Was IBM right? The operating system is just there to sell the hardware?

[techs]

Seems like many, many years ago when IBM needed an OS for their first personal computer, they didn't think much of the value of the software. They licensed some program from a group of guys, one named Bill Gates.
IBM had always included the OS on their mainframes, so they thought there was no money in the OS.

And ever since MS made huge profits.

But now with smartphones we are back to including the OS just to sell the hardware.

Can the days of the paid OS, even in the home computer environment, be ending? Will hardware manufactures give away OS'es, say like the Google Chrome OS, like they do on their new netbooks?

Is the free OS the future?

 

[lxskllr]

It's always been free for all intents and purposes. The vast majority of people buy a computer, and use the O/S it comes with until they buy a new computer. O/S only sales are a niche, and not the main market.

 

[RebateMonger]

I also suspect that IBM made A LOT of money from the (probably REQUIRED) software maintenance contracts for their mainframes.

Regarding the PC, Microsoft was on a fast development schedule and the small group in Boca Raton didn't have time or people to develop a new PC OS. And they never gave it away. IBM PC-DOS sold for around $90.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's always been free for all intents and purposes. The vast majority of people buy a computer, and use the O/S it comes with until they buy a new computer. O/S only sales are a niche, and not the main market.

For individuals. Not for OEMs and corporations.

 

[Cogman]

It's always been free for all intents and purposes. The vast majority of people buy a computer, and use the O/S it comes with until they buy a new computer. O/S only sales are a niche, and not the main market.

This is like saying "CPUs are a niche market because people never buy CPUs, they only use the ones in their computer."

Just because the user doesn't generally directly buy an operating system, doesn't mean that the operating system has no cost associated with it.

 

[lxskllr]

This is like saying "CPUs are a niche market because people never buy CPUs, they only use the ones in their computer."

Just because the user doesn't generally directly buy an operating system, doesn't mean that the operating system has no cost associated with it.

It has very little cost to the consumer, or oem, but it'll never be free.

 

[Nothinman]

Seems like many, many years ago when IBM needed an OS for their first personal computer, they didn't think much of the value of the software. They licensed some program from a group of guys, one named Bill Gates.
IBM had always included the OS on their mainframes, so they thought there was no money in the OS.

And ever since MS made huge profits.

But now with smartphones we are back to including the OS just to sell the hardware.

Can the days of the paid OS, even in the home computer environment, be ending? Will hardware manufactures give away OS'es, say like the Google Chrome OS, like they do on their new netbooks?

Is the free OS the future?

Apple has been operating that way for years now and their profits are huge. OS X isn't technically free, but it's a very small percentage of the outrageous costs of their products.

Frankly, I find it hard to justify buying Windows for home with as easy and capable as Linux has been for at least the past 5 years.

 

[Cogman]

Apple has been operating that way for years now and their profits are huge. OS X isn't technically free, but it's a very small percentage of the outrageous costs of their products.

Frankly, I find it hard to justify buying Windows for home with as easy and capable as Linux has been for at least the past 5 years.

Two words, Legacy software.

For all the advancements that linux has made, it still can't reliably run every windows application out there. People are still tethered to windows because they want to run microsoft office, or their favorite video game, ect. Now I admit, with the shift towards using computer primarily as internet devices, this has become far less important, but it is still important.

 

[JackMDS]

The operating system is just there to sell the hardware?

It is one of the simplest nonsensical saying that sounds Good and might depict IBM understanding, but it does not have real broad meaning.

It is probably the reason for IBM being these days almost forgotten.

It would be like saying.

We have cars so that someone will consume refined oil.

-----------------------

Regarding the PC, Microsoft was on a fast development schedule and the small group in Boca Raton didn't have time or people to develop a new PC OS. And they never gave it away. IBM PC-DOS sold for around $90.

Yap, IBM was looking for an OS to use with the New PC.

How the story ended up you can read here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall


😎

 

[Nothinman]

Two words, Legacy software.

For all the advancements that linux has made, it still can't reliably run every windows application out there. People are still tethered to windows because they want to run microsoft office, or their favorite video game, ect. Now I admit, with the shift towards using computer primarily as internet devices, this has become far less important, but it is still important.

I'd say it's more ignorance, minus game support, than legacy software. Most people only know of Windows and it comes with their PCs so they stick with it.

 

[Cogman]

I'd say it's more ignorance, minus game support, than legacy software. Most people only know of Windows and it comes with their PCs so they stick with it.

I wouldn't even call it ignorance as much as familiarity. Just getting my mother to switch from windows 98 to XP was a nightmare (even with the classic theme) going from XP to Win7 was worse. I couldn't imagine her going from a windows environment to a linux environment. It would just be too much.

 

[Nothinman]

I wouldn't even call it ignorance as much as familiarity. Just getting my mother to switch from windows 98 to XP was a nightmare (even with the classic theme) going from XP to Win7 was worse. I couldn't imagine her going from a windows environment to a linux environment. It would just be too much.

I think for basic usage the different between XP and Win7 is greater than that of XP and Linux, actually. But familiarity only comes into play if they know about the other choices and I really doubt your mother's heard of Linux unless you talked to her about it.

 

[lxskllr]

I think for basic usage the different between XP and Win7 is greater than that of XP and Linux, actually. But familiarity only comes into play if they know about the other choices and I really doubt your mother's heard of Linux unless you talked to her about it.

Depends. For someone that knows almost nothing(my mother), Linux can be an easy drop in replacement. You run into issues with people that know their way around Windows as an average user, but can't fix computers themselves. Stuff isn't as expected, and they don't have the knowledge or patience to figure it out. High end users should be able to switch between O/Ss with little difficulty.