Microsoft to lose 'Windows'

Geek.com reports of a trademark battle between Microsoft and Lindows.

The "David" in our battle is tiny software maker Lindows, a Linux software company that seeks to market desktop operating software. In late 2001, our "Goliath," Microsoft, sued Lindows, claiming that the company's name was too similar to Microsoft's flagship operating system. After a short court battle, Lindows went down in history as one of the few companies to ever be attacked by the Microsoft legal machine and survive. Thus emboldened, Lindows is doing the unthinkable: it is suing in Federal District Court in Seattle to have Microsoft's "Windows" trademark invalidated ... and some experts say that there's a fair chance Lindows might actually succeed.
The author then goes on to speculate that Microsoft got a little dirty with the US Patent Office (yeah baby yeah Boom Boom BOOM! ... in a back room). Of course, in 1993 Windows was something geeks knew about. In 1995, after Windows 95, everybody realized there was a 'secondary meaning'.

Thats going to be weird. Can anybody think of a new name.:grin: :flames: :devil: :redeyes:

So if the name had to be changed, I am hoping only on new products and not the billions of already sold products.

And as much as I hate MS, I hope this move doesn't screw up more of the tech industry as it is already like crap right now.

And any of these other companies that want to challange better learn to market to the masses. Apple is finally doing that after so long, and honestly that is a big thing that MS has always been able to do.

And what a pain it would be, several different largely distributed OS's that all had problems, and trying to learn them all.

And I really have to go pee, but I don't wanna get up right now.

i believe the only reason there are diff operating systems out there is because there are different uses for all of them.

you cannot make one OS that'll do everything, simply can't.

Windows = more user friendly, less stability
Linux = less user friendly, more stability
Windows Servers = easier to maintain, less stable
Unix servers = harder to maintain/troubleshoot, more stable
Mac = good for certain applications, such as multimedia, bad for a lot of other things due to compatibility.
MPE/IX = stable, less prone to crashes, but no further support / harder to maintain / not user friendly

How about Doorways? :D

wonder if anyone else read that book

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn_X
i believe the only reason there are diff operating systems out there is because there are different uses for all of them.

you cannot make one OS that'll do everything, simply can't.

Windows = more user friendly, less stability
Linux = less user friendly, more stability
Windows Servers = easier to maintain, less stable
Unix servers = harder to maintain/troubleshoot, more stable
Mac = good for certain applications, such as multimedia, bad for a lot of other things due to compatibility.
MPE/IX = stable, less prone to crashes, but no further support / harder to maintain / not user friendly

---

I have found 2K and XP pretty stable. The only thing and about linux is that the genrel consumer market out there does not know how to use it. I like linux 2K and XP.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NooNoo
How about Doorways? :D

wonder if anyone else read that book

---

:mult:

Hey Spawn,
Loved how you left out Novell, which in my mind is a much better server and network than NT or 2000.

ahh apple, I can do everything on my mac that I can do on linux and windows


Mac OS X is the best OS apple has created..


w00t freebsd...

Agree Novell is a good NOS though havent gone to 6 so cant comment on it.

:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NooNoo
How about Doorways? :D

wonder if anyone else read that book

---

Wouldn't be referring about an opertaing system for one's inner self now would you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Poseidon
Wouldn't be referring about an opertaing system for one's inner self now would you?

---

Nope...

could you imagine what would happen if Linux became mass marketed? i don't know about you guys or your users, but 3/4 of mine can barely use windows. i don't want them getting anywhere near a linux box

If Microsoft looses Windows, they could call it,

Itookovertheworldwhilethegovernmentdozed XP

:eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cleetus
Hey Spawn,
Loved how you left out Novell, which in my mind is a much better server and network than NT or 2000.

---

I did not list the OSes because I think they're the best ones, they were the only ones I thought of at the moment.

Yes, Novell is really good. However it lacks support and is harder to learn.

Its all a tradeoff.

I was not saying what is good or bad - I never said if something is UNSTABLE; i said its LESS stable.

saying windows 2000 is less stable than linux is a fact. however i still prefer windows because its stable enough for me, much easier to configure, and is more compatible.

and yes, if linux became marketable, our jobs would be hell. half of the people here can't even master how to use the mouse button, much less linux? Hah!

i rather put a gun to my head than support an END user using linux.

once again, i did not put any OS down, re-read my post. just stated that there are trade offs, and that is why you cannot have ONE operating system that'll have it all. well maybe you could, but we're talking probabilities, not possibilities

How about "MacOS Ripoff"? :D :D :D