Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

Would You Use Ad-Supported Windows? 643

Posted by Zonk from the not-if-you-paid-me dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet reported earlier this week that Microsoft was thinking of offering an Ad-Supported version of Windows. A blog post by John Carroll offers some reasons why Ad-Supported Windows makes sense. From the article: '4. More revenue through targeted marketing: The holy grail of marketing is to target an audience with the sort of ads that most appeal to them. Sending a bunch of male programmers advertisements for breast enlargement isn't terribly useful. Sending a bunch of male programmers advertisements for a four hour extended version of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is useful.' Is there any situation where you can see yourself open to the possibility of using an Ad-Supported operating system?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Would You Use Ad-Supported Windows? More

Would You Use Ad-Supported Windows?

Comments Filter:

  • Two good uses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by waynegoode ( 758645 ) * on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:23PM (#14063819) Homepage
    A good use of an ad-supported version of an operating system would be as a file server or an embedded controller.

    I've done this with Windows, although not with an ad-supported version, for my church. I wrote a simple VBA program to show announcements by displaying PowerPoint slides (using the free viewer). It also ring bells on a schedule to signal the beginning and end of classes. It is still running on a 166 MHz clunker.

    • Not yet ad-supported (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nikademus ( 631739 ) * <renaud.allard@it> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:27PM (#14063894) Homepage
      Windows is not yet ad-supported??? Does that mean that all these porn and viagra ads popping around when I use winodws are not normal?
      • At least it would give M$ a financial reason to tighten up their software and prevent all of these other popups and spyware. Only paying customers will be allowed to bother you.

        • Re:Not yet ad-supported (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Crayon Kid ( 700279 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:55PM (#14064286)
          Only paying customers will be allowed to bother you.

          Who wants to bet on the odds that eventually a flaw in the ad system would be discovered, that allows _anyone_ to shove stuff in your face?

          • Who wants to bet on the odds that eventually a flaw in the ad system would be discovered, that allows _anyone_ to shove stuff in your face?

            Doesn't Windows already have this feature ? At least I seem to recall reading about someone using Windows remotely initiated popups to advertize how to turn off said popups, and sending such advertising to the same address every five minutes... Simply add support for multimedia and auto-executing attachments and there you have it.

            Sometimes I think that Microsoft do

      • Re:Not yet ad-supported (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:53PM (#14064899) Homepage
        Seriously, though, what about all the ads that people see because MS makes MSN the default start page for IE? That MSN search is the default search? What about making WMP automatically open to Microsoft's media site? What about the bookmarks that come with IE? What about the products sold through the "Windows Catalogue"?

        Are you telling me, with a straight face, that MS isn't already gathering revenue by the ads they deliver through their OS?

        • Yes, Microsoft does gather big revenues probably from their ads, but from people like you who don't take the time to read while configuring/installing stuff.

          MSN Messenger's installer offers you the choice to setup MSN as your home page with the MSN toolbar and all the other crap. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNCHECK THOSE. Therefore, it's your fault if you complain about those because they give you a choice. Same for WMP. Bookmarks with IE? Delete them or don't use IE. Products sold through Windows Catalogue? Who'

      • Partially ad-enabled already (Score:5, Informative)

        by steve_l ( 109732 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @02:03PM (#14065009) Homepage
        There already a fair few bits of advertising hook ins.

        -the sign up to MSN/AOL stuff on an XP home system
        -default search through MSN; pre XP SP2 that would even bring in popups
        -the 'buy more music like this' hint when you browse a folder full of MP3s.
        -the 'print your photos right now' option when you upload photos
        -the 'get a digital ID' button on the Outlook security panel

        So its there, its there, just no blatantly in your face.

    • Re:Two good uses (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:29PM (#14063936)
      Even though you can try to justify it and I am sure there are some isolated usefulness, I'd say NO, at least for work PC. We have enough trouble with email and IM itself (there have been a lot of stories on those on /.); the last thing we need is some ads popping up when someone is trying to work especially in crunch time. It might work for home editions or home users, but professional uses - NO. I don't care how contextual the ads are, they are a distraction and I bet they will be flash based or something more silly and obnoxious or at least they will evolve in to those.

      • Re:Two good uses (Score:5, Funny)

        by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:35PM (#14064036) Homepage Journal
        Even though you can try to justify it and I am sure there are some isolated usefulness, I'd say NO, at least for work PC.

        Personally, I think it's a great idea. If Microsoft moved all their Windows products to Adware, then computer users would start to grumble. Computer users grumbling will eventually produce a desire to move off of Windows. Then I'll come along and charge $150/hr to set them up with "more technologically advanced Macintoshes". See? It's a win-win for everyone!

        Of course, I'd need to take my time setting up the Macs. The blasted things are too damn easy to install. I don't even need to ghost the machines! Just extract all the Applications they need. Hmm... maybe I can find an old 10MBit hub. Preferrably with plenty of collisions. Or maybe I'll just charge thousands of dollars to make up a study saying that companies could save money by moving to Macs...

        * For the humor impaired, the above is a joke. I don't usually advertise the fact that I make up studies.

        • Re:Two good uses (Score:4, Insightful)

          by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:38PM (#14064730)
          I'm so mad that I chose to run this Adware OS. Oh wait, no I'm not it was cheaper this way.

          Ya, lots of grumbling over saving money. I hear Geico has the same problem. Incedentally, 15 minutes could save you 10% or more on car insurance.

      • Re:Two good uses (Score:5, Funny)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:54PM (#14064281)
        Can you imagine giving a big presentation with some Viagra scrolling banner ad at the top of your PowerPoint slides?

        I can't.

      • Re:Two good uses (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ergo98 ( 9391 )
        It might work for home editions or home users, but professional uses - NO. I don't care how contextual the ads are, they are a distraction and I bet they will be flash based or something more silly and obnoxious or at least they will evolve in to those.

        No on every single level. Even contextual ads are terrible. This is an unbelievably bad idea [yafla.com], and it really does sadden me that Microsoft is seriously considering this.

    • Re:Two good uses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Karzz1 ( 306015 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:33PM (#14064002) Homepage
      I am gonna go out on a limb here. Isnt this the ideal way for MS to get consumers to adopt Palladium (or whatever they are calling it this week)? I mean, isnt it much easier to avoid liability for product performance, restrictions, etc... if there is no charge? This sounds like the MS of old -- give it away for free.. keep em / get em hooked, then unleash the dogs (in the form of DRM etc...). Just my 2cents.

      • Re:Two good uses (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BeatRyder ( 820835 )
        Mod the above post up!! I agree, MS is just looking for another way to invade our computing experience with more junk. The concept of an add supported windows is appealing, but as I see it, if MS didnt charge so much to begin with it would not be an issue at all. When you have to pay $350 for XP pro and there are free alternatives its a little rediculous. I am not saying that one is better cause its free, but instead of adding new features to every release that does nothing but force feed more garbage to t

    • Re:Two good uses (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Soybean47 ( 885009 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:36PM (#14064050)
      You would be ok with running an ad-supported OS in your church? There's no moral dilemma in adding commercials to your church services?

      Did you miss the episode of the Simpsons where Homer's model rocket hits the church, Mr. Burns pays to fix it, and he introduces changes to make it more profitable? "Get your money changed! Right here in the temple!"

    • Re:Two good uses (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Philip K Dickhead ( 906971 ) <folderol@fancypants.org> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:46PM (#14064179) Journal
      I would pay NOT to see ads.

      I can't leak into the urinal, without looking down and seeing someone selling me something, printed on the drain-cover.

      • Insightful on the Piss Ads (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonym1ty ( 534715 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:33PM (#14064685) Homepage Journal

        (Score:5, Insightful)

        I would pay NOT to see ads.

        I can't leak into the urinal, without looking down and seeing someone selling me something, printed on the drain-cover.

        Exactly! you're right. I find that with each waking moment advertising is getting more invasive and more offensive. It needs to stop. But I don't think I should have to pay to make it stop.

    • yeah tha'd be great (Score:5, Funny)

      by Skadet ( 528657 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:48PM (#14064214) Homepage
      show announcements by displaying PowerPoint slides (using the free viewer)

      That'd be fantastic with ad-supported windows.

      [PowerPoint slide transitions in]

      Church Potluck, 2pm
      Last Name A-J, Salad
      Last Name....

      [popup]

      ENLARG3 Y0UR P3N1S N0W!!!!111

    • Re:Two good uses (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fordiman ( 689627 ) * <fordiman@@@gmail...com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:06PM (#14064404) Homepage Journal
      The question is: how hard would it be to remove the ads from "ad-supported" windows. I would suppose it would just take Sysinternals' Process Explorer to kill a few "Critical System" tasks.

  • OMG!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by kc32 ( 879357 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:23PM (#14063820)
    There's a 4-hour version of Wrath of Khan?

  • Hoth! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:24PM (#14063823)
    > Sending a bunch of male programmers advertisements for breast enlargement isn't terribly useful.

    Breast reduction, on the other hand...

  • let me think (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheEmpyrean ( 788742 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:25PM (#14063851)
    ... oh hell no

    don't we have spyware blockers to stop annoying ads popping up on our desktop already? and now we want to make it part of the OS?
  • I can see it now, in the middle of an RTS with 3 other people and all of the sudden an add for Viagra pops up (no pun intended.) Wouldn't that be fun?

  • Will they let... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Geeky ( 90998 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:26PM (#14063860)
    ... Redhat buy ads?

  • I wouldn't use Windows if no advertisement is in it, so that doesn't make a big difference for me.

    No, it's just not my kind of system. Also, there is enough adware in windows already after a while spent using the Internet from that kind of operating system, why add more?

    IF someone wants to use Windows, he/she buys it, pirates it, or simply uses something else. Advertisement-supported windows would be the remaining few percent maybe.
  • good that the summary didn't use 'penis enlargement' as a counterexample, as it was my first thought - 40% of spam is about that.

  • Sounds like a potential security issue... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Coopjust ( 872796 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:26PM (#14063878)
    If there is an ad-supported version of Windows, the ads would be intergrated on the level of the operating system (like a rootkit). Doesn't this sound like a bad idea? What will happen when a less-than-well-intending firm finds out how to use the ad system and hijack it? It would be almost, if not impossible, to remove.

  • Would Windows then be free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CommiePuddin ( 891854 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:27PM (#14063885) Homepage
    The American computer-using public is used to "ad-supported" meaning "free to me." We're also used to "ad-supported" meaning "not going to last very long."

    Would the OS be crippled? Could a purchase un-cripple it (and remove advertisements)?

    And how intrusive are these ads? Is this a thirty second video commercial while the OS loads, or am I going to be receiving pop-ups every 30-45 seconds? Am I sacrificing monitor space to keep a banner ad on the screen at all times?

  • Not so much (Score:3, Interesting)

    by j_cavera ( 758777 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:27PM (#14063886)
    It's not that I would use it given any choice in the matter. At issue is if M$ will be able to sell it to the PHBs of the world. And I'm afraid that the answer is "yes".

  • Internet Cafes (Score:2, Insightful)

    by subl33t ( 739983 )
    If a business like an internet cafe could get a break on liscensing and initial payout they would probably jump all over it.

  • existing feature (Score:5, Funny)

    by mcraig ( 757818 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:27PM (#14063896)
    Isn't it already ad supported within like 10 minutes of being connected to the internet ???

  • Seriously? (Score:3)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:28PM (#14063898) Journal
    Is there any situation where you can see yourself open to the possibility of using an Ad-Supported operating system?

    No

    Not that an ad supported browser wasn't bad enough, now we can get an OS that spams us constantly no matter what. Imagine writting an email then a big popup comes up the same time you hit space so the popup thinks you want to goto the site and opens IE to take you there...wow, that would be sweet if the OS could take over my life!
  • I won't use non-ad supported Windows. But I'm bombarded with ads everywhere. The last place I want them is on my desktop. Leave us alone already. I don't want any of your crap anyway! I'll gladly pay for a copy of my OS just so I can have it and be left alone. Maybe people would pay more for your OS if it was worth the money.

  • Four Hour Extended Version of 'Wrath of Khan'? (Score:5, Funny)

    by dgrgich ( 179442 ) <drew&grgich,org> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:28PM (#14063915)
    If anyone knows where to get this, let me know. :)
  • Is for testing. It would be a great way to get exposed to a new OS.

  • Um....no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nokrog.> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:28PM (#14063921)
    WHY? Ads have been tried by the free pc people and how many of those are around now? I am convinced that we must be in the beginnings of another nutty web bubble. 2 million to Revision3 and another 2 million to podshow. VC money going to REALLY wacky ideas.....crazy ideas like AD supported OS's? Stupid. A OS is supposed to allow you to run programs and manage the hard stuff that programmers used to have to do when writing for bare hardware. It should not have anothe rlayer of crud on it.

  • Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aaron_ds ( 711489 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:29PM (#14063927)
    A non-intrusive Google-Ads-like system I could live with. A bar containing seizure inducing banners and annoying "Catch the monkey and win a gazillion iPods" flash ads would be intolerable. It depends on how it is implemented. Of course, why not just use a prexisting free OS?

    • Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@nOspAm.wylfing.net> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:44PM (#14064155) Homepage Journal
      Ah, you see, that's what this is about. Microsoft is desperate to cut off Google air supply. One way they can do that is by gobbling up all the ad dollars. In other words, advertisers have x dollars to spend. Every dollar they spend advertising directly to Windows is a dollar less that goes to Google.

      • Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

        by decoutt ( 538383 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:18PM (#14064536)
        This is exactly the comment that I was looking for. Bravo, very insightful! Google sits in a browser which in turn sits in an operating system. MS lost the browser battle long time ago, and now plays the card of the operating system. And it is precisely this dependence that will cut the 'air supply' ... or maybe not: google adsense is based in context sensitive ads, that are put in websites, especially independent (non-corporate) ones. And it is precisely this dependence that will keep MS in a lower level than google on this matter.
  • I have a machine at home that is an old system running Windows 98 - because of a couple apps that I have to use and they only run on windows. It is flaky as all get out and last night as I dealt with its hiccups and what nots I thought, 'I would love to run XP on this, but there is no way I'm paying for it'. If I could upgrade the OS but not shell out any cash, I'd be all over that.
  • the adware riddled Windows most folks currently use?
  • "Add your .NET Passport to Windows XP!"

  • New Poll (Score:2, Funny)

    by Atriqus ( 826899 )
    This should be a slashdot poll, and these could be the response:

    No
    No!!!
    Hell No!!!
    OH FUCK THAT!!!
    Wait, that adware isn't suppose to be their?
  • Puts a new twist on MS AntiSpyware (Beta) [microsoft.com]. We'll only show you the ads we want you to see....
  • The end is near...

    -everphilski-
  • Geez, with all the adware, spyware, and rootkits, you would Windows is already an ad-supported operating system!

  • No. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:30PM (#14063960)
    > Is there any situation where you can see yourself open to the possibility of using an Ad-Supported operating system?

    "No."

    Now that that's out of the way, I wonder how well "Windows Defender" (the Microsoft "anti"-spyware offering) would work on an ad-supported version of Windows. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Microsoft purchased Gator^H^H^H^H^HClaria.

    I wonder about these things, and I change my original opinion.

    "Fuck, no. Not if you managed to throw a chair through Brin's head. Not if you manage suffocate Torvalds by stuffing his head up a penguin's ass. Not if you travelled back in time and shot the parents of Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing, and Steve Wozniak before any of them were born."

  • I see this as a direct result to this previous /. article [slashdot.org]. Microsoft is scrambling to get some entry to the online advertising market, to compete with Google on their home turf. And, as they have done with every battle in which their products win, they want to tie it into the OS.

    This is not innovative or interesting, hell NetZero/Juno/Opera have done this to death with their advertising-based browsers (to limited success). What would make this different is that it would remove any way of avoiding the advert

  • No Thanks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:31PM (#14063974)
    No. There is no situation where I would be open to using an ad-supported OS.

    My philosophy about an OS is that it's merely a functional component of my computer, like the processor, or the RAM, or the hard drive, or the keyboard, etc. Would you be open to using ad-supported RAM?

    Anyhow. . . I'm sick of ads. Even my tolerance for ad-supported TV has almost run out. The only thing that keeps me watching TV is the ability to record shows on my DVR and skip over commercials when I watch later.

    • Re:No Thanks (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coinreturn ( 617535 )
      Even my tolerance for ad-supported TV has almost run out. The only thing that keeps me watching TV is the ability to record shows on my DVR and skip over commercials when I watch later.

      Yeah, but with all the product placement in TV shows, the ads are now embedded and you can't get away from them. Don't even get me started on the fake entertainment news where the evening news just advertises their own shows (or parent company's movies).
  • I'll keep my Free (as in speech) community supported operating system.

    Its funny how the ad supported idea comes back every once in a while. I remember the ad supported ISPs like Netzero... wasn't a great success. People dont want so many ads.

  • Sure (Score:2)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 )
    Is there any situation where you can see yourself open to the possibility of using an Ad-Supported operating system?"

    Yeah, the situation in which it is offered for free and I can find a patch to disable the ads.
  • One big problem I've always felt about targeted advertising is making sure the intended target is the actuall target.

    When a family shares a computer, and little sis sees the ads for Axe body spray and Mom sees the adds for new golf clubs and dad sees the adds for femine hygiene products, well,what purpose is actually served?

    Or when the targeted advertising hits somewhat embarrasing subjects and you are using somebody else's computer. Imagine going over to Dad's to help out a computer problem and seeing tons
  • Ad-supported or money-supported, I won't use Windows, thanks.
  • Short answer: No.

    Longer answer: No, I already have enough stuff that I need to focus on. If I needed to be distracted I would take off my headphones or check email every 5 minutes. If you could guarantee that the ads wouldn't be animated, flashy or colored in some way to try and draw my attention to it, then maybe. However, this would go against the whole point of advertising, where you want people to notice your ad.

    Just my $0.02.
  • Honestly, from my perspective, Windows is already free. Free as in "comes with the laptop I ordered". Today, when I get a laptop with Windows on it, the first thing I do is erase Windows and replace it with an OS where I am more productive. The only way I'd use an ad-supported version is if they were to pay me to do so, i.e. funnel some of the advertiser $$ they collect from my usage back to me. Even then, the amount they'd have to pay would need to make up for the productivity loss using Windows would impo
  • Right after you start up your Windows PC and a pop-up box comes up saying "A fatal exception XY has occurred at xxxx:xxxxxxxx," you get an ad for the Quad 2.4GHz Apple G5.

    I think this might actually work.
  • Great question. Combination of 'Would you use ad-supported Foo?' and 'Would you use Foo Windows?'. Its not often Ask Slashdot reads like flamebait or trolling!

  • My GOD folks, they're putting ads EVERYWHERE these days...

    -in video games (matrix revoutions)
    -location-based ads (google's wifi service)
    -cellphone ads (around for a while now)
    -television
    -radio
    -print media
    -the SKY
    -IM clients
    -email
    -vehicles
    -a rather high percentage of websites

    Is there no place that's sacred, no place safe from this? Wherever we go, we are bombarded with ads. Hell, even Churches advertise!

  • Spam is still spam... (Score:3, Funny)

    by KC7GR ( 473279 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:35PM (#14064032) Homepage Journal
    ...no matter how "targeted" it is.

    Gotta hand it to the Redmond Empire. They've come up with some whack-job ideas in times past (anyone remember 'Bob?'), but this one gives new meaning to 'whack-job.' I can't believe that M$ thinks people would actually be dumb enough to fall for this, even if the OS was offered at no cost (which would, most likely, be the counter-factor to get people to try it).

    I suppose the ads will feature characters like Clippy and Bonzi Buddy, doing a song-and-dance for each product. Brrr.....

  • I prefer Linux for routine use, but there are times when Windows in a virtual machine would be quite handy.

  • Heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:36PM (#14064045) Homepage
    four hour extended version of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

    KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (sucks in air) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (sucks in air) AAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!

  • "Free or Low Cost..." I'm suspicious... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by edashofy ( 265252 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:36PM (#14064049)
    While an alternative "free or low cost" version of Windows supported by ads might be attractive for some users, I have a really big feeling that if this actually gets implemented, the normal versions of Windows are going to start having ads too.

    Right now, I can buy a Dell Dimension with XP home preinstalled, spend a half-hour uninstalling all the useless crap they load on there, and get the machine into a relatively professional state. If I want a machine that comes in a professional state, I have to pay a significant premium for an OptiPlex or something.

    How much you want to bet that as soon as this gets implemented the next "home" version of Windows will have ads all over the place with no option to turn them off?

    "My Documents...sponsored by Coca-Cola!"
  • What with all the spyware and adware popping up windows left and right and the random Windows Messenger popups telling me about hot porn action I thought I was using ad supported Windows. Plus all those desktop icons for AOL and Netscape and Mindspring offering free trial service. Aren't those ads?
  • Sending a bunch of male programmers advertisements for breast enlargement isn't terribly useful.

    You'd be surprised.
  • Well, ad supported Windows might be better that malware supported windows.
  • I mean I use Active Directory all the time. Is this a new Vista "Feature"?

  • It depends. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:38PM (#14064076)
    It really depends on how microsoft does it. If they have you pay for a copy of windows then and absolutly NO. If I payed for it I want an AddFree version. But if it free or near free $5.00 and under, then I might consider it if it first doesn't contain reduced functionality that the non-add version gives. I don't want to see any "This version of windows will not run this applaction please upgrade to Comerical Windows." Secondly the Adds should not be annoying, Things like popups or chewing up more space then the difference in screen resolutions. Also It should not ever give personal information to the advertisers, the processing for selective adds should be on my system and then they just get the add from the catagory, not posting my preferences to a site to choose and possible be colleted by data miners. Third there will need to be a way to control what it tracks and not tracks as for your habbits. There are some adds you don't want to see for example if you use your system at work and you have done some job searching you don't want your computer to show all these adds for job search sites when your boss is considering promotions. Thirdly it should not effect perfomance of the system to a noticable degree. Adds should be small in size with pictures no bigger then 64x64 and NO SOUND, or flashing or animations.
    I am not opposed to Add Delivered comerical OS's to offer the OS at no charge to help the company profit. But if it drasticly hurts my experience or makes me afraid to use it then it won't be useful.
  • Would I use an OS that was ad supported? Maybe, if it was better at helping me do the things I want to do.

    Windows? Ummm, are the ads going to somehow give it a real command line and proper filesystem? Are the ads going to allow me to turn off the CPU and memory hogging windowing system when I need more juice for a big program? Are the ads going to make it easy to turn off all the autoloading system tray and background bullshit that turns my thorobred machine into a third hand cart mule? Are the ads going to

  • Uh, no (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShadyG ( 197269 ) <bgraymusic@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday November 18, 2005 @12:53PM (#14064267) Homepage
    Realistically speaking, Windows is free of charge as I'm sure everyone here realizes. I can get a free copy of Windows any time I want, and I still choose not to. So by introducing advertisements to it, is Microsoft making it more attractive to me? Is it finally worth nothing?

  • the ads! make them go away!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skiman1979 ( 725635 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:02PM (#14064364)
    I have enough problems trying to keep spyware/adware ads from displaying on my Windows desktop. Now you want the OS itself to support the displaying of ads?! I can see a lot of users not realizing they have spyware then. Oh that ad? it's just Windows advertising.

  • It would help the other free OS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xs650 ( 741277 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:18PM (#14064535)
    Free Wndows with ads would increase the popularity of our favorite free without ads OS.

    Not a bad thing.

  • So now spyware is a feature? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ivanmarsh ( 634711 ) on Friday November 18, 2005 @01:23PM (#14064590)
    I guess it was just a matter of time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close