Are Dell PC's going to become extinct?

Now that the PS3 has been released, many of you may be wondering what
effects will it have on the gaming frontier. Well, I will let you in
on one of
the major secrets to this system. But before you can understand that
you must look back at a time when there were no personal computers and
many
of the computers were big mainframes purchased by large corporations
and companies of the world. They made a profit by selling the hardware
and
giving out the software free (it actually came with the machine), like
how the software (firmware) to run your microwave came with the
microwave.

Then came the personal computer makers like Apple and IBM PC and those
Amiga and Commodore 64, Tandy, etc. They made the computer accessible
to
a large market of people. Well, after they made a lot of profit people
started selling software to run on those machines. They were mainly
games and
small word processor and spreadsheet type of programs. So since the
beginning the major seller of software on those machines were basically
being able
to do desktop publishing and calculating stuff and playing games. To
this day the major reason for owning a computer are still those three
reasons. Many
will say what about watching movies and playing music? That market is
not taken over by computers, as you still have lots of people buying
TVs, DVD/CD players, and
stereo equipment. The CD is actually going to be replaced by mp3
players if downloading service succeeds. But as of this date artists
still release on CD's and mainly
make a profit from buyers of CD's (aside from live performances) DVD
will have a harder time being replaced by
the internet download services because the download size of movies is
too big and too long for people to conveniently do it over the
internet.

Well, when Microsoft became profitable selling software, they started
controlling the market by pressuring the CPU makers (Intel) and the PC
makers
(Dell, HP currently) to only support their operating system. Now
instead of purchasing a computer and getting the software for free, you
are purchasing
a computer and the computer maker pays microsoft for the software.
Microsoft then threw a lot of money making sure only hardware makers
who
are compatible with their API survived. This is why you had all those
anti-thrust investigations because a lot of the hardware makers were
actually
controlled by indirectly by Microsoft. In other words, Microsoft was
trying to make hardware manufactures make cheap razors (PC) and they
sell the blades (software).
They would constantly upgrade the MS OS and people would purchase the
software separately. And they gave money and support to PC makers that
provided
support for their latest operating system features and bundle their
latest and greatest. This turned the market upside down for IBM and
Sun, DEC and those other
computer makers. As the personal computers became more and more
powerful they started replacing mainframe and workstations.

This started the war and IBM supported linux and other free software
movements. Sun microsystems created Java. GNU increased their
software (free software).
These groups (whether they wanted or not) were supporting the sell
hardware get free software movement (the original model on the
mainframe). In the early
days because there were already games (no computer games per se), the
games market naturally progressed to the personal computer and a market
for game
developers for PCs were created. Atari and Commodore started releasing
game machines (but the latter was half computer machine) for the
masses. These machines
were competing with arcade machines that only supported quarters. But
as they got more and more powerful they started taking over the arcade
business and to this
day the consoles actually are as powerful as those arcade machines.
This is why the arcade machines needed to revolve so that they could
compete and now you
see dance dance machines and racing games with those bucket seats that
are hard to emulate in the home without buying the whole supporting
peripherals.
But the main point is that the Atari and Commodore became Nintendo and
Sony (Sega kind of lost and became software only). Soon, the console
market grew to
a very large size. People didn't have to visit arcades anymore. They
could play the latest games at home, and the games were getting more
and more advanced
with each generation of the console machine.

The earlier console were expensive, as the consumer purchased the
actual cost to make them and the makers made a profit on each machine
sold. Later as
the console makers forced people making games on their machines to pay
a fee, this made them think of the console as the razor which will only
work with their blades.
So they wanted to give out the console free, as they know they will
make it back later because anyone wanting to make a game on it will
have to pay them to get a
license. This is different from the PC in that no one pays microsoft
or the machine maker, when software developers wanted to sell programs
that runs on the machines.
Well, the console market became bigger and bigger, to the point where
it was getting so large that it started taking over a large chunk of
the game sales in other markets
like the PC games market. Each new generation of the console got more
and more powerful to the point where they resemble computers. The only
thing different
is that they had a gamepad instead of keyboard and mouse.

So microsoft stepped in and made XBox. Actually they tried to partner
with Sega, but it tanked. Now in the beginning the original agreement
was that microsoft made
the software and the hardware were made by many companies. Now that
Microsoft has a monopoly, it is now trying to take over the PC hardware
as well. The
Xbox is actually microsoft's entry to take over the whole PC hardware
market. They already make mouse and keyboards and wi-fi devices. The
only thing left
is to actual PC itself. Because they are more concerned with software,
they treat the Xbox like a razor, and the games on it the blades. Now
all the software companies
will pay Microsoft to run on the XBox. This may affect the future of
personal computers if the personal computer become like the console
market. Now software makers
have to pay to get their programs to run on the machines. Because the
XBox360 is basically a PC (all the underlying software is basically
embedded windows) and
the hardware uses PC technology microsoft is slowly turning the XBox
into a PC hardware unit. Soon Dell and HP and all those PC
manufacturers will die out if
the XBox and later generations becomes the future of the PC. Microsoft
is trying to shoehorn the PC market directly into competition with the
console market. Taking
the PC games (with all their similar DirectX API) and pushing it
towards the console market. Now instead of game makers selling the
software directly and making the profit
they are paying Microsoft a slice to get permission to sell on their
console.

What about Sony? Well, Sony actually is involved in PC (they sell lots
of notebook computers) and the console (PS2 is the leader). Because
the playstation brand is such a commodity with hundreds of millions
sold. It is becoming like a mass item like the camera and TV's. The
playstation is now getting so powerful (PS3) that it is actually
as powerful as a modern computers sold by hardware manufactures these
days. The only thing missing is an operating system for daily word
processing and spreadsheets
(or desktop publishing and the like). Which Sony included the option
with their linux booting ability. Sony is basically a hardware company
that is giving the software
for free. Those cameras you bought all comes with special software
that controls them. The only difference is that the playstation Sony
is trying to turn into a
DVD player type of device. Sony made the DVD standard and media
companies pay Sony and Philips a license fee to make content on DVD.
To play on the DVD players.
Siimilarly on the Playstation, Sony made a standard that game companies
license for the right to make games on their proprietary machines. In
both cases, Sony
make better and better hardware (cameras get better and DVD players get
more features). Likewise, the playstation is getting upgrades from PS
PS2 PS3. They are
backward compatible so it is like Sony releasing better DVD players for
existing DVD discs. (The old PS1 games still work on PS3).

So now the intersection between console and PC is at a flashpoint. How
the PC market gets affected will likely be a result of the success of
the XBox. If the XBox
succeeds, it will take over the games market to the point where you
will not see good games on PC anymore. More and more titles are now
solely released on consoles
and ports to the PC from console are rare unless they are hot sellers.
In fact the PC to console ports are happening at a greater rate. Many
console titles are now
exclusives that the game makers have with the console maker. How this
will affect the computer user is still hard to say. Currently Sony
subsidizes a large proportion
of the cost of the console so that the consumer pays very little.
(imagining getting a game PC valued at thousands of dollars with high
end graphics card for merely
600 dollars). The downside is that you pay extra for games because the
game makers give a slice to Sony, which Sony uses to pay back the
manufacturing costs
and development costs of the console machine. Since Microsoft is a
monopoly type of company they monopolized the PC industry when they
split with IBM and
indirectly supported many PC hardware makers. Where DOS upgrades uses
to be less than 20 dollars, it costs 300 dollars or more now for
Windows Vista even
if you just want to do wordprocessing (and it doesn't come with any
hardware). The 300 is about the cost of many low end PC hardware these
days. From 20
to 300 (and taking into consideration inflation) is still about 10x
increase in price. If you take that into perspective a 5 dollar
hamburger will become a 40 dollar
hamburger in the future (taking into consideration inflation). So if
you take a look at this trend, if the PC is monopolized a 1000 dollar
PC will be the same cost
as a small car these days. (gaming machines do cost the price of half
a small car these days if money is no problem). So it is an
interesting scenario. If
Microsoft wins this Xbox war with Sony, it would be the last stage of
totally taking over the personal computer market. The Xbox/360 is
basically a PC (just like
the PS3) with the innards and communication modules all using the same
protocols and parts. Nowadays you can take the HD-DVD from the XBox360
and
stick it into the PC and it would work. You can swap a notebook
harddrive into the PS3 and it would work. The peripherals all use USB
and wi-fi and eithernet.
In fact, even the connection to the monitor or TV are standardized.
The only differenciating thing is the interface you use. If XBox is
successful, when you purchase
a personal computer, you end up buying a PC from Microsoft, just like
how you buy their keyboards from vendors. Two things may result
because of this. One
is that they may monopolize software creation so that you pay microsoft
to get your program to run on personal computers. Two is that the
personal computer
may cost way too much for the average person if they have a monopoly.
Many countries in the world counterfeit windows software because their
GDP don't
allow average people to pay for their software at their current price.
This restricts people in poor countries from having a computer and
using them. Given
they are trying to monopolize operating systems using their deals and
pressures, alternative operating systems of lower costs don't survive.
Now that this
trend is fast approaching that of monopolizing the personal computer,
many companies on the sidelines are affected. Now gaming companies for
PC's are
shifting to making exclusive XBox games via deals and buyouts from
Microsoft. Microsoft already owns the word processor and spreadsheet
market for
PC's (and development too). Apple can't compete as it doesn't even own
5% of the market. Linux has no powerful company behind it for
consumers and because of
the nature of the inability of owning Linux the most companies can do
is offer support to make money, as anyone can download changes made to
it by any
company.

Sony made an interesting move by allowing anyone to install any OS on
their machine. Since they are selling the hardware very cheap you can
actually
get an almost free powerful PC by just getting a PS3 and installing
Linux. All you need to do is now get a USB keyboard and mice
(available now everywhere)
and you have a 600 dollar PC that actually costs more than a thousand
dollars (the graphics card is equivalent to Nvidia 6800 or 7800, and
you can check
the price of that card alone). In addition the Blu-ray now costs about
1000 dollars and it will still cost about 200-300 dollars in the future
if you purchase one separately.
So what Sony is doing with this machine is giving out a free computer
and in exchange you pay for exclusive content (games and blu-ray
movies) that run on the PS3 and
Blu-ray device. But they never stop you from installing and running
Linux programs (including games). What this means is that if the PS3
becomes successful which it
will if it becomes like a camera and TV (selling in volumes similar to
the PS2), then a market will be created for people that install
operating systems on it with its own
games and applications. The only downside to this is that the graphics
card access is currently disabled, so games will be slower and won't
compete with Sony's
licensed proprietary game offerings from game developers that pay a
license for the developer kits.

So what will happen now that the PC and the console come head to head?
If the consoles (PC's actually) get monopolized by a single company,
the software making
industry will be greatly affected. There is just not that many
differentiating features between PC's and consoles anymore and they
currently use two different models.
Sony is allowing other OS to get installed on their console and turning
it into a PC. Microsoft is turning the PC into a console. From the
pricing perspective subsidizing
lowers the price of the console. The price of the software increases
because of this. (But note that Microsoft's XBox currently doesn't
allow installing another OS for running
your own programs). A monopoly of the PC may not be good for average
people because there is no longer competition to lower cost. So if
Sony keeps the PS3 the
current model that it is (a high-tech PC at almost free price, allowing
you to installing any OS and run any games and software on Linux in
exchange that you pay
extra for exclusive PS3 games), it may actually offer a differing
personal computer model for the masses. Meanwhile Microsoft may try to
own the PC monopoly and
become a hardware and software company. If this happens Dell, HP, and
all those PC makers will go out of business. IBM still makes CPU's
used by Sony and Microsoft
so they are not totally out of the picture. But Intel and AMD may go
out of business if the Xbox succeeds as Microsoft's PC, as it currently
uses IBM's cpu in their move towards
the console business (Xbox/360).

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> Now that the PS3 has been released, many of you may be wondering what
> effects will it have on the gaming frontier. Well, I will let you in
> on one of
> the major secrets to this system. But before you can understand that
> you must look back at a time when there were no personal computers and
> many
> of the computers were big mainframes purchased by large corporations
> and companies of the world. They made a profit by selling the hardware
> and
> giving out the software free (it actually came with the machine), like
> how the software (firmware) to run your microwave came with the
> microwave.


I don't know where you got your mainframes but in the installations of
which I was in charge (IBM shops), we had to pay anywhere from $10000 to
$50000 per month for the right to use the software.

Tom Lake

G'day Tom,

In article <459f7577$0$5161$>, you
<> wrote:
><> wrote in message
>news: roups.com...
[...]
>> many of the computers were big mainframes purchased by large corporations
>> and companies of the world. They made a profit by selling the hardware
>> and giving out the software free (it actually came with the machine), like
>> how the software (firmware) to run your microwave came with the microwave.
>
>I don't know where you got your mainframes but in the installations of
>which I was in charge (IBM shops), we had to pay anywhere from $10000 to
>$50000 per month for the right to use the software.

Ah, yes. But the users didn't pay, so it must have been free. ;-)

But, Tom, your experience encourages me to ask you a question that has
been occasionally irritating me for decades, in the hope you may have
the answer!

Years ago when I spent a fair bit of time as a user on DEC-10 machines
at Univ of Queensland (Brisbane, Oz) and James Cook Univ in Townsville
(also in Qld, Oz) it seemed to me that there was a DEC support bod
more or less in residence at both these sites. I've often wondered
whether such techies came with the purchase of the machines, or
whether they came as some sort of optional "subscription" deal. From
what you say about the cost of IBM software licencing, perhaps that's
more or less the way their wages were covered too?

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

> Years ago when I spent a fair bit of time as a user on DEC-10 machines
> at Univ of Queensland (Brisbane, Oz) and James Cook Univ in Townsville
> (also in Qld, Oz) it seemed to me that there was a DEC support bod
> more or less in residence at both these sites. I've often wondered
> whether such techies came with the purchase of the machines, or
> whether they came as some sort of optional "subscription" deal. From
> what you say about the cost of IBM software licencing, perhaps that's
> more or less the way their wages were covered too?


Yes. In the installations I ran, IBM threw in an on-site technician. Some
of them used to joke that they'd like to see a portion of the money we were
paying IBM to have them there. We also served as a test bed for IBM at
times and the techs were sorely needed! And that's Fair Dinkum. 8^)

Tom Lake

I never worked for DEC or IBM, just for Honeywell when it was trying to become a
significant player in the industry. Depending on the value of equipment
installed at a site, Honeywell would place not only hardware field service
personnel but also programmers and analysts to work with the client on various
projects. Most of the time, this was at no charge, with salaries being paid
from the revenue derived. Honeywell, like the rest of the BUNCH, was always
trying to take business away from IBM, and gave away all too much in people and
often got a foot in the door at a net loss. No wonder that the BUNCH is no
more... Ben Myers

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:35:15 GMT, (Phred) wrote:

>G'day Tom,
>
>In article <459f7577$0$5161$>, you
><> wrote:
>><> wrote in message
>>news: groups.com...
>[...]
>>> many of the computers were big mainframes purchased by large corporations
>>> and companies of the world. They made a profit by selling the hardware
>>> and giving out the software free (it actually came with the machine), like
>>> how the software (firmware) to run your microwave came with the microwave.
>>
>>I don't know where you got your mainframes but in the installations of
>>which I was in charge (IBM shops), we had to pay anywhere from $10000 to
>>$50000 per month for the right to use the software.
>
>Ah, yes. But the users didn't pay, so it must have been free. ;-)
>
>But, Tom, your experience encourages me to ask you a question that has
>been occasionally irritating me for decades, in the hope you may have
>the answer!
>
>Years ago when I spent a fair bit of time as a user on DEC-10 machines
>at Univ of Queensland (Brisbane, Oz) and James Cook Univ in Townsville
>(also in Qld, Oz) it seemed to me that there was a DEC support bod
>more or less in residence at both these sites. I've often wondered
>whether such techies came with the purchase of the machines, or
>whether they came as some sort of optional "subscription" deal. From
>what you say about the cost of IBM software licencing, perhaps that's
>more or less the way their wages were covered too?
>
>Cheers, Phred.

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> Now that the PS3 has been released, many of you may be wondering what


Too long and boring to completely read, but anything that says the PS3 is
going to have an impact loses me from the start. The PS3 hasn't and likely
won't be a big success. It's not a big jump on the XBox 360 and completely
fails as a media extender, where the 360 shines. I thought about getting a
PS3 but couldn't find any reason to replace our 360.

Tom,

You're absolutely right. IBM mainframes used (and still use) a
proprietary (MVS ---> OS/360--> ?) OS. It most certainly wasn't "given
away. In fact it wasn't even sold. You had to license it and pay a
monthly fee. I worked for Competitive Analysis in the mainframe division
for a couple of years. I tracked competitive installations of Amdahl and
Fujitsu IBM compatible mainframes. Our job was easy because even if you
bought an IBM compatible mainframe from them, YOU HAD TO LICENSE (AND
PAY FOR) OUR OS. So we knew how many and what configurations) you had.
That is what makes mainframes so profitable. The hardware is expensive,
but the licenses are the cash cow...

Regards,
Hank Arnold

Tom Lake wrote:
>
> I don't know where you got your mainframes but in the installations of
> which I was in charge (IBM shops), we had to pay anywhere from $10000 to
> $50000 per month for the right to use the software.
>
> Tom Lake

Ahhhh.......... the B.U.N.C.H.....

Burroughs
Univac
NCR
Control Data
Honeywell

Gee........ How many of them are still around???

Anyone remember that General Electric used to sell IBM compatible
mainframes?? My father worked in that division for a couple of years
until they realized they were never going to make a profit...

Regards,
Hank Arnold

Ben Myers wrote:
> I never worked for DEC or IBM, just for Honeywell when it was trying to become a
> significant player in the industry. Depending on the value of equipment
> installed at a site, Honeywell would place not only hardware field service
> personnel but also programmers and analysts to work with the client on various
> projects. Most of the time, this was at no charge, with salaries being paid
> from the revenue derived. Honeywell, like the rest of the BUNCH, was always
> trying to take business away from IBM, and gave away all too much in people and
> often got a foot in the door at a net loss. No wonder that the BUNCH is no
> more... Ben Myers
>
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:35:15 GMT, (Phred) wrote:
>
>> G'day Tom,
>>
>> In article <459f7577$0$5161$>, you
>> <> wrote:
>>> <> wrote in message
>>> news: oups.com...
>> [...]
>>>> many of the computers were big mainframes purchased by large corporations
>>>> and companies of the world. They made a profit by selling the hardware
>>>> and giving out the software free (it actually came with the machine), like
>>>> how the software (firmware) to run your microwave came with the microwave.
>>> I don't know where you got your mainframes but in the installations of
>>> which I was in charge (IBM shops), we had to pay anywhere from $10000 to
>>> $50000 per month for the right to use the software.
>> Ah, yes. But the users didn't pay, so it must have been free. ;-)
>>
>> But, Tom, your experience encourages me to ask you a question that has
>> been occasionally irritating me for decades, in the hope you may have
>> the answer!
>>
>> Years ago when I spent a fair bit of time as a user on DEC-10 machines
>> at Univ of Queensland (Brisbane, Oz) and James Cook Univ in Townsville
>> (also in Qld, Oz) it seemed to me that there was a DEC support bod
>> more or less in residence at both these sites. I've often wondered
>> whether such techies came with the purchase of the machines, or
>> whether they came as some sort of optional "subscription" deal. From
>> what you say about the cost of IBM software licencing, perhaps that's
>> more or less the way their wages were covered too?
>>
>> Cheers, Phred.

All true. However, the latest mainframes can also run Linux.


"Hank Arnold" <> wrote in message
news:sfNnh.2$...
> Tom,
>
> You're absolutely right. IBM mainframes used (and still use) a proprietary
> (MVS ---> OS/360--> ?) OS. It most certainly wasn't "given away. In fact
> it wasn't even sold. You had to license it and pay a monthly fee. I worked
> for Competitive Analysis in the mainframe division for a couple of years.
> I tracked competitive installations of Amdahl and Fujitsu IBM compatible
> mainframes. Our job was easy because even if you bought an IBM compatible
> mainframe from them, YOU HAD TO LICENSE (AND PAY FOR) OUR OS. So we knew
> how many and what configurations) you had. That is what makes mainframes
> so profitable. The hardware is expensive, but the licenses are the cash
> cow...
>
> Regards,
> Hank Arnold
>
> Tom Lake wrote:
>>
>> I don't know where you got your mainframes but in the installations of
>> which I was in charge (IBM shops), we had to pay anywhere from $10000 to
>> $50000 per month for the right to use the software.
>>
>> Tom Lake

wrote:

>
> Now that the PS3 has been released, many of you may be wondering what
> effects will it have on the gaming frontier. Well, I will let you in
> on one of
> the major secrets to this system. But before you can understand that
> you must look back at a time when there were no personal computers and
> many
> of the computers were big mainframes purchased by large corporations
> and companies of the world. They made a profit by selling the hardware
> and
> giving out the software free (it actually came with the machine), like
> how the software (firmware) to run your microwave came with the
> microwave.
>

Your forgetting the whole corporate market. The one off PC's sold in homes
are not a large percentage of sales anyway, thats why they get cheaper
parts and offshore tech support. The large companies that buy hundreds and
thousands of pc's are not going to buy ps3's any time soon.