From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 22 08:59:36 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E9B16A4CE for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:59:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E4D43D5D for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:59:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) j2M8xkb30996 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:59:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:59:35 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <1457754528.20050321194129@wanadoo.fr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Importance: Normal Subject: RE: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:59:36 -0000 owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org wrote: > Bart Silverstrim writes: > >> Then why new versions? > > Because Microsoft has to sell new versions in order to maintain its > revenue flow. The only other option is licenses that are not > perpetually valid (i.e., licenses you have to pay for again each month > or each year). There is a third option. Microsoft can simply quite releasing new versions of it's established products and go to work creating new products that people would want to buy. Think of it. Instead of every 2 years yet another tired old bloated overengineered version of Windows, they could come out with a brand new operating system named something completely different. For example, 'doors' Doors would be a completely 64 bit OS, would NOT run Windows binaries and not be backwards compatible at all. It would be written to be lickety-split fast. It would be voice-activated, no mouse. Applications would have to be recompiled for it. Because of the lack of all the Windows baggage, Microsoft could use all of the good things they have learned writing Windows, to create their new OS "Doors" and not have to inherit any of the bad things and mistakes of Windows. Of course, for people that didn't want to scrap out their existing Windows applications, they could just keep buying old Windows licenses. For people wanting to run apps far faster and better than Windows, they would buy Doors and buy Doors applications. But of course, you won't ever see this kind of visionary product from Microsoft, because they are a company of mediocre programmers. That is why 50 years from now we will still be running Windows, and computers will not look anything whatsover like they do in Star Trek. (except for that old Mac toaster in the save the whales ST movie) Ted