Alright so here's my random thought of the day... and actually I had it at about 11:30 last night and was too lazy to post it until today.

 

 

 

If Microsoft were to suddenly fail... we would all be screwed.

 

 

 

I know we all complain about it a lot... but for real... what would happen to computers without it? The whole technology market would almost crash!

 

 

 

Yeah... I had that thought and was like... wow... that's amazing... any thoughts on it you guys?

Linux :)

Linux :)

 

 

 

You wish, Mac would take over......

 

 

 

 

 

In 10 years after all computers that currently have windows get too out of date and disappear

Oh dear, Macs would be running the world. I'd never be able to heal anyone in Battlefield 2 ever again. :(

 

 

 

*imagines the chaos and nub computers*

 

 

 

I've never really thought about it.

Oh dear, Macs would be running the world. I'd never be able to heal anyone in Battlefield 2 ever again. :(

 

 

 

*imagines the chaos and nub computers*

 

 

 

I've never really thought about it.

 

 

 

Hey! With Boot Camp I'm told that gaming on Macs right now is just as good as a PC...especially when they come out with the native Intel Power Macs!

 

 

 

Yay for Macs ruling the market again!

Oh dear, Macs would be running the world. I'd never be able to heal anyone in Battlefield 2 ever again. :(

 

 

 

*imagines the chaos and nub computers*

 

 

 

I've never really thought about it.

If MS went out of business, everyone would be developing games fo MAC / Linux instead :P

 

 

 

Just for a time, there would be nothing new coming out. But as long as you still had a windows cd, you could still play older stuff :P

Is that what happens in Ghost in the Shell. All the computer companies shut down apart from one? Well if MS collapsed there are plenty of other companies willing to fill that gap.

I am gonna take a stab at it and say that Mac would take over and therefore the popularity of digital art and editing would be that of an ever higher level then we see these days in alot of young people who are doing AMAZING things on their computers. Don't forget the older and amazingly talented people too but I just think Mac would take over and they are better at editing videos and photographs etc but then again this is MY opinion

Our economy would like my butt...unwiped 8)

It couldn't happen though.

 

 

 

A company of that size has its fingers in so very many pies that it would be largely impossible to just disappear.

It's not going to. Bill told me so. You can't convince me otherwise!

 

 

 

But seriously, if you think about it, if Microsoft collapsed today, its effects wouldn't be felt severly for at least 5 years (think about how often YOU change your operating system / word processing software). If I'm not mistaken, most key society computing isn't done by Microsoft (bank software, etc) but rather Unix variations. So the main problem would come with the future of the PC. Five years is lots enough time for:

 

 

 

a) a company to take hold of the GNU licensing market (Linux) and come out with a great product for native Windows users. Ubuntu already has a seemless install process and is easy to use the internet for pretty much anybody.

 

 

 

B) Mac to take hold through brute force (if they all of a sudden lowered their prices in the case of a MS crash, they could form a monopoly really quickly).

 

 

 

In terms of third-party software written for Windows: well, compatability has become more and more of a key point of good programming. That's why you now see languages like Java, where I can write code on my Windows box, shove it into my Linux box and it'll run the same on both. So the transition from Windows to another OS shouldn't be the end of the world if the coders did their job correctly.

 

 

 

However, that's irrelevant, because Microsoft will never die (short term). Of course they'll probably be irrelevant in 100 years, but who's looking that far ahead?

 

 

 

Addendum:

 

 

 

To be perfectly honest, one of the biggest things Microsoft has going for it is that it IS the standard. Most things that MS products do can be done through free software, it's just "too much of a hassle," and, granted, Microsoft has come closer to perfection on many levels than free software products have.

What do you mean 'if'?

 

 

 

But seriously (what do I mean, 'seriously'?) it wouldn't suprise me if Microsoft was at such a stage it could single handedly resurrect itself and control the world, as it does today, again.

Forget mac, Lunux is better, it's open scource, it looks cool and it runs on a windows processor meaning that you don't need to buy a new computer :) (not that I have a problem with macs, linux is better 8)) I also agree with Bubsa, microsoft has enough "connections" to be able to ressurect themselves and rule the world... 5 times :lol:

Forget mac, Lunux is better, it's open scource, it looks cool and it runs on a windows processor meaning that you don't need to buy a new computer :) (not that I have a problem with macs, linux is better 8)) I also agree with Bubsa, microsoft has enough "connections" to be able to ressurect themselves and rule the world... 5 times :lol:

 

 

 

If you call it lunux and call an x86 a "windows processor" then I'm willing to bet that you don't know too much about linux :/

 

 

 

But either way Linux is so impossibly varying and nonstandard that it's very hard to keep it up to date and compatible. The thing about Windows is that it's less flexible then Linux but on the upshot is more standardized. This is why people can more easily develop games for it, whereas no two distros (or even installations I'd say) of Linux are alike. Such problems with compatibilty would be a nightmare for tech support. As such I'd have to say that Mac would port their OS to run on x86-compatible computers rather than just Macs, and everyone would keep their hardware. This would make the most sense economically.

As long as there's still a way I can keep playing my PC games (I hope they never make it so that current and somewhat old games are unplayable on future computers, and I hope that they keep putting CD drives (or anything that can run a CD) forever, or that you can get an external drives.) I've decided that there now exists enough computer games to keep anyone happy for a lifetime...I have enough that if I got...Maybe 10-15 more that I've had my eye on for a while (F.E.A.R., COD2, Tron 2.0, Clive Barker's Undying, Alice, Neverwinter Nights, Morrowwind, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, NOLF1 (maybe), among others) I would be able to keep my mind occupied for the rest of my life. Of course, it would be nice to see what happens to franchises such as Half-Life, Max Payne and Grand Theft Auto...

 

 

 

If that post made any sence to you...YOUR WINNER.

But either way Linux is so impossibly varying and nonstandard that it's very hard to keep it up to date and compatible.

 

apt-get upgrade

 

 

 

The thing about Windows is that it's less flexible then Linux but on the upshot is more standardized. This is why people can more easily develop games for it, whereas no two distros (or even installations I'd say) of Linux are alike.

 

And whereas you need two reboots to install a game that requires a new version of directX, and possibly another to get a better driver for your graphics card, most package managers on Linux do all of that for you, automatically, without a restart.

 

 

 

Such problems with compatibilty would be a nightmare for tech support. As such I'd have to say that Mac would port their OS to run on x86-compatible computers rather than just Macs, and everyone would keep their hardware. This would make the most sense economically.

 

True. Macs are easier to use for your average Grandma too, so they'd probably get to the market before someone has finally managed to create a usable version of Linux. Like, newb-usable.

But either way Linux is so impossibly varying and nonstandard that it's very hard to keep it up to date and compatible.

 

apt-get upgrade

 

 

 

The thing about Windows is that it's less flexible then Linux but on the upshot is more standardized. This is why people can more easily develop games for it, whereas no two distros (or even installations I'd say) of Linux are alike.

 

And whereas you need two reboots to install a game that requires a new version of directX, and possibly another to get a better driver for your graphics card, most package managers on Linux do all of that for you, automatically, without a restart.

 

 

 

Such problems with compatibilty would be a nightmare for tech support. As such I'd have to say that Mac would port their OS to run on x86-compatible computers rather than just Macs, and everyone would keep their hardware. This would make the most sense economically.

 

True. Macs are easier to use for your average Grandma too, so they'd probably get to the market before someone has finally managed to create a usable version of Linux. Like, newb-usable.

 

 

 

I always yum'd for updates. But see, that's just an example of how things vary from distro to distro - some are RPM, some aren't. And the other thing that's annoying about Linux is that when you get a single RPM, it has dependencies on like three other packages that are missing or out of date. So when you try to get those packages the packages that are required by that one are out of date or missing, and so on and so forth.

 

 

 

I'm sure there's some kind of way of making it work, but half the time it's really too much trouble. I'm pro-Linux, but the sad fact is right now that nobody can agree on the most popular Linux distribution that should be supported the most, or any APIs, or anything for that matter, and as such no two Linux installations are alike, making it difficult to develop and install programs and drivers on (Especially drivers, ugh). Windows installations all share a basic common ground in terms of directory structure, folders, etc. If the vast majority used Fedora or Ubuntu and we got some real decent hardware support in the form of some kind of halfway-decent device/driver management package, then I'd be on board. But until then, hells no - Linux is just a fun thing to screw aroudn with.

 

 

 

I will agree though that Linux for servers is vastly preferable to a Windows server.

I'd say everything switches to Mac. It has a solid foundation in terms that there are already many programs made for it and most of the games and such are created for both Windows and Mac. I like linux but the only thing is, like BTTF_Man said, there are variations and installing RPMs is a pain in the butt to install and it goes in a never ending cycle (for me anyways). In addition, Mac is a lot more user-friendly compared to windows and the fact that the mouse now has more than 1 button.

The point was... most people are ALL so used to microsoft and many people do not want to change... my friends dad still thinks AOL is the best thing in the world... >_<... I mean... the computer companies would lose a LOT of business... especially those that ONLY make parts compatible for Microsoft equipment :P

The point was... most people are ALL so used to microsoft and many people do not want to change... my friends dad still thinks AOL is the best thing in the world... >_<... I mean... the computer companies would lose a LOT of business... especially those that ONLY make parts compatible for Microsoft equipment :P

 

 

 

There was though a point when everyone was use to Macintosh, and then Microsoft took over. A switch wouldn't be too devastating I don't think.

I always yum'd for updates. But see, that's just an example of how things vary from distro to distro - some are RPM, some aren't. And the other thing that's annoying about Linux is that when you get a single RPM, it has dependencies on like three other packages that are missing or out of date. So when you try to get those packages the packages that are required by that one are out of date or missing, and so on and so forth.

 

APT (Debian's package management thing, also on Ubuntu and I think on Fedora as well) takes care of dependencies. It's brilliant, really :-)

i would scream and run away into the corner too afraid to go into the real world until someone says its back up again :oops:

i think linux would fill the gap if windows failed

 

 

 

~Bmms