else is a special version -- ultimate is for power users, and normally wouldn't make its way onto retail shelves, and enterprise is a volume licensing version -- unless you're in charge of purchasing for a company or a school, you shouldn't even see enterprise as a choice. There are also specialized versions for low-income countries that tend to have more basic computers, which shouldn't be sold in the US at all. If you're referring to seeing all these versions on MSDN, that is a developer portal meant for people to be able to grab the different versions to test on; anyone with an MSDN subscription shouldn't be intimidated by seeing 4-5 different versions. So long story short, the end-user story is that there are only two different versions. you walk into a store to get Windows, and you buy either home or pro.

As far as hardware is concerned, I heard someone ask Steve Sinofsky (President of Windows) this very same question not too long ago at a meeting. His response compared computers to cars. He said that Apple is like BMW. They have a very limited selection of cars. If you happen to want one of those very specific cars, and you have the money for it, then you'll buy it, and everyone will be impressed. But Windows + the hardware it runs on is more like GM. If you want something of BMW caliber, or even better, you can get it , but if you need a pickup, or a compact, or anything that BMW doesn't offer, you can also get that. And on the other side of the spectrum is Linux, which is a bit like building a car in your own garage (or buying a car another hobbyist build in his garage). Because Windows provides a balance between the limited luxury market of Apple and the hobbyist-level customization of Linux, the current model actually works out very nicely, and there's not really a good reason at this point for Microsoft to start making its own hardware.
 
As for the first part...Duh! I know that. Just felt even with all those factors, there should be only One true shelf version, and everything else is just custom. Like have it be Home with all that's needed. Then if the customer wants to tweak it by either chopping it down to a cheaper version, or loading it up with whatever you can think of, funny I mention that...

My friend tweaked his XP to the point he programmed it where during the installation all the programs he used was Fully installed with the OS. So when he booted up for the first time, everything was there ready to go. Not sure how he did it, but it was so exact that in the opening menu of the installation he could enter his network pw, and chose all the settings for his additional install files...I know random but talking about this got me thinking about it, I thought it was pretty kickass.

I like that analogy about cars, just thought it would be kool and would help them make Windows work even better with the hardware. I know right now they've pretty much done what they can, but every couple years or so some big and new piece of hardware comes out that changes things a bit.

But that little bit I said earlier actually came from MS(hehehe...came), that they were developing a way to run Windows without Dos. And it would just make sense to me if they did make their own PC...wouldn't that make it easier for them to design Windows that way?
 

Arathald

Registered Member
Yes, it would make it easier to design Windows if we restricted the hardware, but then what about all the people that want to use something else? If we still allowed installation onto separate hardware, it wouldn't make it any easier, there would just be one more set of hardware to support and test against.

Also, what do you mean "Run Windows without DOS"? Windows hasn't used DOS as of NT 4.0 (Windows 98 and ME use a different kernel, so DOS was completely phased out in Windows as of Windows 2000).
 
Top