Would M$ Die w/out Games?

I've been thinking about it.........do all of you think that M$ would die w/out its control as the primary OS of games? I wonder how many of you (those w/out Linux) would dump M$ for *nix or at least Mac (a flavor of *nix, but w/ it's happy little interface and following, sort of qualifies as another niche since it's also not open source [correct me if I'm wrong about that])......... Maybe I should just dump Windows completely, &, instead of running dual boot xp pro/mandrake 8.1, just use Mandrake w/ WINE DEATH TO WINDOWS MACHINES :killcompu UP W/ LINUX BOXS :)

You dont have to keep windows you can buy a windows game to Linux game converter it's expensive but works.

that's the point.......windows is so damn expensive............but WINE, I guess (it's free, as far as I know)

/me pokes his head in.... hmmm.. another worthless post...

Maybe once you grow up you realize that windows is an operating system that is widly used in the workplace. Not just for games.

/me leaves this worthless post.

xmadness, he has a very valid point...MS is in the workplace because businesses want to buy an 'all in one' package and that includes IIS, NT site licenses, Exchange, support contracts, etc etc...all by Compaq or HP (before the merger, now they're gonna be HPQs) who made deals with MS. I have yet to walk into a Best Buy and see a Compaq or HP with linux on it. Why? Because that makes no money and nobody knows how to use it to boot. Games, on the other hand, are 95% win32 applications made for Windows because that's what sells. If I knew right now though, this very minute, that without fail, I could switch over to Lindows or linux running vmware or wine without ANY problems with my games (and I'm talking games like Global Operations, GTA3, upcoming Warcraft 3 and Neverwinter Nights), I'd be SO GONE from the windows scene, never to turn back ever.

Windows would suffer without games but I think not having office would be needed to deliver the final blow.

My question is could Mac survive with out m$ office?

Well, there is no way that MS would die that easily. However, their games support is very key for the home user. This really comes down to the companies that write games software - are you really going to invest millions of $ writing a game for a *nix or Mac, when MS have about 90% of the market share - of course not! Trouble with converters/emulators for *nix is that they take a lot of processing power to run, and in some cases they will fail completely.
The office environment is a bit different, and will probably come down to price - MS office type products have been produced for the MAC & *nix systems. Maybe MS should be suing these vendors for breach of copyright? :)

There are several questions to this tread (or points to ponder)

Would MS die without gaming.... it would certainly suffer a degree of hurt...
Would I convert completely to Linux had it not for my vast collection of games?
Certanly, that is one reason that I have a dual boot.

I know there are many programs that emulate windows through Linux, but they suck up so much resource and aren't fully complatible (as well as a pain to configure for a learning pupil like myself)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pysk0tik
I've been thinking about it.........do all of you think that M$ would die w/out its control as the primary OS of games?

---

I have to disagree with this. No it would not die out. Why you ask? Well. Me myself, I 'm a Linux fan. I just switched over to Tux 100% for my personal box and ditched Windows. I like the stability and I like to tinker with code and such. Moreover, opensource is a concept I like. Anyway, to the point. My other machines run Windows of many flavors. For stable servers and workstations that seamlessly intergrate. You can't beat Windows networking features. 99% of my customers use some type of MS server and 100% of their workstations use MS. Because this is what companies want. It all to work together as one package. As I dais, I'm a diehard Linux fan. But, Linux is still an infant in the average user game. You can go out and pick 10 people at random at the mall and set them down in front of a Winbox and at least 9 out of the 10 know how to point and click. Do the same with Linux, and you'd be lucky if one of them could get past the login let alone start-X. Even if the average user used KDE or Gnome. Wait till they have to do their first /make or ask them what /home or /usr is. All you would get is a blank stare or they will hit the power button and say "put my windows back on". I don't like MS either. Their business tatics are drakonian. I can't say to much against the OS'es and software though. (other than all the damn patches and fixes) MS provides my clients with what they want. A simple easy interface for their workers to point and click. They don't do any more than that and thats all they want. Anything more complicated than this and they call me. Most companies don't want to have to deal with anymore than this, they leave the heavy stuff to us IT people. Even the few companies that I deal with that have a *nix box on their network leave it to one or two people to deal with or call me in. They don't want the average users even in the same room with it. Anyway I have went on way to long. So to summ up. You can have any system be good as long as it's setup and configured right and is comfortable for the user. Any OS can be secured and on the same note it can be broken into. This is what gives us jobs and keeps us working..............................

Totally agree with Apoc. I don't like M$ but I like Windows. I love the idea of Linux, but I don't like it at the point it currently is at.

Don't get me wrong, I like to tinker with Linux but it can sometimes take a lot of my time to get something working(I am a newbie). Windows, it's easy to get things done(Pls don't flame me :p).

Kind of a moot point really. Microsoft has the game market because they have the highest market share. It's not a chicken and egg thing, Microsoft came first and then the games. So clearly they built their market share without games.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Vorlin
xmadness, he has a very valid point...MS is in the workplace because businesses want to buy an 'all in one' package and that includes IIS, NT site licenses, Exchange, support contracts, etc etc...all byCompaq or HP (before the merger, now they're gonna be HPQs) who made deals with MS. I have yet to walk into a Best Buy and see a Compaq or HP with linux on it. Why? Because that makes no money and nobody knows how to use it to boot. Games, on the other hand, are 95% win32 applications made for Windows because that's what sells. If I knew right now though, this very minute, that without fail, I could switch over to Lindows or linux running vmware or wine without ANY problems with my games (and I'm talking games like Global Operations, GTA3, upcoming Warcraft 3 and Neverwinter Nights), I'd be SO GONE from the windows scene, never to turn back ever.

---

If I remember correctly, large vendors, can't sell their computers with an OS other than some flavor of Windows. Because of the license that they hold with MS forbids it. That might just be for dual-boot computers though.

Quote:

---

Kind of a moot point really. Microsoft has the game market because they have the highest market share.

---

That would be correct to a point. Game companies want money. So they would naturally make a game to be played on Windows. Why would they make a game for some OS that doesn't have as big of a market. i.e. Linux/BeOS/Mac. Sure there are Linux/BeOS/Mac user's who love to play games. But they are a minority.

The way this can change is if, the game companies, want to expand their games to other OS's. Such as id. They release their games for Linux. And after awhile, they open up the source to their Engine.

Quote:

---

Microsoft came first and then the games. So clearly they built their market share without games.

---

I don't think so. There where games on computers, before there was even a company called Microsoft, let alone an OS called Windows. :)

I don't think MS would die, because of gaming alone. Alot of borderline people would leave. But not the 'newbies', and the corporate users, who are entrenched in MS products.

The reason why Windows prevails, is because it is easy. Show a new person how to install something on a Windows machine, and they can do it at a later time, with little to no help from a more knowledgable person.

Show a person how to install a program on Linux; and they might come back the next time asking you what "dependancies" mean. Of course rpm, deb and the like are making it a bit easier. But it still isn't "there" yet.

Maybe without the games, Windows users who like the simple interface could be gravitated towards MacOS..........but a lot of people like the Win2k server, and many people would find it 50% more difficult to do their work w/out M$ Office Apps........

My boss's boss wont let us buy anything that's not microsoft here... if it's effective and cheap he wants no part :oT and screw M$ for the games, go buy a ps2, i got so many gaming sys's at home who needs winblows

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pysk0tik
Maybe without the games, Windows users who like the simple interface could be gravitated towards MacOS..........but a lot of people like the Win2k server, and many people would find it 50% more difficult to do their work w/out M$ Office Apps........

---

What is this ****? I mean, what would happen if this company didn't have this? They have it, so deal with it...

They've got Office, and its the best Office suite around... sure it has its problems, for instance, its security... but its still one of the easiest office suites to use, is quite powerful for the average user, and even more powerful for an experienced user...

Whether you like MS or not, saying what if they didn't have this, and what if they didn't have that is completely pointless.... they've got it, and people will use it... you could whinge all day about they only have it because its they used unfair business tactics *I don't deny that they did.. but I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same*, or you could admit that its easy to use and that's why people like it....

Fact is they are where they are, they have the placement they've got, and this thread is pointless...

Every OS has its advantages / disadvantages... When a solution presents itself, companies will 'generally' go with the best solutions... they decide this by examining the feasibility of each solution (say its outright cost, versus its maintenance costs as one example).. While *nix's may be cheap initial solutions, maintenance and support costs over time can put it into the same price bracket as Windows..

Am I rambling again?