Slashdot Log In
Is Microsoft Improving Its Image?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:08 AM
from the sure-couldn't-get-worse dept.
from the sure-couldn't-get-worse dept.
nk497 writes "Writer makes the case that Windows 7 is a turning point for Microsoft, and we all might start liking them soon ...
'While it's not winning everyone over, there are real signs that Microsoft has taken criticisms on board where it matters most: in the software and services that it provides. The idea of a faster, slimmer Windows is one that most Vista owners would automatically put on their wishlist, and it seems that Microsoft has genuinely done something about it. It's not just reignited interest in the Windows product line, but it's got users appreciating a fresh approach from Microsoft as well.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
RE:Is Microsoft Improving Its Image? (Score:5, Funny)
Hi. You must be new here...
First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Though, since I am using Windows 7 beta, it might take a little while...
Probably more along the lines... (Score:4, Insightful)
No (Score:4, Funny)
The Jerry ads destroyed MSFT's already fucked up image, by making it more fucked up.
In order to get their image repaired they have to embrace Linux, and Open Source and then they can claim to be pioneers again, like when they pioneered a UI based OS by copying Apple.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
like when they pioneered a UI based OS by copying Apple.
You misspelled Xerox.
Parent
but (Score:4, Informative)
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista? From what's been touted about it doesn't look and leaner or meaner they've just put some speed improvements into the UI to make it look faster.
The majority of the stuff under the hood is still vista so people will probably have the same problems.
Re:but (Score:5, Insightful)
that's a pretty clever ploy when you think about it. Vista is way too bloated for current machines, which has been a major hindrance to widespread adoption. but by waiting for consumer desktops to catch up to Vista's hardware requirements, they can appear to have developed a faster OS simply be re-releasing Vista under a different name with some slight UI modifications. and by the time Windows 7 is released it'll be as stable as an OS that's been out for 4-5 years.
Parent
Re:but (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista?
No. Service packs from Microsoft doesn't come with new features on the scale of new task bar systems, federating search to external data sources via OpenSearch, revised UAC, etc. Even the most extreme service pack thus far, Windows XP SP2, mostly focused just on security and a (too) simplistic firewall to solve urgent trojan problems.
Windows 7 could perhaps be called Windows Vista SE though, if the brand name wasn't as tainted. But I don't think MS would ever do a service pack release on this scale with touches throughout the OS, although many still minor. The normal SP from Microsoft is mostly just security fixes with under-the-hood changes like supporting new standards or hardware.
Parent
No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's goal is to be like cable TV.
You pay about $50 a month to use their O/S. And then you pay an extra $10 a month for Word, or get the Premium package with Word, Excel, and Access for $20.
Is this where you want to be in 5 years?
I prefer to own, not rent my own PC.
I prefer to own, not rent my applications.
I want my applications to be mine and my data to be mine so that I do not lose access to them arbitrarily.
Microsoft is a big scammy company that provides extremely easy to use products that work reasonably well.
I don't like them as a company but I can deal with that.
I do like their ease of use and will miss it but the free competition is now only a couple years behind microsoft (and gaining).
But I won't be lead to market to slaughter and end up renting their OS and applications at the rates they desire.
Re:No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Time limited licenses are already the way of business applications. Companies don't "arbitrarily" lose access to the tools. If they allow the license to expire, they can't use it anymore. It isn't like one day they suddenly have no access anymore.
Unless the permission update fails for some reason other than non-payment. This happened at the radio station I used to work for.
The software that created the daily schedule for all on-air events (called the "log" by the on-air staff) would not update and refused to allow us to create about 2 weeks worth of logs. The vendor had to fly in and do some voodo to restore everything. Meanwhile we had to go back to creating paper logs (photocopier, liquid paper, and typewriter) for a couple of weeks.
At the next contract renewal time, we told them where they could stuff their software, and moved to another vendor who didn't have time bombs built into their software.
And you say you prefer to own your data? No shit? Are you implying that somehow this new version of windows is going to steal your data and give you access only when it wants?
If the application that is locked to that proprietary file format won't let you in, you've lost access to your data. Isn't that functionally the same as not having that data any more?
Parent
Excited about a new OS release? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excited about a new OS release? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think you just touched on the BIGGEST problem Microsoft has in today's marketplace.
They've mostly reached a point where they can't seem to excite people with what they're doing. It takes a massive effort for them to simply release something "stable/solid, yet boring".
I mean, the days are over when you had transitions like going from the all-text world of MS-DOS to a whole new paradigm, found in Windows 3.x. Or again, the huge jump from that to Windows '95. Those were big, ballsy changes to widely adopted standards that people generally were excited and eager to try out.
They really tried to drum up Vista as yet another huge change from the world of XP, but it just wasn't really there. And now, they're working hard just to make Windows 7 the product they hyped Vista up to be initially. So no matter how good 7 is? Many people will yawn, and say "About time!" or "Why aren't you giving me this thing free, since I got screwed over buying your last OS?"
The original article takes some shots at Apple, saying:
"Just look at the slickness of the Apple PR machine, an operation that has conveniently blinded the mass market to issues such as digital rights management, the heavy pursuit of websites that leak news early and a general level of control freakery that, if practiced by Microsoft, would cause major ructions."
I disagree. MS products have just as much DRM built into them. In fact, my experience with their DRM was far less pleasant than with Apple's - because they had a lot more glitches with theirs. (I remember having a Yahoo Music subscription, for example, where I had random weird issues with songs taking a LONG time to start playing. I never knew exactly when Windows Media Player would decide it needed to refresh its authorization token or whatever - and had delays getting what it wanted from the authorization server.)
Reality is, Apple still knows how to dazzle people with their product updates. Even when they borrow ideas that were already done elsewhere, they put polish on them and introduce them to people who would have NEVER seen the original efforts. They haven't made moves to alienate their customer base like "Product activation" either. THAT'S the difference, really.
Parent
Is Slashdot Improving its Image? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow an article on Slashdot that doesn't say Microsoft is a total failure at everything it does. For a second I thought Slashdot was the one starting to change, but then I read the replies...
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft donates to Apache [sdtimes.com] ...and of course, the "Windows 7 might actually be rather good" article in TFA.
Microsoft donates to moonlight [slashdot.org]
Microsoft supports ODF [infoworld.com]
IE to be standards compliant by default [arstechnica.com]
Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop [infoworld.com]
Maybe; just maybe, Microsoft isn't the evil machine some slashdotters make out.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Evil" often comes from being beyond consequences. And Microsoft had unassailable power it seemed for a while. But now you have Google and a resurgent Apple laying into them. Maybe MS have started to realise the benefits of good relations with their customer base and other players in the IT world, e.g. they're complying with standards.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
A little early, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
WOLF! WOLF!
Maybe we should wait until, you know, Windows 7 actually comes out to find if it's the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since Gitmo. Vista was supposed to be the awesome super duper OS everyone would love that would make everyone want to give Ballmer hugs for, but it turned out to (from what I read) be a stinking pile of dogshit.
Frankly, given their history at Microsoft, I have no doubt to give them the benefit of. They're going to have to deliver a slim, fast, stable OS and I'll actually have to try it before I believe a word of it.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Microsoft is going to have to prove itself.
Re:A little early, isn't it? (Score:5, Funny)
The beta has been out for a while, you know.
Parent
This is it!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Cinderella Story! (Score:5, Funny)
I love it when the scrappy little come-from-behind underdog is able to pull itself up by the bootstraps and get from a measly 89% market-share all the way back up to 95%. It renews my faith in the hope and outright tenacity of the little guy!
Ballmer has to go (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft wants me to "like them":
1. Ballmer has to go. This guy is just offensive. Between the combat metaphors and the chair tossing, I can't respect any company run by this guy. AND, he's doing a poor job of running Microsoft.
2. The 'kinder/gentler Microsoft' has to become more open. That means opening up APIs and stop trying to manipulate standardization processes.
3. They have to improve their product quality. That will be a huge challenge given their code base, and maybe Windows 7 will be a substantial quality improvement. The record for Microsoft seems to be "every other product is OK" (Win 98 was much better than Win 95, Win XP is much better than Win 2k, hopefully Win 7 will be much better than Vista."
4. They also need to pay attention to both Apple and to their own research arm, and start -innovating-rather than blindly copying what others are doing.
5. Until 1..4 are achieved, I'm not going to like Microsoft. More importantly, I'll not even consider a car (e.g. Ford) that has Microsoft products in it, and the idea of the current Microsoft trying to "fix health care records" scares the fertilizer out of me.
Just my $.02...
New tag: writerwillwinalaptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Quote from Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh, wow, maybe people won't just buy whatever crap we try to shove down their throats. This is going to take a bit of rethinking of our strategy..."
Sorry, couldn't resist. I understand that the automobile industry is going through the same realization. We can hope that a few others might get the clue...
Want to improve your image? (Score:5, Insightful)
1: Remove all the Vista DRM crap out of Windows 7. It's my computer, not Hollywood's.
2: Interoperate better with Open Office and support their open standard in MSWord, not your own.
3: No more per processor licensing agreements. If we want Windows at purchase time we'll ask for it ourselves.
While there's more, get started on this list now!
As a long-time linux user/advocate? Absolutely. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is most certainly improving its image with Windows 7. They appear to be getting a lot of things right. They've improved system latency due to I/O over what was present in even XP, and the system is surprisingly stable (for a beta, of course).
Couple this with the fact that the Linux I/O scheduler appears to have moved away from a model which works well on the Linux desktop. For about the last year or so, Linux kernels have resulted in very latent desktop utility during even moderate burst-type I/O (programs/files loading, access of swap - not prologued disk writes). This may or may not be related to the bug supposedly introduced into the kernel in 2.6.18 - I don't know, I haven't personally tested it. But what I do know is that this behavior has become progressively more evident over the past 8 years: I blame the server-centric development focus in the kernel (2.2 and prior were blindingly responsive on the desktop).
With the fact that Linux desktop performance is somewhat lackluster these days giving it a perceived performance more on par with what Vista is capable of, I can see how it would sour people in preference for Windows 7, when Windows 7 appears to implement things properly - or, at least in a way which works to user expectations.
I should note that I've been personally using Linux (mostly Debian, some Ubuntu and OpenSuse) almost exclusively since around 2000. I don't make these criticisms lightly, and personally say it more as an admonishment of the Linux developers/community than I do as a proponent of W7. Whether it's a good product or not, I can not ethically approve of vendor lock in to the extent that MS software use encourages.
(Side note: has anyone noticed how W7's window effects/widgets (to the exception of the "MS-specific blurry/imperfect glass semi-transparent menus) looks shockingly like the bastard child of KDE 4 and OS X 10.5? I thought the first W7 screenshot I saw actually was KDE4 with a 'lookalike' theme.)
Windows 7 Appears to be SHILLTASTIC!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I see the Redmond shill machine is in full swing now. First it gobbles up MSZD.Net. Now another publication is releasing "features" on how "performant" and "fantastic" Windows 7 is.
Bull Fraking Shit.
Windows 2000 and NT 4 was as lean as it got! Want a reminder? Load up Windows NT Server 4.0 in a virtual machine and see how much resources are being used.
20 fraking MB!
Even XP is bloated! Ever wonder why Windows Explorer sometimes takes a few seconds to create a folder on a Quad Core 3.0GHZ 4GB machine? A second on this machine has probably 1000 times more processing power than the Voyager probe and the Apollo 11 Moon lander (if you believe in all that). Yet I have to wait and twiddle my thumbs...
Its been downhill since Windows 2000. That OS ran gorgeously on my dual Pentium III 350 (250MB). XP pigged that machine in the space of time it took to install XP.
I company I worked at recently still used NT 4 to run SQL Server... and it ran like the wind... until a US company took us over and due to Sarbanes Oxley (read "license to print money" from a Redmon/corporate friendly regime) we had to upgrade to SQL Server 2099 (which sucked and was oh so .Net slow), Exchange 3059 (which sucked and was oh so .Net bloated) and a Server OS that gobbled up about 15 gig RAM just on startup.
OK. I exaggerate... but you get the picture.
I was tempted to pull out my old faithful PIII 350 (which happily runs Linux now) and install Windows 7... but why bother?
These days I console myself by liberating PCs from Windows and getting refunds for bundled Vista + Works licenses (thats £120 + vat in Blighty) on all PC purchases.
For most people Microsoft doesn't have an image (Score:5, Insightful)
In my heart I am still a software developer, a hardcore IT guy and a Linux advocate... In 30 years I worked for 5 start ups blah blah blah. Lots of hardcore techy cred if I want to pull it.
But, now days I make most of my income as a teacher and I make most of that teaching money teaching basic computer literacy and MS Office to people on the wrong side of the digital divide. These are not stupid people, they are not old people, most are under 25 but some are as old as 65. All are high school graduates and some have college degrees. They just don't know much about how to use a computer. They never learned and they don't care about anything but getting their job done.
I dare say that they represent a fairly large percentage of todays population.
You know what? While most of them (not all) have heard of Microsoft, they have no strong opinion of the company one way or the the other. To them windows are something that you open when you want fresh air and for some weird reason is also what makes using a computer hard or easy (depends on the person). If they know the difference between XP and Vista it is because they learned a little about using a computer with XP and then bought a computer with Vista and they are pissed because the it is different from the one they learn on. (OTOH, there is a small percentage who stumbled upon Vista and love it.)
They don't buy any thing from MS. What they have from MS came on the computer. In most cases the only software they ever buy are games and mostly they buy games for their consoles. They down load games for PCs because they can, and as one student so bluntly put it "How can it be illegal when it is so easy?"
What I am trying to say is that for the people I teach Microsoft is like the road they drive to work. They only notice it when there is a problem with it. When there is a problem, they don't blame MS, if anything they blame the company who made the computer. From their point of view rebooting windows is just like driving around a chuckhole or getting stuck in traffic. It happens, shit happens, the live with it. They don't even think about the possibility that it shouldn't happen, because it has always happened.
They do not have an opinion about MS. They don't see MS. They don't buy from MS.
Microsoft has become like the air in a big city, you only complain about it when you can see it. And, Microsoft has taken great care to make sure they are not seen, they are just there, like transparent but polluted air.
Out side of IT and the small number of IT enthusiasts in the world, nobody has an opinion about MS.
Stonewolf
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's funny, maybe 5 or 6 years ago it would've been:
Windows 2000 = lean
Windows XP = bloated
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost every operating system has gone through this. All the Linux distributions are "bloated" compared with what we had several years ago. The latest Mac OS X is bloated compared with the prior ones. It happens when you keep adding more and more.
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
All the Linux distributions are "bloated" compared with what we had several years ago.
But we can uninstall the bloat.
Parent
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. Let's start with Internet Explorer.
Parent
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Interesting)
Just get rid of the shortcut, it's a lot easier than trying to rip out vital parts of the OS because you'll just get all whiny when removing the only web accessing part of the OS too.
You'll whine that you can no longer use FTP, you'll whine that for some reason you can no longer connect to network shares, etc. What you want to get rid of, sir, is the shortcut. After all, IE is basically a wrapper around the internal engine (Trident.)
Anyway, there are still some applications you should not remove from most distros. Remove apt from Ubuntu and have fun setting it up again, stuff like that.
Parent
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Informative)
See, that's precisely the problem.
In Windows, IE has been shoved into places where there's really no good reason for it to be, other than for MS to be able to claim it can't be removed.
Why is an HTML rendering engine needed to access network shares? Why is it needed to access FTP? Why is it needed to get updates?
Even MS had to recognize that updates through ActiveX in a website have disadvantages and had to code an actual application (the systray update applet) to do things that they couldn't shoehorn IE into. But of course they had to stop one step short of making it fully functional, because if it was, the windows update site would look stupid, and one of the places it's not possible to remove IE from would no longer exist.
Parent
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it needed to get updates?
Even MS had to recognize that updates through ActiveX in a website have disadvantages and had to code an actual application (the systray update applet) to do things that they couldn't shoehorn IE into. But of course they had to stop one step short of making it fully functional, because if it was, the windows update site would look stupid, and one of the places it's not possible to remove IE from would no longer exist.
Apparently you've not seen Vista yet, but that's ok.
In Vista, the Windows Update site does nothing, other than tell you to open the Windows Update app.
As for why they had to code an actual application? It's so it can run in the background. Otherwise you'd need to open your browser every day to check for updates.
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to mostly be talking about "install bloat", not "runtime bloat".
Although both are bad, I think that these days it's pretty much agreed that using 2GB more hard drive space probably isn't a big deal.
The problem is that Windows has so many background things running that really are required to do anything useful (like using the network), plus all the extra background tasks that you might not feel you need, but turn out to be required for things like applying updates. A Windows XP install with just the Microsoft standard background tasks takes about 300MB of RAM to do nothing, and Vista is far more bloated than that.
Good examples:
This kind of bloat where Microsoft has "important" background programs running that you can't turn off but don't really need just does not happen in a Linux install. Yes, there are some stupid Linux installs that have too many services running by default, but you can just turn off the ones you don't use, and nothing else stops working.
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's not. There, a picture of me:
Parent
Why it is impressive (Score:5, Informative)
But is 10.3 and 10.4 being faster than 10.0 and 10.1 really an achievement? Early OS X releases, if we are to be fair, were crap.
They were only "crap" in the sense that not everything in the window manager (essentially) had been worked out as much. People didn't like Finder as much as the old, there was not as much software - but the core was in OK shape.
Even the earliest releases were still based on a lot of solid components, like BSD and Apache and so on.
So yes, it's impressive that the CORE system is faster overall with less bloat than the original OS X versions. Just look at what Apple did with launchd to replace a number of different processes and speed up boot as an example...
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
MS-DOS = lean
Windows 1.0 = bloated
(This is mfh [slashdot.org] posting as AC to avoid the karmic nicely hurting damage and such.)
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's funny, maybe 5 or 6 years ago it would've been:
Windows 2000 = lean Windows XP = bloated
Well, yes - because XP has been around for so long, hardware has overtaken it.
The other thing was that many people (probably the majority) skipped Win2K and the upgrade was straight from 98/ME to XP, so the extra "bloat" was justified by the move from a Mickey Mouse DOS-descended operating system to something substantially more solid.
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes - because XP has been around for so long, hardware has overtaken it.
That's one thing that annoys me about Microsoft (as well as games companies). When I finally get a fast enough computer for the goddamned program to run well they stop supporting it!
Parent
Heading down the right path (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem with Vista was the minimum requirements. They allowed far too many PC's around the world that were using 2003 technology run Vista. The newest CPU's and higher memory machines with better Mobo did great with it (once the drivers all became available, of course).
This was exactly where we started with XP.
Parent
Re:Heading down the right path (Score:5, Insightful)
> They want to design an OS that will be able to stick around and take full
> advantage of the CPU's and memory advances for several years (at least).
An OS doesn't have to be a bloated pig in order to make use of newer hardware.
Also keep in mind that there is nothing "new" about 2 and 4 CPU machines
and Gigabytes of physical memory. These have existed even among PCs for
a LONG time. It's just that now they are cheap enough to be in your
average bargain basement desktop PC.
Parent
What do we mean by bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
I must say that "bloat" is about the least information-laden phrase I hear bandied about :).
What's a consensus defintion of what it means? Wasteful use of RAM? Any additional use of RAM? Does hard drive space count? What if it's for optional non-RAM loaded stuff like templates?
Is is bloat for Vista to include a lot of printer drivers in the default image? It wasn't good for Netbooks with small SSD drives, but didn't impact system performance. And I remember lots of complaints about the full install size of Office back in the day, even though that was mainly templates that didn't need to be installed.
I think it'd be useful if we all were a little more specific about that.
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
Actually I think it is more like this
Windows XP = Coke
Windows Vista = New Coke [wikipedia.org]
Windows 7 = Classic Coke
Sales of "Classic" Coke skyrocketed when it was RE-introduced to the market. People hoarded it just in case Coca Cola discontinued it again. I see sales of 7 to be quite brisk at launch. Whether you like Vista or not prevailing public opinion is not favorable so anything that replaces it should do well.
Parent
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Flores from the Windows Vista Team Blog said [windowsteamblog.com],
"One of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7."
So how exactly will Win7 fit on your Dell Mini 9? It won't, Microsoft just figures if they lie often enough there will be enough suckers who believe it.
Parent
Re:New! with 50% less stink! (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that Windows 7 is still a lot like Vista to me.
Shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a half a brain in his head (or has any memory of Microsoft product releases), but that said, take it from the horse's mouth.
PBS' Charlie Rose interviewed Bill Gates a few weeks back and asked him whether Windows 7 was indeed new, or it whether it represented an incremental improvement to Vista. Gates became uncomfortable, went silent for a few seconds, and muttered it was the latter. An awkward pause ensued before the next question was asked. Unsurprisingly, he was more forthcoming and talkative when the questions were general, and weren't about Microsoft or Windows.
So there you have it kids. Windows 7 is the marketing name for Vista SP3. It should really be SP2.5, but the small collections of features to Windows 7 as sales enticements merit some recognition. But then, that's from someone who thought Win98SE was kind of cool.
Parent
Re:New! with 50% less stink! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been wondering how much Windows 7 would tone down the DRM that they keep deliberately conflating with security-- when they say anything at all about it. As far as I've seen, they aren't dropping Windows Genuine Advantage and they still aren't being entirely forthcoming in acknowledging that WGA is totally unnecessary for usability even if they did back away from claiming it was a vital security update. Liars. And Windows 7 uses Vista drivers not XP drivers because it requires the DRM disfunctionality. In other words, no change from Vista. How much faster could Windows be if they stop wasting cycles checking whether you're pirating? For me, the DRM would be question #1 on the FAQ about Windows 7, and they ignore or weasel around the issue. I just don't trust MS.
We've fallen down ourselves. Remember the big stink over each Pentium III having a unique number and the concerns over privacy? Intel backed off on that one. And the flap over XP phoning home when 2000 did no such thing? MS didn't back down, and has only made things worse, with WGA next, and then Vista. The almighty consumer could have squelched that if they'd yelled louder and walked when bitten. There has been some of that, but evidently not enough. MS is like a pit bull owner variously putting on an oblivious act or laughably extolling false virtues in defense of their dogs.
Parent
Re:just a pig with lipstick (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Only to some (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would you want reduced playback support in your OS?
Because if no one releases programs which play broken DRMed files, then people will eventually stop releasing broken DRMed files.
Media companies will whine and complain that the lack of DRM prevents them from selling their media on windows PCs, but it only takes one company to break rank and start making money (much like EMI with MP3s) and the rest will cave.
Besides, since I never buy DRMed media, it doesn't really matter to me whether any device I own can play it or not.
Parent