How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
pet...@my-deja.com
an interest in seeing Microsoft's anticompetitive and anti-
consumer practices curtailed by antitrust authorities.
Microsoft's claim that it's defending its right to innovate
is a cruel joke in an industry that sees its best innovators
attacked by the company's anticompetitive actions.
Microsoft's agenda isn't innovation, it's imitation, as well
as the imposition of suffocating control over user choices
and an ever-widening monopoly."
---- consumer advocate Ralph Nader
(See http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9811/11/nader.idg/ )
** In the story below, read especially the paragraph where
Microsoft warns Silicon Valley venture capitalists not to
fund start-ups that may compete with Microsoft.
In other words, not only will Microsoft not innovate, they
don't want anyone else innovating either! If as a computer
user, this doesn't get you mad check for a pulse!
Excerpts from a story that appeared in San Jose Mercury News
on Sunday, October 26, 1997.
-------------------------------------
The ''urgent'' message, from a Microsoft Corp. vice president,
surprised Mitchell Kertzman, CEO of software maker Sybase Inc.
It was a few days after Sybase had launched a key product
called Jaguar CTS, and he wasn't expecting to hear from the
planet's most potent software company.
Six months later, the words Kertzman heard when he returned the
call still ring clearly in his memory. Microsoft, the official
said, thought the way Sybase was positioning Jaguar -- as a
competitor to Microsoft -- was ''a really bad idea.''
While the official says he never delivered a threat, a stunned
Kertzman clearly felt one and hurriedly relayed the episode to
colleagues in Emeryville. ''I think the godfather just called me
and told me to stop selling drugs on their street corner,'' he
said. A few weeks later, Microsoft responded to Jaguar. It
announced its competing product would be included in the
Windows NT operating system, delivering a blow to Sybase's
$700 stand-alone offering.
[ *** Note: Does the above strategy -- tying -- sound familiar
to anyone? Is there anyone out there that still thinks Microsoft
shouldn't be split up? ]
Steering innovators
There's nothing subtle about how Microsoft tries to channel
innovation.
Last Wednesday, in the second of what Microsoft hopes will be
annual confabs, several top Microsoft execs traveled to Sand
Hill Road in Menlo Park to meet with about 100 venture
capitalists. There, Microsoft outlined its technology plans and
prodded financiers to invest in start-ups that would dovetail
with Microsoft's strategies -- and reportedly suggested they
check with Redmond to steer clear of start-ups that might run
afoul of Microsoft's trajectory.
''Their thesis was give us a call and tell us what our companies
are doing,'' said Warren Packard, an associate with Draper
Fisher Jurvetson in Redwood City. ''It kind of got chuckles from
the audience, but to a certain extent it makes sense.''
Start-ups often don't know until they're well under way that
they'll end up on Microsoft's radar screen.
Fear of being in Microsoft's line of sight affects not only
start-ups but also companies going public. When BEA Systems Inc.
of Sunnyvale met with investors earlier this year before its
public offering, ''The most commonly asked question bar none was
'What are you going to do about Microsoft in this space?' '' said
Ed Scott, executive vice president of worldwide operations.
**
Last year Microsoft incorporated into its Windows NT operating
system for running computers on a network a so-called Web server,
which is software that enables a computer to host Web pages.
That struck at the heart of O'Reilly & Associates of Sebastopol.
''I think at bottom, they were dumping their Web server to drive
other people out of the market,'' said founder Tim O'Reilly, who
has managed to be one of the few remaining Web server suppliers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JTK
petilon
>
> Kertzman word against a no name vice-president from Microsoft,
> nice. There's nobody to deny allegations. Depending on one's
> perspective, one might/might not believe the story.
You must be new to this industry. Follow the link below, then
come back and tell us if you still have trouble believing the
story:
http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
>>
>> [ *** Note: Does the above strategy -- tying -- sound familiar
>> to anyone? Is there anyone out there that still thinks
>> Microsoft shouldn't be split up? ]
>
> Let's see.... Buy NT server and the $700.00 Sybase software vs
> just buy NT server. Hmmm... Is there anyone out there that
> still thinks Microsoft should be split up?
This is the kind of ignorance that's typical of Microsoft
customers. They see something bundled with the OS and they
think they are getting something for free.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. For example, people
see IE bundled with Windows and they think Microsoft is helping
them save money. In reality Microsoft indirectly charged you for
IE by cleverly hiding the charge in the form of an "upgrade" to
Windows 95. What people don't realize is that Windows 98 was
nothing but a way for Microsoft to recuperate the development
cost of IE.
Windows 98 is practically the same product as Windows 95, with
some bug fixes. In a competitive market Microsoft could never
have charged $90 for these bug fixes. Thanks to their monopoly
Microsoft was able to get away with this crime.
The bottom line is that unregulated monopolies are a bad idea.
When Microsoft bundles something with the OS it may look like
they are giving you something for free, but once Microsoft
drives the competition out of business they will raise prices
and freeze innovation, as Microsoft has done with their desktop
OS and productivity applications.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Otto
<pet...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8clrg2$r3n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
opinions snipped....
> Excerpts from a story that appeared in San Jose Mercury News
> on Sunday, October 26, 1997.
> -------------------------------------
>
> The ''urgent'' message, from a Microsoft Corp. vice president,
> surprised Mitchell Kertzman, CEO of software maker Sybase Inc.
> It was a few days after Sybase had launched a key product
> called Jaguar CTS, and he wasn't expecting to hear from the
> planet's most potent software company.
>
> Six months later, the words Kertzman heard when he returned the
> call still ring clearly in his memory. Microsoft, the official
> said, thought the way Sybase was positioning Jaguar -- as a
> competitor to Microsoft -- was ''a really bad idea.''
>
> While the official says he never delivered a threat, a stunned
> Kertzman clearly felt one and hurriedly relayed the episode to
> colleagues in Emeryville. ''I think the godfather just called me
> and told me to stop selling drugs on their street corner,'' he
> said. A few weeks later, Microsoft responded to Jaguar. It
> announced its competing product would be included in the
> Windows NT operating system, delivering a blow to Sybase's
> $700 stand-alone offering.
Kertzman word against a no name vice-president from Microsoft, nice. There's
nobody to deny allegations. Depending on one's perspective, one might/might
not believe the story.
>
> [ *** Note: Does the above strategy -- tying -- sound familiar
> to anyone? Is there anyone out there that still thinks Microsoft
> shouldn't be split up? ]
Let's see.... Buy NT server and the $700.00 Sybase software vs just buy NT
server. Hmmm... Is there anyone out there that still thinks Microsoft should
be split up?
>
>
> Steering innovators
> ''Their thesis was give us a call and tell us what our companies
> are doing,'' said Warren Packard, an associate with Draper
> Fisher Jurvetson in Redwood City. ''It kind of got chuckles from
> the audience, but to a certain extent it makes sense.''
Sounds like the venture capitalists liked the idea....
> Last year Microsoft incorporated into its Windows NT operating
> system for running computers on a network a so-called Web server,
> which is software that enables a computer to host Web pages.
Was it only last year :)?
>
> That struck at the heart of O'Reilly & Associates of Sebastopol.
> ''I think at bottom, they were dumping their Web server to drive
> other people out of the market,'' said founder Tim O'Reilly, who
> has managed to be one of the few remaining Web server suppliers.
And Apache has nothing to do with driving Web server suppliers out of
business, right? It is only Microsoft which does that. Get real....
And then there's Linux, the "free" OS. Companies burning CDs which sells for
upto $200.00. Interestingly, the "server" version cost 5 times as much as
the desktop version. Some of those companies, like Red Hat, are buying up
smaller companies. Just like Microsoft and any other technology companies
are doing. It is ok as long as the company name isn't Microsoft. Double
standards all the way....
Otto
Chris Kelly
commentator Petilon announced today his intent to persevere in his
planned Down With Microsoft World Tour 2000. Petilon plans to travel
across the U.S. in a '73 Cadillac painted with anti-MS slogans. He
intends to convince as many average citizens as possible of the
evilness of Microsoft, complete with multimedia exhibits. One of these
exhibits compares Windows98 with competing, more advanced technology
such as Netscape 6, Swing, the Java Plug-in, java.io.File, linuxconf,
an xterm, and the NC. "All these companies need is a chance to
compete, and they can come up with some really great products.
Really!" Petilon stated.
Petilon associate Dennis Woodruff downplayed the disappointing "beta
test" in Yuba City, CA, in which Petilon's Cadillac was pelted with
rocks by angry schoolchildren and after which the town elders asked
Petilon to "hit the 101 please".
pet...@my-deja.com wrote:
> "Everyone who uses a computer or depends on computers has
> an interest in seeing Microsoft's anticompetitive and anti-
> consumer practices curtailed by antitrust authorities.
> Microsoft's claim that it's defending its right to innovate
> is a cruel joke in an industry that sees its best innovators
> attacked by the company's anticompetitive actions.
> Microsoft's agenda isn't innovation, it's imitation, as well
> as the imposition of suffocating control over user choices
> and an ever-widening monopoly."
> ---- consumer advocate Ralph Nader
>
> (See http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9811/11/nader.idg/ )
>
>** In the story below, read especially the paragraph where
> Microsoft warns Silicon Valley venture capitalists not to
> fund start-ups that may compete with Microsoft.
>
> In other words, not only will Microsoft not innovate, they
> don't want anyone else innovating either! If as a computer
> user, this doesn't get you mad check for a pulse!
>
>
>Excerpts from a story that appeared in San Jose Mercury News
>on Sunday, October 26, 1997.
>-------------------------------------
>
>The ''urgent'' message, from a Microsoft Corp. vice president,
>surprised Mitchell Kertzman, CEO of software maker Sybase Inc.
>It was a few days after Sybase had launched a key product
>called Jaguar CTS, and he wasn't expecting to hear from the
>planet's most potent software company.
>
>Six months later, the words Kertzman heard when he returned the
>call still ring clearly in his memory. Microsoft, the official
>said, thought the way Sybase was positioning Jaguar -- as a
>competitor to Microsoft -- was ''a really bad idea.''
>
>While the official says he never delivered a threat, a stunned
>Kertzman clearly felt one and hurriedly relayed the episode to
>colleagues in Emeryville. ''I think the godfather just called me
>and told me to stop selling drugs on their street corner,'' he
>said. A few weeks later, Microsoft responded to Jaguar. It
>announced its competing product would be included in the
>Windows NT operating system, delivering a blow to Sybase's
>$700 stand-alone offering.
>
>[ *** Note: Does the above strategy -- tying -- sound familiar
>to anyone? Is there anyone out there that still thinks Microsoft
>shouldn't be split up? ]
>
>
>Steering innovators
>
>There's nothing subtle about how Microsoft tries to channel
>innovation.
>
>Last Wednesday, in the second of what Microsoft hopes will be
>annual confabs, several top Microsoft execs traveled to Sand
>Hill Road in Menlo Park to meet with about 100 venture
>capitalists. There, Microsoft outlined its technology plans and
>prodded financiers to invest in start-ups that would dovetail
>with Microsoft's strategies -- and reportedly suggested they
>check with Redmond to steer clear of start-ups that might run
>afoul of Microsoft's trajectory.
>
>''Their thesis was give us a call and tell us what our companies
>are doing,'' said Warren Packard, an associate with Draper
>Fisher Jurvetson in Redwood City. ''It kind of got chuckles from
>the audience, but to a certain extent it makes sense.''
>
>Start-ups often don't know until they're well under way that
>they'll end up on Microsoft's radar screen.
>
>Fear of being in Microsoft's line of sight affects not only
>start-ups but also companies going public. When BEA Systems Inc.
>of Sunnyvale met with investors earlier this year before its
>public offering, ''The most commonly asked question bar none was
>'What are you going to do about Microsoft in this space?' '' said
>Ed Scott, executive vice president of worldwide operations.
>
>**
>
>Last year Microsoft incorporated into its Windows NT operating
>system for running computers on a network a so-called Web server,
>which is software that enables a computer to host Web pages.
>
>That struck at the heart of O'Reilly & Associates of Sebastopol.
>''I think at bottom, they were dumping their Web server to drive
>other people out of the market,'' said founder Tim O'Reilly, who
>has managed to be one of the few remaining Web server suppliers.
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo
Get your free copy of JConfig here:
http://www.tolstoy.com/samizdat/jconfig.html
Then, send Sun a Message!
Vote for JConfig in the JDJ Readers' Choice Awards.
http://www.sys-con.com/java/readerschoice2000/
See the 'Best Class Library' category.
oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo
Otto
"petilon" <petilon...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:15b6105b...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> "Otto" <ot...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kertzman word against a no name vice-president from Microsoft,
> > nice. There's nobody to deny allegations. Depending on one's
> > perspective, one might/might not believe the story.
>
> come back and tell us if you still have trouble believing the
> story:
> http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what you were
referencing no longer exists.
> > Let's see.... Buy NT server and the $700.00 Sybase software vs
> > just buy NT server. Hmmm... Is there anyone out there that
> > still thinks Microsoft should be split up?
>
> This is the kind of ignorance that's typical of Microsoft
> customers. They see something bundled with the OS and they
> think they are getting something for free.
You call it ignorance and in actuality it is a smart business decision. Some
people don't have unlimited budget for software. When people don't need to
pay $700.00 on the top of the NT server price, then it is conceivable that
they are "getting something for free".
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. For example, people
> see IE bundled with Windows and they think Microsoft is helping
> them save money. In reality Microsoft indirectly charged you for
> IE by cleverly hiding the charge in the form of an "upgrade" to
> Windows 95. What people don't realize is that Windows 98 was
> nothing but a way for Microsoft to recuperate the development
> cost of IE.
Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate the cost of
the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that respect.
>
> Windows 98 is practically the same product as Windows 95, with
> some bug fixes. In a competitive market Microsoft could never
> have charged $90 for these bug fixes. Thanks to their monopoly
> Microsoft was able to get away with this crime.
So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably screaming
bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
years which is the case of the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest
of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar to
Windows platform prices.
>
> The bottom line is that unregulated monopolies are a bad idea.
That's a contradiction in terminology and pretends that regulated monopolies
exists. Monopolies are against the law and no regulation exists for them for
that reason.
> When Microsoft bundles something with the OS it may look like
> they are giving you something for free, but once Microsoft
> drives the competition out of business they will raise prices
> and freeze innovation, as Microsoft has done with their desktop
> OS and productivity applications.
Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the Windows9x has not
changed since 1995? That fact in itself is contradicting your statement.
Never mind the fact that Microsoft just came out with their new
desktop/server OSs and the productivity applications. In case you missed it,
very doubtfull, there's Windows 2000, MS Office 2000, etc...
Otto
Roger Lindsj|
Otto <ot...@home.com> wrote:
>So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably screaming
>bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
>6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
>years which is the case of the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest
>of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
>compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar to
>Windows platform prices.
RedHat charges you when you buy their CDs, manuals, and some not
software. But you can download all the free software from their
website, or copy the CDs from a friend. I have yet to see any place
at Microsoft's website where I can download Windows 2000 for free.
Roger Lindsjö
Grant Edwards
>Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
>the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
>respect.
Except that they've never developed anything. Not anything new
anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
stuff other people invented.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I FORGOT to do the
at DISHES!!
visi.com
petilon
>
>>
>> You must be new to this industry. Follow the link below, then
>> come back and tell us if you still have trouble believing the
>> story:
>> http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
>
> The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what
> you were referencing no longer exists.
I am not getting any 404 error. Try again.
>> This is the kind of ignorance that's typical of Microsoft
>> customers. They see something bundled with the OS and they
>> think they are getting something for free.
>
> You call it ignorance and in actuality it is a smart business
> decision. Some people don't have unlimited budget for
> software. When people don't need to pay $700.00 on the top of
> the NT server price, then it is conceivable that they are
> "getting something for free".
You give Microsoft a monopoly and you will end up paying a lot
more than $700. Microsoft raises prices in subtle ways. Here's
an example:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16045,00.html?owv
Here's another:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,26061,00.html?owv
Remember, Microsoft isn't bundling things with their OS because
of the goodness of their heart. They know that once they drive
the competitors out of business they will be able to jack prices
up in subtle ways, and also sell you the same product multiple
times, as they did with Windows 95/98.
> Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> respect.
Microsoft is only different in that they have extracted oscenely
large profits, and what's worse, they are continuing to extract
huge amounts of money from their customers, without
proportionately improving their products. For example, Word97
costs the same as Word95 and yet the products are practically
identical.
People think Microsoft isn't raising prices, but when they sell
you the same product multiple times (e.g.: Win95/98, Word95/97),
if that isn't a subtle price increase what is?
> So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably
> screaming bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version
> numbers, 5.0/5.1 and 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the
> versions isn't even close to three years which is the case of
> the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest of the Linux
> distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros
> are similar to Windows platform prices.
Linux is a free product. Try to get that into your head. I bought
my copy of Redhat for $2 from www.cheapbytes.com and with that
$2 investment I can install the OS on a thousand machines if I
want to. Legally.
>>
>> The bottom line is that unregulated monopolies are a bad idea.
>
> That's a contradiction in terminology and pretends that
> regulated monopolies exists. Monopolies are against the law
> and no regulation exists for them for that reason.
You are clueless. I can only assume you don't live in the US,
and so are unfamiliar with US laws. Monopolies are not illegal.
Leveraging a monopoly to extend or protect that monopoly is
illegal. There are lots of regulated monopolies.
>
>> When Microsoft bundles something with the OS it may look like
>> they are giving you something for free, but once Microsoft
>> drives the competition out of business they will raise prices
>> and freeze innovation, as Microsoft has done with their
>> desktop OS and productivity applications.
>
> Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the
> Windows9x has not changed since 1995? That fact in itself is
> contradicting your statement.
The fact that the price of Windows9x hasn't changed since 1995
shows that that they have raised prices. Now that may seem like
a contradiction until you realize, as I have, that I paid $90
when Widows95 came out and another $90 for Windows98, for a total
of $180, and yet I have basically the same product (except for a
few bug fixes) that I had in 1995. So what I have in my hand
today is a $180 product.
fungus
Otto wrote:
>
> > http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
>
> The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what you were
> referencing no longer exists.
>
No it doesn't, but Netscape messes it up. Try this one:
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
> You call it ignorance and in actuality it is a smart business
> decision. Some people don't have unlimited budget for software.
> When people don't need to pay $700.00 on the top of the NT
> server price, then it is conceivable that they are "getting
> something for free".
>
Nope. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The
development costs for that software will be passed along
to the users somewhere down the line, normally unfairly.
It's just another example of the way MS uses its monopoly
power. It gives something away for "free" in one place
in order to gain market share, but passes the costs on
to the people in a different place (eg. Hike the price
of every Windows 98 by 10 cents to cover it).
> Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> respect.
>
But other companies are forced to recoup the costs by
actually *selling the product*.
Do you really fail to see the difference?
> Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the Windows9x
> has not changed since 1995?
Yes it has. They put the price of Windows 95 up when Windows
98 was released. Windows 98 was cheap because they didn't
actually put a lot of R&D into it, it's just Windows 95
with a makeover.
Remember that they developed the whole of Windows 95 in
the same timeframe as they did the makeover to produce
Windows 98. This is stagnation of technology, and more
evidence of somebody who doesn't need to work hard to keep
their customers.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably screaming
> bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
> 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
> years which is the case of the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest
> of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar to
> Windows platform prices.
Not very good at maths, are you?
Even if you get the full priced distro of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can
install that legally on as many machines as you want. Yours, your companys,
your friends, all at no extra cost.
Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
piracy.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++|
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otto
"petilon" <petilon...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "Otto" <ot...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You must be new to this industry. Follow the link below, then
> >> come back and tell us if you still have trouble believing the
> >> story:
> >
> > The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what
> > you were referencing no longer exists.
>
fungus (thanks) provided the correct link, but the content made no
difference.
>
> > You call it ignorance and in actuality it is a smart business
> > decision. Some people don't have unlimited budget for
> > software. When people don't need to pay $700.00 on the top of
> > the NT server price, then it is conceivable that they are
> > "getting something for free".
>
> You give Microsoft a monopoly and you will end up paying a lot
> more than $700. Microsoft raises prices in subtle ways. Here's
> an example:
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16045,00.html?owv
> Here's another:
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,26061,00.html?owv
>
> Remember, Microsoft isn't bundling things with their OS because
> of the goodness of their heart. They know that once they drive
> the competitors out of business they will be able to jack prices
> up in subtle ways, and also sell you the same product multiple
> times, as they did with Windows 95/98.
That remains to be seen if Microsoft will jack up the prices of their
products. You'd be hard to press to name another software company who's
software is cheaper than Microsoft's.
>
> > Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> > the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> > respect.
>
> Microsoft is only different in that they have extracted oscenely
> large profits, and what's worse, they are continuing to extract
> huge amounts of money from their customers, without
> proportionately improving their products. For example, Word97
> costs the same as Word95 and yet the products are practically
> identical.
>
> People think Microsoft isn't raising prices, but when they sell
> you the same product multiple times (e.g.: Win95/98, Word95/97),
> if that isn't a subtle price increase what is?
Again, it isn't something what other software companies are not doing. Have
you ever looked at other software companies version numbers? There isn't any
subtle difference between their versions either, why are you picking on
Microsoft?
>
> > So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably
> > screaming bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version
> > numbers, 5.0/5.1 and 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the
> > versions isn't even close to three years which is the case of
> > the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest of the Linux
> > distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> > compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros
> > are similar to Windows platform prices.
>
> Linux is a free product. Try to get that into your head. I bought
> my copy of Redhat for $2 from www.cheapbytes.com and with that
> $2 investment I can install the OS on a thousand machines if I
> want to. Legally.
Linux is not a free product, you try to get that into your head. Have you
walked into CompUSA and looked at the prices lately? I didn't think so.
You didn't even buy your copy for $2 @cheapbytes, conveniently forgot to
mention the shipping cost. So, you paid $7, which is NOT free. You don't
want me to quote the definition of free, do you?
I burn my own CDs for Linux from ISO images, even that is not free.
>
> > Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the
> > Windows9x has not changed since 1995? That fact in itself is
> > contradicting your statement.
>
> The fact that the price of Windows9x hasn't changed since 1995
> shows that that they have raised prices.
Sounds strange when you consider the rate of inflation...
> Now that may seem like
> a contradiction until you realize, as I have, that I paid $90
> when Widows95 came out and another $90 for Windows98, for a total
> of $180, and yet I have basically the same product (except for a
> few bug fixes) that I had in 1995. So what I have in my hand
> today is a $180 product.
Did anyone force you to buy Windows98? And what is this stuff about
"basically the same product"? They are not the same products, hence the
reason that you bought it. Besides, you don't have $180 products in your
hand. You have two old versions of the Windows OSs, which nobody needs.
Otto
Otto
"fungus" <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in message
news:38EF7299...@egg.chips.and.spam.com...
>
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > > http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
> >
> > The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what you were
> > referencing no longer exists.
> >
>
>
> http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
Thanks...
>
>
> > You call it ignorance and in actuality it is a smart business
> > decision. Some people don't have unlimited budget for software.
> > When people don't need to pay $700.00 on the top of the NT
> > server price, then it is conceivable that they are "getting
> > something for free".
> >
>
> Nope. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The
> development costs for that software will be passed along
> to the users somewhere down the line, normally unfairly.
>
> It's just another example of the way MS uses its monopoly
> power. It gives something away for "free" in one place
> in order to gain market share, but passes the costs on
> to the people in a different place (eg. Hike the price
> of every Windows 98 by 10 cents to cover it).
From the end user's perspective, who cares? You are not saying that the same
tactic isn't used by other companies, are you?
>
>
> > Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> > the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> > respect.
> >
>
> But other companies are forced to recoup the costs by
> actually *selling the product*.
And make profit on every single product what they sell. That would explain
the outrageous prices of some of "those products".
>
> Do you really fail to see the difference?
From business perspective, no. From end user perspective, yes. I tend to
vote with money, if it is Microsoft which provides what I need, so be it.
Even it is costing me "10 cents" more vs hundreds of dollars in additional
software.
>
> > Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the Windows9x
> > has not changed since 1995?
>
> Yes it has. They put the price of Windows 95 up when Windows
> 98 was released. Windows 98 was cheap because they didn't
> actually put a lot of R&D into it, it's just Windows 95
> with a makeover.
Any product's successive version number is not more than a makeover. Be that
Unix, Linux, Windows, whatever platform. Neither of them puts in a lot of
R&D between versions. The choice belongs to the end user, if he/she wants to
buy it.
>
> Remember that they developed the whole of Windows 95 in
> the same timeframe as they did the makeover to produce
> Windows 98. This is stagnation of technology, and more
> evidence of somebody who doesn't need to work hard to keep
> their customers.
When a software company has as much market saturation as Microsoft does,
then they can get away with a lot. That's nothing new, any company which has
a chance at it will do it in a hart beat.... Does IBM, Apple, etc.. ring a
bell?
Otto
Bill Unruh
]> Windows 98 is practically the same product as Windows 95, with
]> some bug fixes. In a competitive market Microsoft could never
]> have charged $90 for these bug fixes. Thanks to their monopoly
]> Microsoft was able to get away with this crime.
]So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably screaming
]bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
]6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
They are free, in case you did not notice.
]years which is the case of the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest
]of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
]compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar to
]Windows platform prices.
Where did you get your MS for free? who told you that you could make as
many copies as you wished of your Win98 and hand them out to friends?
You must live in a different economic world than the rest of us do.
]>
]> The bottom line is that unregulated monopolies are a bad idea.
]That's a contradiction in terminology and pretends that regulated monopolies
]exists. Monopolies are against the law and no regulation exists for them for
]that reason.
Monopolies are NOT against the law. The laws governing monopolies are
however different from the laws governing other businesses.
btolder
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iltnc8...@ridcully.freenet.co.uk...
> > bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
> > 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
rest
> > of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> > compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar
to
> > Windows platform prices.
>
> Even if you get the full priced distro of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can
> install that legally on as many machines as you want. Yours, your
companys,
> your friends, all at no extra cost.
>
> Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
> piracy.
The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies budget
more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
Rick
>
> > The bottom line is that unregulated monopolies are a bad idea.
>
> That's a contradiction in terminology and pretends that regulated monopolies
> exists. Monopolies are against the law and no regulation exists for them for
> that reason.
>
Monopolies are definitely NOT against the law. Microsoft has been
declared a monopoly by a Federal judge. Using monopoly [power to sitfle
competition IS against the law. Microsoft has been found guilty of that.
> > When Microsoft bundles something with the OS it may look like
> > they are giving you something for free, but once Microsoft
> > drives the competition out of business they will raise prices
> > and freeze innovation, as Microsoft has done with their desktop
> > OS and productivity applications.
>
> Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the Windows9x has not
> changed since 1995? That fact in itself is contradicting your statement.
> Never mind the fact that Microsoft just came out with their new
> desktop/server OSs and the productivity applications. In case you missed it,
> very doubtfull, there's Windows 2000, MS Office 2000, etc...
>
Even if the price HAS stayedthe same, the price of everythig else has
gone down, and the price of MS's OS as software has become a MUCH larger
piece of a computer's purchase price. Add to that the fact that Microsft
has driven compaines liike Go Computing out of business and the forced
sale of Netscape and you show a very definite harm to consumers.
> Otto
--
Rick
To reply by email remove the obvious from my address.
Rick
>
> "petilon" <petilon...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0127782b...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> > "Otto" <ot...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> You must be new to this industry. Follow the link below, then
> > >> come back and tell us if you still have trouble believing the
> > >> story:
> > >
> > > The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what
> > > you were referencing no longer exists.
> >
>
> fungus (thanks) provided the correct link, but the content made no
> difference.
>
Thats becasue you simply ignore the facts.
> >
> > > You call it ignorance and in actuality it is a smart business
> > > decision. Some people don't have unlimited budget for
> > > software. When people don't need to pay $700.00 on the top of
> > > the NT server price, then it is conceivable that they are
> > > "getting something for free".
> >
> > You give Microsoft a monopoly and you will end up paying a lot
> > more than $700. Microsoft raises prices in subtle ways. Here's
> > an example:
> > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16045,00.html?owv
> > Here's another:
> > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,26061,00.html?owv
> >
> > Remember, Microsoft isn't bundling things with their OS because
> > of the goodness of their heart. They know that once they drive
> > the competitors out of business they will be able to jack prices
> > up in subtle ways, and also sell you the same product multiple
> > times, as they did with Windows 95/98.
>
> That remains to be seen if Microsoft will jack up the prices of their
> products. You'd be hard to press to name another software company who's
> software is cheaper than Microsoft's.
>
Thats true. There is less expensive software, but Microsoft's is
definitely cheaper, even when it costs more.
> >
> > > Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> > > the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> > > respect.
> >
> > Microsoft is only different in that they have extracted oscenely
> > large profits, and what's worse, they are continuing to extract
> > huge amounts of money from their customers, without
> > proportionately improving their products. For example, Word97
> > costs the same as Word95 and yet the products are practically
> > identical.
> >
> > People think Microsoft isn't raising prices, but when they sell
> > you the same product multiple times (e.g.: Win95/98, Word95/97),
> > if that isn't a subtle price increase what is?
>
> Again, it isn't something what other software companies are not doing. Have
> you ever looked at other software companies version numbers? There isn't any
> subtle difference between their versions either, why are you picking on
> Microsoft?
>
I guess you didnt notice that Micorsoft engineer's have been quoting as
saying W95 was merely device drivers added to W3.1.
> >
> > > So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably
> > > screaming bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version
> > > numbers, 5.0/5.1 and 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the
> > > versions isn't even close to three years which is the case of
> > > the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the rest of the Linux
> > > distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> > > compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros
> > > are similar to Windows platform prices.
> >
> > Linux is a free product. Try to get that into your head. I bought
> > my copy of Redhat for $2 from www.cheapbytes.com and with that
> > $2 investment I can install the OS on a thousand machines if I
> > want to. Legally.
>
> Linux is not a free product, you try to get that into your head. Have you
> walked into CompUSA and looked at the prices lately? I didn't think so.
> You didn't even buy your copy for $2 @cheapbytes, conveniently forgot to
> mention the shipping cost. So, you paid $7, which is NOT free. You don't
> want me to quote the definition of free, do you?
> I burn my own CDs for Linux from ISO images, even that is not free.
>
Get this. Linux is "free", in that it is freely distributable. It can
also be "free" in that you can DL it for free 0$. The 2$ you pay
cheapbytes is not for the software, it is for the CD. The shipping
charge is not for the software, it is for the shipping. You CAN DL it
for $0... free.
> >
> > > Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the
> > > Windows9x has not changed since 1995? That fact in itself is
> > > contradicting your statement.
> >
> > The fact that the price of Windows9x hasn't changed since 1995
> > shows that that they have raised prices.
>
> Sounds strange when you consider the rate of inflation...
>
Yes, it is strange, in that the volume costs have gotten very low, and
the price of the software hasnt.
> > Now that may seem like
> > a contradiction until you realize, as I have, that I paid $90
> > when Widows95 came out and another $90 for Windows98, for a total
> > of $180, and yet I have basically the same product (except for a
> > few bug fixes) that I had in 1995. So what I have in my hand
> > today is a $180 product.
>
> Did anyone force you to buy Windows98? And what is this stuff about
> "basically the same product"? They are not the same products, hence the
> reason that you bought it. Besides, you don't have $180 products in your
> hand. You have two old versions of the Windows OSs, which nobody needs.
>
Actually, untill M$ was pulled into court, you couldnt readily purchase
an Intel/clone computer without Windows pre-installed. It is still hard
to get one without Windows pre-installed, AND the cost of the Windows
removed from the purchase price.
Peter T. Breuer
: The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
: every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies budget
: more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
Can you be quite so naive and unaware of economics! The cost to YOU is
not the cost of the software you receive, but the cost in unreceived
software. Billy is quite happy for you to pay zilch for his software
if it keeps the opposition out. Then he can reap the licence fees from
people who want to sell on add software for his platform, and the
payments from the assembly shops who sell you the computer WITH the
O/S on it already (and charge you for it in their margin even if
you don't get it). And so on ... have you played monopoloy (the board
game)?
Peter
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> Not very good at maths, are you? Even if you get the full priced distro
>> of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can install that legally on as many
>> machines as you want. Yours, your companys, your friends, all at no extra
>> cost.
>>
>> Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
>> piracy.
> The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies budget
> more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
Nope. That's $30 per year, PER machine. A company with 50 machines would
have to pay $1500 (using YOUR costing, which is WILDLY inaccurate).
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Robert Moir
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vgmpc8...@ridcully.freenet.co.uk...
> In comp.os.linux.misc btolder wrote:
> >> Not very good at maths, are you? Even if you get the full priced distro
> >> of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can install that legally on as many
> >> machines as you want. Yours, your companys, your friends, all at no
extra
> >> cost.
> >>
> >> Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
> >> piracy.
>
> > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
> Nope. That's $30 per year, PER machine. A company with 50 machines would
> have to pay $1500 (using YOUR costing, which is WILDLY inaccurate).
Thats right, we pay far less than that for our windows licences. And you
don't think that $30 per person per year is cheap? I bet, that regardless of
what operating system they use, that the cost of supporting that user's
operating system and apps comes to a lot more than $30 per person per year.
Andrew Purugganan
: Crapzilla 6.0:
: http://home.netscape.com/browsers/6/index.html
on the contrary I think the bloat encourages it
--
jazz annandy AT dc DOT seflin DOT org
Registered linux user no. 164098-88940
Doesn't it bother you, that we have to search for intelligent life
--- OUT THERE??
fungus
btolder wrote:
>
> The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running
> about $90 every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year.
> Most companies budget more for office supplies and copies per
> employee per year.
Have you actually _seen_ the price of Windows 2000, Microsoft's
new "office" operating system????
Combine it with a copy of Office and you'll get a lot more than
$30 per year.
Now remember that this price is what nearly every computer
in every office in the entire world is earning Microsoft.
Do you still they aren't making much profit?
fungus
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> the cost of supporting that user's operating system and apps comes
> to a lot more than $30 per person per year.
Yep. The TCO of Microsoft operating systems has always been
one of the highest (all those reboots and reinstalls...)
Charles R. Lyttle
> > > bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
> > > 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
> > > years which is the case of the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the
> rest
> > > of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> > > compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar
> to
> > > Windows platform prices.
> >
> > Even if you get the full priced distro of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can
> > install that legally on as many machines as you want. Yours, your
> companys,
> > your friends, all at no extra cost.
> >
> > Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
> > piracy.
>
> every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies budget
> more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
you had no choice but run his applications. But people are still willing
to pay for the OS, which costs pennies to produce, but brings in dollars
(or pounds).
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Thank you Melissa!
Not Powered by ActiveX
shmar...@ticnet.com
Am I the only one who really finds this thread strange? To come into a
linux newsgroup and claim Microsoft has a monopoly is really bizarre.
--
btolder
Grant Edwards <nob...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:kfJH4.1029
> Except that they've never developed anything. Not anything new
> anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
> stuff other people invented.
Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
companies? What specific technologies?
btolder
Rick <theobvio...@aug.com> wrote in message
> Even if the price HAS stayedthe same, the price of everythig else has
> gone down, and the price of MS's OS as software has become a MUCH larger
> piece of a computer's purchase price. Add to that the fact that Microsft
> has driven compaines liike Go Computing out of business and the forced
> sale of Netscape and you show a very definite harm to consumers.
The cost of hardware has fallen because silicon follows a very specific
price curve. Software does not follow that same price curve.
Looking at fixed costs...If it took 10 software engineers 1 year to complete
a non-UI software project in C in 1990, it would take them about the same to
do it today in 2000. This isn't true with silicon design, in that EE's are
extremely leveraged here with new tools. A single EE today can out-design
their counterpart from 1990 several times over.
Add to that the fact that IC variable costs have fallen about 15X in the
last decade, and IC package costs have fallen about 40X in the same time.
Comparing software and hardware costs is completely invalid. Your argument
is uninformed and on par with what I'd expect to read in USA Today or from
Ralph Nader.
Rick
>
> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:iltnc8...@ridcully.freenet.co.uk...
> > In comp.os.linux.misc Otto <ot...@home.com> wrote:
> > > So you think that Windows 98 is a crime. Then you're probably screaming
> > > bloody murder when you look at Red Hat's version numbers, 5.0/5.1 and
> > > 6.0/6.1. The time elapsed between the versions isn't even close to three
> > > years which is the case of the Windows95/98 switch. Not to mention the
> rest
> > > of the Linux distributors and the fact that their R & D is minimal, when
> > > compared to Microsoft's. Yet, the price of the Linux distros are similar
> to
> > > Windows platform prices.
> >
> > Not very good at maths, are you?
> > Even if you get the full priced distro of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can
> > install that legally on as many machines as you want. Yours, your
> companys,
> > your friends, all at no extra cost.
> >
> > Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
> > piracy.
>
> The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies budget
> more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
Except that becasue of economies of scale, it SHOULD be MUCH cheaper.
--
Rick
> > In comp.os.linux.misc btolder wrote:
> > >> of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can install that legally on as many
> > >> machines as you want. Yours, your companys, your friends, all at no
> extra
> > >> cost.
> > >>
> > >> Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
> > >> piracy.
> >
> > > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
> budget
> > > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
> >
> > have to pay $1500 (using YOUR costing, which is WILDLY inaccurate).
>
> Thats right, we pay far less than that for our windows licences. And you
> don't think that $30 per person per year is cheap? I bet, that regardless of
> operating system and apps comes to a lot more than $30 per person per year.
Then you would lose that bet. The MacOS has been repeadedly show to have
a much lower ownership cost when support is factoredd in. Linux, FreeBSD
and the other *nix varieties can have a $0 purchase price, and are
certainly no more expensive to maintain.
Rick
It is not bizzare. It is now legal fact. A product does not have to have
a 100% market penetration to be declared a monopoly. Microsoft has a
90-95% share of the desktop and uses that position to kill competition
and mandate pricing. That is the definition of a monopoly.
Robert Moir
>
>
> Robert Moir wrote:
> >
> > the cost of supporting that user's operating system and apps comes
> > to a lot more than $30 per person per year.
>
> one of the highest (all those reboots and reinstalls...)
Really? I keep hearing this. I had win 98 on my machine for 18 months and
never had to reinstall it. I do admit the reboots were annoying though, in
98 and NT, and I am glad that Win2k has solved these problems.
But "all those reinstalls" - really? What could you of been doing wrong to
need to do that.
btolder
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vgmpc8...@ridcully.freenet.co.uk...
> In comp.os.linux.misc btolder wrote:
> >> Not very good at maths, are you? Even if you get the full priced distro
> >> of, say, SuSE at 25 quid, you can install that legally on as many
> >> machines as you want. Yours, your companys, your friends, all at no
extra
> >> cost.
> >>
> >> Try that with M$ windows, and see how fast you get accused of software
> >> piracy.
>
> > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
> Nope. That's $30 per year, PER machine. A company with 50 machines would
> have to pay $1500 (using YOUR costing, which is WILDLY inaccurate).
Well, thanks for the quick math there, hero. Yes, a company with 50 machines
would need 50 licenses. You are also right, a compay rolling out for 50
employees would pay much less than $30/year/seat.
My point still stands, however, that companies budget more per year per
employee for staples and post it notes than they do for Microsoft operating
systems. Your cost argument means nothing.
btolder
fungus <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in message
news:38F09B7A...@egg.chips.and.spam.com...
>
>
> Robert Moir wrote:
> >
> > the cost of supporting that user's operating system and apps comes
> > to a lot more than $30 per person per year.
>
> Yep. The TCO of Microsoft operating systems has always been
> one of the highest (all those reboots and reinstalls...)
Study after study refutes this even on Win95. Win2K was the final nail in
the coffin. Sorry.
btolder
Rick <theobvio...@aug.com> wrote in message
> Then you would lose that bet. The MacOS has been repeadedly show to have
> a much lower ownership cost when support is factoredd in. Linux, FreeBSD
> and the other *nix varieties can have a $0 purchase price, and are
> certainly no more expensive to maintain.
I can find a long list of articles stating Windows has a lower cost of
ownership (even compared to Mac), but have never seen an article stating
that to be true for Linux. Can you please provide a pointer?
btolder
Charles R. Lyttle <lyt...@flash.net> wrote in message
> > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
> Priced Office recently? Gates could give away the OS just to make sure
> you had no choice but run his applications. But people are still willing
> to pay for the OS, which costs pennies to produce, but brings in dollars
> (or pounds).
At work I simply click a button to install the latest software, and
microsoft is included in the list so I have no idea what my employer paid
for Office.
MS Office Upgrade standard comes with word, excel, powerpoint and outlook
and costs $229 (CompUSA). You can upgrade from just about anything,
including Lotus 2.x for DOS! So there really isn't any reason for anyone to
be paying for a non-upgrade version.
Corel is selling their suite for $289 (CompUSA) and it includes word
processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and a PIM application. It also offers
web publishing, which MS word does. It also doesn't have email.
So I don't see that Microsoft's office programs are all that unreasonable.
In fact, they are a much better value than something like Corel.
btolder
Rick <theobvio...@aug.com> wrote in message
> > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
> Except that becasue of economies of scale, it SHOULD be MUCH cheaper.
Microsoft runs the risk of being accused of "dumping" the OS if it is much
cheaper. The current climate is so tense that Microsoft is getting accused
of both dumping and over-charging in the same trial for the same product.
In any case, Microsoft has one the right to charge whatever they want for
their products. When Microsoft dumped their first billion into developing
Windows, there was zero assurance it would suceed. In fact, the heavyweights
at the time (IBM, Harvard Graphics, Lotus) all expected the market to go
another direction.
High risk bets return very high rewards. It is as simple as that.
Mats Olsson
>
>Rick <theobvio...@aug.com> wrote in message
>
>> a much lower ownership cost when support is factoredd in. Linux, FreeBSD
>> and the other *nix varieties can have a $0 purchase price, and are
>> certainly no more expensive to maintain.
>
>I can find a long list of articles stating Windows has a lower cost of
>ownership (even compared to Mac),
Cool. Mind posting an URL?
/Mats
The Fungus Among Us
fungus <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> writes:
>
>
> btolder wrote:
>>
>> The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running
>> about $90 every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year.
>> Most companies budget more for office supplies and copies per
>> employee per year.
>
> new "office" operating system????
>
> Combine it with a copy of Office and you'll get a lot more than
> $30 per year.
>
>
> Now remember that this price is what nearly every computer
> in every office in the entire world is earning Microsoft.
> Do you still they aren't making much profit?
Thing is, *legally*, companies are supposed to pay for every copy of the
software they use. It's right there on the license. I have no clue how
MS handles volume discounts for 25+ user companies, which I expect to be
somewhat cheaper than actually buying those 25+ copies in the store. How
much cheaper, I have no clue, but I rather doubt MS would just give them
away. That makes zero business sense for them, and they're not exactly in
the charity market, y'know...
As to how many companies buy *one* copy and put it on every workstation in
the house, well, I'm clueless on that too. They tell me Win98 is the most
pirated piece of software around. Legally, I suspect some companies are
doing naughty things. (grin)
Keven
Otto
"Grant Edwards" <nob...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:47:37 GMT, Otto <ot...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> >the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> >respect.
>
> anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
> stuff other people invented.
>
That would explain why Windows OS has 90+ % of the market share.
Otto
Otto
> > fungus (thanks) provided the correct link, but the content made no
> > difference.
> >
>
> Thats becasue you simply ignore the facts.
Facts or urban legends?
> > That remains to be seen if Microsoft will jack up the prices of their
> > products. You'd be hard to press to name another software company who's
> > software is cheaper than Microsoft's.
> >
>
> Thats true. There is less expensive software, but Microsoft's is
> definitely cheaper, even when it costs more.
Interesting logic.....
>
> > Again, it isn't something what other software companies are not doing.
Have
> > you ever looked at other software companies version numbers? There isn't
any
> > subtle difference between their versions either, why are you picking on
> > Microsoft?
> >
>
> I guess you didnt notice that Micorsoft engineer's have been quoting as
> saying W95 was merely device drivers added to W3.1.
And the urban legend continues....
>
> > Linux is not a free product, you try to get that into your head. Have
you
> > walked into CompUSA and looked at the prices lately? I didn't think so.
> > You didn't even buy your copy for $2 @cheapbytes, conveniently forgot to
> > mention the shipping cost. So, you paid $7, which is NOT free. You don't
> > want me to quote the definition of free, do you?
> > I burn my own CDs for Linux from ISO images, even that is not free.
> >
>
> Get this. Linux is "free", in that it is freely distributable. It can
> also be "free" in that you can DL it for free 0$. The 2$ you pay
> cheapbytes is not for the software, it is for the CD. The shipping
> charge is not for the software, it is for the shipping. You CAN DL it
> for $0... free.
The end result is the same, which is $7 including shipping. Downloading
isn't free either, one need a connection to the web (speedy one is
preferable) and a CD burner. Not to mention the cost of the CD in itself.
However you're correct, Linux is freely distributable with the exception of
the commercial software. I should know, I've been doing it since the RH
version 5.0.
> Actually, untill M$ was pulled into court, you couldnt readily purchase
> an Intel/clone computer without Windows pre-installed. It is still hard
> to get one without Windows pre-installed, AND the cost of the Windows
> removed from the purchase price.
>
That's not true, the last PC I bought with OS pre-installed had Windows3.1
on it. Since then this is my fifth PC and none of them came pre-loaded with
any OS. It is not Microsoft which installs the OS on the PCs, it is the
OEMs. They are also the ones who aren't willing to sell you the PC without
OS. Go to the small OEMs, they've been willing to sell PCs without OS since
1995.
Otto
btolder
Peter T. Breuer <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message news:8cpol5
> Can you be quite so naive and unaware of economics! The cost to YOU is
> not the cost of the software you receive, but the cost in unreceived
> software. Billy is quite happy for you to pay zilch for his software
> if it keeps the opposition out. Then he can reap the licence fees from
> people who want to sell on add software for his platform, and the
> payments from the assembly shops who sell you the computer WITH the
> O/S on it already (and charge you for it in their margin even if
> you don't get it). And so on ... have you played monopoloy (the board
> game)?
License fees? There is no license fee required to develop for Windows.
Sorry.
Per-processor licensing was stopped long ago. However, bundling of products
is still quite common. For example, Dell sells several models with a Logitec
mouse. They will not remove the mouse and give you credit. They will not
substitute the mouse. Why is this? Because it is a pain in the ass to
maintain different versions. There is nothing evil at work here, just
companies trying to minimize their options and just reduce their costs.
btolder
Mats Olsson <ma...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote in message
news:8cqt0p$s6g$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se...
> In article <eIsDuemo$GA.304@cpmsnbbsa04>, <btolder> wrote:
> >
have
> >> a much lower ownership cost when support is factoredd in. Linux,
FreeBSD
> >> and the other *nix varieties can have a $0 purchase price, and are
> >> certainly no more expensive to maintain.
> >
> >I can find a long list of articles stating Windows has a lower cost of
> >ownership (even compared to Mac),
>
> Cool. Mind posting an URL?
A URL? Hah. There's more than that. Go the MS sight and search on TCO. Then
get a cup of coffee and start browsing the links. I didn't post them because
it tends to make folks dwell on the problems with each study rather than
letting me make up my own mind.
I'd be happy to read something, anything, on Linux TCO even if it was
published by Linus himself.
Kevin
Otto wrote:
>
> That's not true, the last PC I bought with OS pre-installed had Windows3.1
> on it. Since then this is my fifth PC and none of them came pre-loaded with
> any OS.
Otto, don't you think it's odd that a large PC-manufacturing
company like IBM, who has their own operating systems, will
not sell you a PC without Windows on it? IBM will not sell
you a PC that is pre-loaded exclusively with OS/2. The best
you can get is OS/2 and Windows dual-boot. There's something
wrong there IMHO, Otto.
Kevin.
--
Java Programmer, Matrix fanatic
"There is no spoon."
- Neo
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Grant Edwards <nob...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:kfJH4.1029
>> Except that they've never developed anything. Not anything new
>> anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
>> stuff other people invented.
> Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
> companies? What specific technologies?
Transmeta?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles R. Lyttle
> > > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
> budget
> > > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
> > you had no choice but run his applications. But people are still willing
> > to pay for the OS, which costs pennies to produce, but brings in dollars
> > (or pounds).
>
> At work I simply click a button to install the latest software, and
> microsoft is included in the list so I have no idea what my employer paid
> for Office.
>
> MS Office Upgrade standard comes with word, excel, powerpoint and outlook
> and costs $229 (CompUSA). You can upgrade from just about anything,
> including Lotus 2.x for DOS! So there really isn't any reason for anyone to
> be paying for a non-upgrade version.
>
What if your customer wants to use an older version? Do you upgrade him
too? What do you do if your customer is the US Government and congress
hasn't allocated $15,000,000,000 to upgrade the government from 95 to
2000? Do you say ok, we use 2000 so we will buy you enough copies to
upgrade yourself and be compatible with our operation" ?
> Corel is selling their suite for $289 (CompUSA) and it includes word
> processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and a PIM application. It also offers
> web publishing, which MS word does. It also doesn't have email.
>
Makes my point. MS could give away their OS if it makes life for Corel
difficult. The money is in the applications not the OS.
> So I don't see that Microsoft's office programs are all that unreasonable.
> In fact, they are a much better value than something like Corel.
I didn't say they were unreasonable. Just that MS could give away the OS
to prevent or hinder competition for the Office products. Give away a
product that lists for $30 to insure the sale of a product that retails
for $400.
Charles R. Lyttle
> > btolder wrote:
> > > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
> budget
> > > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
> >
>
Nothing would prevent them from giving away their OS provided they
didn't require a contract prohibiting inclusion of non-MS applications.
The problem wasn't that they gave away IE, but that they make getting
good prices for the OS contingent on including IE and excluding
Netscape. MS could make a case that other OS vendors (Linux, FreeBSD)
give away their product, and that the per-unit-cost of Win2000 is so
near zero that the difference doesn't matter. If I thought there was a
snowballs chance in hades of MS adopting such a strategy, I would
mortgage the farm and buy more MS stock. But Gates is too much of a
control freak to do that.
Dances With Crows
<<nd3I4.14041$06.64075@wards>> shouted forth into the ether:
>"fungus" <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in message
>news:38F09B7A...@egg.chips.and.spam.com...
>> one of the highest (all those reboots and reinstalls...)
>
>never had to reinstall it. I do admit the reboots were annoying though, in
>98 and NT, and I am glad that Win2k has solved these problems.
>But "all those reinstalls" - really? What could you of been doing wrong to
>need to do that.
You've never worked in a big NT installation, have you? My current job
involves working with 3 or 4 other people keeping approx. 130 NT
workstations running and doing (ack) tech support for students/professors/
random people who call our phone number. All the machines are reloaded
from scratch every month, sometimes more often to keep up with the latest
crap^Wsoftware that the profs insist their students use.
Regarding the Lose98 bits, either you were very lucky, you didn't do very
much with it, or you're exceptionally good with 98. (tips cap)
[RANT]
These machines are all locked down fairly well. Most crud disabled,
C:\Temp the only really visible user-writable directory (and it's cleared
upon logout), and still important system files get thrashed. Unexplained
weirdness, like all the clip art vanishing, or "NTOSKRNL.EXE Missing or
corrupt--reinstall this file"[0], results in a complete reload because
it's easier/faster to spend 35 minutes Ghosting an image from the central
server than having someone with a clue figure out what went wrong and fix
it. Especially when there are ~20 Future Pointy-Haired Bosses screaming
that printer #4 is broken and the number of clued people is rapidly
approaching -(Infinity).[-1]
It wouldn't be so bad if we could just tell the bloody thing to reload
itself automatically, but no, we have to walk over to the machine, boot
from floppy, watch it to make sure the Ghost process starts OK, hang signs
threatening instant death to anyone who touches the machine when it's
going through its fragile self-check routine after Ghost finishes[1], then
go back, make sure nothing went wrong, and reboot for the 4th time to set
the BIOS back to booting from the hard disk only. Total waste of time and
effort.
[/RANT]
[-1] I'm getting stupider and so is everyone else there.
[0] This happens to one machine in particular every 4 or 5 days.
[1] If you click on any "OK" buttons during its self-check (which
resembles a normal login session and has tempting OK buttons displayed all
the time), the machine will forget its assigned IP address and be
completely useless. Gah.
--
Matt G / Dances With Crows \###| Programmers are playwrights
There is no Darkness in Eternity \##| Computers are lousy actors
But only Light too dim for us to see \#| Lusers are vicious drama critics
(Unless, of course, you're working with NT)\| BOFHen burn down theatres.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:m3k8i6o...@solo.david-steuber.com...
> ' Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
> ' companies? What specific technologies?
>
> Take off your blinders:
>
> C: AT&T
Actually, C was invented by Brian Kerningham and Dennis Ritchie. They
weren't working at AT&T when they invented it.
> C++: ibid
Yes.
> Unix: ibid
No, it was invented by the aforementioned people as a scaled down Multics.
> TCP/IP: ?
DOD Arpanet research.
> Sockets: University Of Southern California, Berkley.
Yes.
> Ethernet: Xerox PARC
I thought it was developed by DEC.
> GUI: Staford research institute, then Xerox PARC
There were GUI's even before that. Just not what we see today.
> Java: Sun
Java has fewer innovations than anything else. For instance, the JVM was
really just a take on the SmallTalk VM. The only thing innovative was their
useage of existing technologies, something which Microsoft does all the
time.
> WWW: Tim Berners-Lee/CERN
Though it's really based on Gopher, invented at the University of Minnesota.
> Browsers: Spyglass/Mozaic
NCSA created Mosaic.
> Audio/video streaming: Progressive Networks / Real Networks
No, these existed for a long time before that. Real just figured out a way
to compress the data to go over normal phone lines.
> True Type: Apple
In conjunction with Microsoft.
> PostScript: Adobe
PostScript is just another page layout language.
> Integrated Development Environment: Borland
Mainframes were doing for years before them.
> Spread Sheet: Dan Bricklen
Yes.
> Word Processor: WordStar?
Newspapers were using things similar to word procesors for years before
then.
> TeX: Donald E Knuth
Another page layout language.
> Computer Science: ibid
He's smart, but he's not THAT smart. Computer Science was based on
practices of the time.
> etc,etc,etc
>
> I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
> one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> innovation?
Mass market operating systems?
Certainly the integrated web browser.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:0127782b...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> > Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
> > the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
> > respect.
>
> large profits, and what's worse, they are continuing to extract
> huge amounts of money from their customers, without
> proportionately improving their products. For example, Word97
> costs the same as Word95 and yet the products are practically
> identical.
Spoken as someone that's never used both products extensively.
Word 97 offers tons of new featuers over Word 95. Hell, the help system
alone is a massive change. Other features of Office 97 that I used
extensively were table drawing (the ability to draw your tables with a
drawing tool, thus removing the awkwardness of resizing tables to fit
irregular areas). On the fly grammar checking was new, another huge change.
They were not "practically identical" by any shape of the imagination.
> People think Microsoft isn't raising prices, but when they sell
> you the same product multiple times (e.g.: Win95/98, Word95/97),
> if that isn't a subtle price increase what is?
Do you go out and buy a new model car every year just because it's new?
Probably not. Are you suggesting that GM is raising prices by coming out
with a new, practically the same model every year?
> > Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the
> > Windows9x has not changed since 1995? That fact in itself is
> > contradicting your statement.
>
> The fact that the price of Windows9x hasn't changed since 1995
> shows that that they have raised prices. Now that may seem like
> a contradiction until you realize, as I have, that I paid $90
> when Widows95 came out and another $90 for Windows98, for a total
> of $180, and yet I have basically the same product (except for a
> few bug fixes) that I had in 1995. So what I have in my hand
> today is a $180 product.
Then why did you upgrade? Obviously it was worth it to you to buy the
product, or you wouldn't have done it.
Erik Funkenbusch
> > Would you care to elaborate as to why the price of the Windows9x
> > has not changed since 1995?
>
> 98 was released. Windows 98 was cheap because they didn't
> actually put a lot of R&D into it, it's just Windows 95
> with a makeover.
Obviously you didn't take part of the Windows 98 beta program. A lot of
effort did go into it, and many massive changes. It's just that much of it
was under the surface. Hell, you don't just bolt on a new device driver
model, you completely dig up the foundation and relay it.
> Remember that they developed the whole of Windows 95 in
> the same timeframe as they did the makeover to produce
> Windows 98. This is stagnation of technology, and more
> evidence of somebody who doesn't need to work hard to keep
> their customers.
There was less effort put into Windows 98, than Windows 95, true. Most of
Microsofts resources were going into NT 5.
Even so, Windows 98 was essentially "done" almost a year before it was
released. They spent the better part of the next 6 months working on
Windows 3.1 compatibility and then the entire DOJ fiasco broke out.
In any event, it's no different than GM releasing a new model of car that is
nearly the same as last years model. The only "crime" Of windows 98, is
that they should have had a cheaper upgrade price for existing Windows 95
users.
Erik Funkenbusch
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
> have to pay $1500 (using YOUR costing, which is WILDLY inaccurate).
Have you looked at the cost of upgrading MacOS? it runs about $80 per
*YEAR* per machine.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Have you actually _seen_ the price of Windows 2000, Microsoft's
> new "office" operating system????
It's the same price as NT has always been, except that now there is an
upgrade price for Windows 9x.
Erik Funkenbusch
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
If Microsoft were selling it's OS for $10 a piece, would you be happy?
No, then you'd be yelling that Microsoft was unfairly "dumping" it's OS at
below market value to drive any potential competitors from entering the
market.
Erik Funkenbusch
> > Then, of course, they get charged with dumping.....
>
> Nothing would prevent them from giving away their OS provided they
> didn't require a contract prohibiting inclusion of non-MS applications.
> The problem wasn't that they gave away IE, but that they make getting
> good prices for the OS contingent on including IE and excluding
> Netscape.
Microsoft never excluded netscape. Not even from being installed on the
desktop.
They required that the IE icon not be removed. Those are two different
things.
> MS could make a case that other OS vendors (Linux, FreeBSD)
> give away their product, and that the per-unit-cost of Win2000 is so
> near zero that the difference doesn't matter. If I thought there was a
> snowballs chance in hades of MS adopting such a strategy, I would
> mortgage the farm and buy more MS stock. But Gates is too much of a
> control freak to do that.
I doubt the government would see it the same way as you.
btolder
>
> ' Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
> ' companies? What specific technologies?
>
> Take off your blinders:
>
> C: AT&T
> Unix: ibid
> TCP/IP: ?
> Sockets: University Of Southern California, Berkley.
> GUI: Staford research institute, then Xerox PARC
> WWW: Tim Berners-Lee/CERN
> Browsers: Spyglass/Mozaic
> Audio/video streaming: Progressive Networks / Real Networks
> PostScript: Adobe
> Integrated Development Environment: Borland
> Spread Sheet: Dan Bricklen
> Word Processor: WordStar?
> TeX: Donald E Knuth
> Computer Science: ibid
> etc,etc,etc
Good list. Now pick what you think is the best of the above. Hint: I'm going
to show you how any of the above are nothing but a collection of already
known ideas integrated together in a fashion that makes them very appealing.
Then I'll point out the failings of the technology you've selected, and show
how crappy it can be made to look when scrutinized with perfect hindsight.
But this should be familiar to you, since this is the tact most often taken
by microsoft's critics.
Hopefully it will prove the point that nobody really is doing **any**
ground-up innovation. Instead, it is an endless list of subtle tweaks and at
some point one of them grabs hold (for whatever reason).
> I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
> one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> innovation?
Bringing quality software to the masses at a reasonable price. Bill Gates is
to software what Henry Ford was to cars.
Floyd Davidson
>David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote
>> Take off your blinders:
>>
>> C: AT&T
>
>Ritchie. They weren't working at AT&T when they invented it.
Actually, C was invented by Dennis Ritchie with the assistance
of many other people, including Brian Kernighan and Ken
Thompson. Kernighan and Ritchie, as joint authors, wrote the
book which introduced C to the world, "The C Programming
Language", which was published in 1978, copyrighted by "Bell
Telephone Laboritories, Inc.". On the title page under the
authors names, is "Bell Laboratories".
American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) owned Bell Labs.
>> C++: ibid
>
>Yes.
>
>> Unix: ibid
>
>No, it was invented by the aforementioned people as a scaled
>down Multics.
Yes. It was invented by the same research group at AT&T's
research division, Bell Labs, but was never a "scaled down
Multics". Ken Thompson was primarily responsible for the
original concept.
See <http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html> for
Dennis Ritchie's history of C (with as much history of UNIX
as of C).
>> TeX: Donald E Knuth
>
>Another page layout language.
TeX is typesetter software, not a page layout language.
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Floyd Davidson
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:23:55 GMT, fungus <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> A cheap OS not tied to a particular hardware seller's machine ?
>>
>>
>>So what the hell is Unix?
>>
>>...or UCSD P-system (I've personally ported this one to an Atari ST).
>>
>>...or <fill in blanks here>
>>
>
>As I recall, there were WIndows NT versions that ran on the DEC
>Workstations, and I don't mean Alphas. In fact, there was a version
>of WIndows NT that actually ran on a VAX in its early days.
But what inovation was there in doing something that UNIX had been
doing 20 years before?
Floyd Davidson
>"fungus" <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > A cheap OS not tied to a particular hardware seller's machine ?
>>
>>
>> So what the hell is Unix?
>
Inexpensive... as in *free*.
Chad Myers
<btolder> wrote in message news:OAiWEiko$GA.265@cpmsnbbsa04...
>
> Grant Edwards <nob...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:kfJH4.1029
>
> > Except that they've never developed anything. Not anything new
> > anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
> > stuff other people invented.
>
> companies? What specific technologies?
The one company that is pushing technologies like XML, technologies
for the disabled, internationalization/localization, enterprise distributed
computing, client-side Internet application interaction, server-side
Internet application interaction, and much, much more: Microsoft.
Microsoft usually doesn't invent a lot of big innovations, they make them
usable for the general public.
Kinda like BASF. "We don't make <invention>, we make it <adjective>."
-Chad
shmar...@ticnet.com
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Rick wrote:
> shmar...@ticnet.com wrote:
> >
> > Am I the only one who really finds this thread strange? To come into a
> > linux newsgroup and claim Microsoft has a monopoly is really bizarre.
> > --
>
> It is not bizzare. It is now legal fact. A product does not have to have
> a 100% market penetration to be declared a monopoly. Microsoft has a
and the law can declare that pigs fly, but that don't make it so.
> 90-95% share of the desktop and uses that position to kill competition
> and mandate pricing. That is the definition of a monopoly.
and since Microsoft has not been able to kill linux, nor mandate it's
pricing, it follows that they do not have a monopoly.
I choose to use linux. Why should it bother me if someone else chooses to
use Windows?
Christopher Smith
> > The cost of M$ software is incredibly reasonable. It's running about $90
> > every 3 years for an OS upgrade. That's $30 per year. Most companies
budget
> > more for office supplies and copies per employee per year.
>
> Except that becasue of economies of scale, it SHOULD be MUCH cheaper.
Then, of course, they get charged with dumping.....
David Steuber
' Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
' companies? What specific technologies?
Take off your blinders:
C: AT&T
C++: ibid
Unix: ibid
TCP/IP: ?
Sockets: University Of Southern California, Berkley.
Ethernet: Xerox PARC
GUI: Staford research institute, then Xerox PARC
Java: Sun
WWW: Tim Berners-Lee/CERN
Browsers: Spyglass/Mozaic
Audio/video streaming: Progressive Networks / Real Networks
True Type: Apple
PostScript: Adobe
Integrated Development Environment: Borland
Spread Sheet: Dan Bricklen
Word Processor: WordStar?
TeX: Donald E Knuth
Computer Science: ibid
etc,etc,etc
I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
innovation?
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely"
brian moore
The Fungus Among Us <jam...@spamtrap.ctaz.com> wrote:
> Thing is, *legally*, companies are supposed to pay for every copy of the
> software they use. It's right there on the license. I have no clue how
> MS handles volume discounts for 25+ user companies, which I expect to be
> somewhat cheaper than actually buying those 25+ copies in the store. How
> much cheaper, I have no clue, but I rather doubt MS would just give them
> away. That makes zero business sense for them, and they're not exactly in
> the charity market, y'know...
Site licenses from Microsoft are not cheaper, at least not at around 100
units. Maybe for a thousand or a million systems....
The 'savings' is that you have less paperwork to deal with.
> As to how many companies buy *one* copy and put it on every workstation in
> the house, well, I'm clueless on that too. They tell me Win98 is the most
> pirated piece of software around. Legally, I suspect some companies are
> doing naughty things. (grin)
Not likely by end users. The vast majority of Windows piracy is done at
the distribution level (ie, boatloads of legit-looking software sold to
OEM's and small retailers). The end user (or the end user's IS staff)
gets a machine with Windows preinstalled: how could they pirate
something they already paid for?
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Christopher Smith
"Kevin" <kom...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:38F10DC8...@ottawa.com...
>
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > That's not true, the last PC I bought with OS pre-installed had
Windows3.1
> > on it. Since then this is my fifth PC and none of them came pre-loaded
with
> > any OS.
>
> Otto, don't you think it's odd that a large PC-manufacturing
> company like IBM, who has their own operating systems, will
> not sell you a PC without Windows on it? IBM will not sell
> you a PC that is pre-loaded exclusively with OS/2. The best
> you can get is OS/2 and Windows dual-boot. There's something
> wrong there IMHO, Otto.
That is merely another example of IBM's stupidity. Even when OS/2 was at
its peak and was a viable Windows competitor IBM wasn't including it on all
its machines (you had to specifically order it).
Christopher Smith
> didn't require a contract prohibiting inclusion of non-MS applications.
I sincerely doubt that if MS "sold" Windows for $0 _anywhere_ they wouldn't
be hit with dumping charges.
> The problem wasn't that they gave away IE, but that they make getting
> good prices for the OS contingent on including IE and excluding
> Netscape.
Proof ? I seem to remember them insisting that the Netscape (or any other)
icon not be included on the Desktop, but I don't recall anything at all
about it not being installed.
> MS could make a case that other OS vendors (Linux, FreeBSD)
> give away their product, and that the per-unit-cost of Win2000 is so
> near zero that the difference doesn't matter.
Linux and FreeBSD are not really competing in the same market as Win2k
(yet). And in the cases where they are, I'd imagine commercial
distributions are far more common.
> If I thought there was a
> snowballs chance in hades of MS adopting such a strategy, I would
> mortgage the farm and buy more MS stock. But Gates is too much of a
> control freak to do that.
It'd be about as likely as Apple giving away MacOS.
Christopher Smith
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:1L9I4.1285$9L.3...@ptah.visi.com...
> David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote in message
> news:m3k8i6o...@solo.david-steuber.com...
> > one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> > innovation?
>
>
> Certainly the integrated web browser.
A cheap OS not tied to a particular hardware seller's machine ?
Pjtg0707
>
>You've never worked in a big NT installation, have you? My current job
>involves working with 3 or 4 other people keeping approx. 130 NT
>workstations running and doing (ack) tech support for students/professors/
>random people who call our phone number. All the machines are reloaded
>from scratch every month, sometimes more often to keep up with the latest
>crap^Wsoftware that the profs insist their students use.
When I was a student at UIUC, we had a similar arrangement where PCs, Macs,
VAX, Sun, RS6000, RSX11, RT11 and god knows what else had to share resources
over DEC's bitnet and ip based lan.
The macs and PCs eneded up crashing
all the time, and the undergrads hired to be the sys admins were constantly
cussing because of never ending reinstalls. One of the undergrad sys admins,
by the way, was Marc Andresson, who was one of the perople who developed
Mosaic at NCSA, and later started Netscape with Jim Clark.
It turned out the reason the
PCs and macs were always crashing was because people who were using
the machines were constantly altering the system configurations to do
what they wanted to do and installing/deinstalling their softwares. Under
conditions like that, it's no wonder macs and pcs, whose file systems that
do not have sophisticated access controls, were always crashing.
I hardly think it's the fault of the OS to fail under conditions like
that.
Pjtg0707
>Charles R. Lyttle <lyt...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:38F0F5A5...@flash.net...
------------------------------snipped-----------------------
>
>Microsoft never excluded netscape. Not even from being installed on the
>desktop.
>
>They required that the IE icon not be removed. Those are two different
>things.
>
This is true. I have Netscape and IE happily coexisting on my Win98 machine.
I even have Real Player and Microsoft Media Player happyily coexisting
on the same desktop.
fungus
David Steuber wrote:
>
> I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
> one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> innovation?
>
Clippie the dancing paper clip, and....
.
.
.
...and I can't think of anything else.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
Mike Jones
> David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote in message
> news:m3k8i6o...@solo.david-steuber.com...
> > ' Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
> > ' companies? What specific technologies?
> > Take off your blinders:
> > C: AT&T
> Actually, C was invented by Brian Kerningham and Dennis Ritchie. They
> weren't working at AT&T when they invented it.
Only if you're playing semantic games. K&R were at Bell Labs.
>
> > C++: ibid
> Yes.
> > Unix: ibid
> No, it was invented by the aforementioned people as a scaled down Multics.
Do you mean no, it wasn't an innovation, or no, it wasn't At&T? Either way,
you're laughably wrong.
>
> > TCP/IP: ?
> DOD Arpanet research.
DoD *funded*. Invented, mostly, at BBN.
> > Sockets: University Of Southern California, Berkley.
> Yes.
> > Ethernet: Xerox PARC
> I thought it was developed by DEC.
Actually, it was Dec, Intel, and Xerox working together.
> > GUI: Staford research institute, then Xerox PARC
> There were GUI's even before that. Just not what we see today.
Not worth the name. Check the patents.
> > Java: Sun
> Java has fewer innovations than anything else. For instance, the JVM was
> really just a take on the SmallTalk VM. The only thing innovative was their
> useage of existing technologies, something which Microsoft does all the
> time.
Not having pointers? RMI? Boy, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid.
> > WWW: Tim Berners-Lee/CERN
> Though it's really based on Gopher, invented at the University of Minnesota.
Sort of the same way you're "based on" your parents, I guess.
> > Browsers: Spyglass/Mozaic
> NCSA created Mosaic.
Definitely give credit to NCSA for this one.
> > Audio/video streaming: Progressive Networks / Real Networks
> No, these existed for a long time before that. Real just figured out a way
> to compress the data to go over normal phone lines.
Really? Got an example? I didn't think so.
> > True Type: Apple
> In conjunction with Microsoft.
Well, no. Microsoft was an early adopter of the technology.
> > PostScript: Adobe
> PostScript is just another page layout language.
When you look at it that way, virtually *nothing* is innovative. The atom bomb
was just another firecracker. I hate the way Microsoft and their minions try to
drag everyone else down to their level.
> > Integrated Development Environment: Borland
> Mainframes were doing for years before them.
Again, examples? I spent a good bit of time working on mainframes, and the
closest thing I ever saw to an IDE was ISPF. Calling that an IDE is like saying
that a penguin is basically a headwaiter if you squint hard enough and tip
heavily.
> > Spread Sheet: Dan Bricklen
> Yes.
> > Word Processor: WordStar?
> Newspapers were using things similar to word procesors for years before
> then.
The real break was between "text processors" like ROFF, troff, TeX, and SCRIPT
(mainframe) and "word processors" that were more or less "WYSIWYG". Newspapers
had *text processors*, but not really word processors. Still, I'm not sure that
some of the work at PARC didn't predate WordStar.
> > TeX: Donald E Knuth
> Another page layout language.
Your ignorance is embarrassing, or at least should be.
> > I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
> > one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> > innovation?
> Mass market operating systems?
Perhaps if you ignore CP/M, among others.
> Certainly the integrated web browser.
Gee, here and I thought a big part of their antitrust defense was that the
browser *wasn't* integrated.
And let me say that I'm rather underwhelmed by the length of that list.
--
Mike Jones
Of all the Thompson gunners, Roland was the best....
fungus
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> A cheap OS not tied to a particular hardware seller's machine ?
So what the hell is Unix?
...or UCSD P-system (I've personally ported this one to an Atari ST).
...or <fill in blanks here>
--
fungus
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Have you looked at the cost of upgrading MacOS? it runs about $80 per
> *YEAR* per machine.
The cost of owning a computer is much more than the price
of the operating system and hardware.
Pjtg0707
>
>
>David Steuber wrote:
>>
>> I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
>> one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
>> innovation?
>>
>
>
>.
of DHCP? I think I have to go back to look up the references, but I seemed
to recall Microsoft and others in the industry moved away from bootp
and developed DHCP to the wya it is today.
>
>.
>
>.
>
>
>...and I can't think of anything else.
Pjtg0707
>>
>> A cheap OS not tied to a particular hardware seller's machine ?
>
>
>So what the hell is Unix?
>
>...or UCSD P-system (I've personally ported this one to an Atari ST).
>
>...or <fill in blanks here>
>
As I recall, there were WIndows NT versions that ran on the DEC
Workstations, and I don't mean Alphas. In fact, there was a version
of WIndows NT that actually ran on a VAX in its early days.
>
>
Kevin
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Kevin" wrote:
> >
> > Otto, don't you think it's odd that a large PC-manufacturing
> > company like IBM, who has their own operating systems, will
> > not sell you a PC without Windows on it? IBM will not sell
> > you a PC that is pre-loaded exclusively with OS/2. The best
> > you can get is OS/2 and Windows dual-boot. There's something
> > wrong there IMHO, Otto.
>
> That is merely another example of IBM's stupidity. Even when OS/2 was at
> its peak and was a viable Windows competitor IBM wasn't including it on all
> its machines (you had to specifically order it).
My point was that you cannot buy a PC from IBM that has
no operating system installed on it. You cannot even order
a PC from them that has only OS/2 installed on it. They
simply will not sell you one without Windows. If you ask
for one without Windows, they will say "no."
They will install a version of Windows on every PC they
sell. They HAVE to, even though they have their own
operating systems (note the plural).
Kevin.
--
Java Programmer, Matrix fanatic
"There is no spoon."
- Neo
Paul Lew
browser" setting as IE would be installed as the "default browser"; forgot
what it was, but had an app that just started the unused IE even when the
Netscape was set as the "default browser". So for a time, Netscape was
excluded....
Christopher Smith
"fungus" <sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote in message
news:38F13B8E...@egg.chips.and.spam.com...
>
>
> >
> > A cheap OS not tied to a particular hardware seller's machine ?
>
>
> So what the hell is Unix?
*Cheap* ?
Christopher Smith
And they are hardly alone in doing this (try buying a Mac without MacOS).
So what ? It's not IBM's responsibility to pander to every section of the
market. If IBM decides they want to sell "Windows PCs" why should they be
forced to spend time and money supporting and selling "Non-Windows PCs" when
multitudes of other sellers already do ?
Christopher Smith
"Paul Lew" <pa...@crane.li-po.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn8f2g0...@crane.li-po.edu...
All that shows is that the app was hardwired to use IE. Nothing Microsoft
can do about that.
Hal Burgiss
>
>Bringing quality software to the masses at a reasonable price. Bill Gates is
>to software what Henry Ford was to cars.
ROTFLMAO! Where's the punch line? Any color you want, just so it's
black?
--
Hal B
hburgiss@_SPAM_NOT_bellsouth.net
--
Charles R. Lyttle
> I sincerely doubt that if MS "sold" Windows for $0 _anywhere_ they wouldn't
> be hit with dumping charges.
>
If they sell it anywhere for $0, they have to sell it everywhere for $0.
For example, if they give it away in Japan, but charge in the US, Japan
will properly charge them with dumping. If you give it to my competitor,
and charge me, I will charge you with unfair trade practices.
> > The problem wasn't that they gave away IE, but that they make getting
> > good prices for the OS contingent on including IE and excluding
> > Netscape.
>
> Proof ? I seem to remember them insisting that the Netscape (or any other)
> icon not be included on the Desktop, but I don't recall anything at all
> about it not being installed.
>
See the trial testimony. Its there.
> > MS could make a case that other OS vendors (Linux, FreeBSD)
> > give away their product, and that the per-unit-cost of Win2000 is so
> > near zero that the difference doesn't matter.
>
> Linux and FreeBSD are not really competing in the same market as Win2k
> (yet). And in the cases where they are, I'd imagine commercial
> distributions are far more common.
>
The OS is free, you just pay for the disks, box, and book. You can also
download them all for free.
> > If I thought there was a
> > snowballs chance in hades of MS adopting such a strategy, I would
> > mortgage the farm and buy more MS stock. But Gates is too much of a
> > control freak to do that.
>
> It'd be about as likely as Apple giving away MacOS.
If they did that, I would by Apple stock instead. It would be even a
better buy than MS.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Thank you Melissa!
Not Powered by ActiveX
Charles R. Lyttle
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:37:58 GMT, Pjtg0707 <Pjtg...@Netscape.net> wrote:
> >>Charles R. Lyttle <lyt...@flash.net> wrote in message
> >
> >------------------------------snipped-----------------------
> >>
> >>Microsoft never excluded netscape. Not even from being installed on the
> >>desktop.
> >>
> >>They required that the IE icon not be removed. Those are two different
> >>things.
> >>
> >
> >This is true. I have Netscape and IE happily coexisting on my Win98 machine.
> >I even have Real Player and Microsoft Media Player happyily coexisting
> >on the same desktop.
> >
> But it took a while for Netscape to find out about the windows "default
> browser" setting as IE would be installed as the "default browser"; forgot
> what it was, but had an app that just started the unused IE even when the
> Netscape was set as the "default browser". So for a time, Netscape was
> excluded....
Netscape is dead, Ms has made an offer to the DoJ to un-bundle IE for
the OS, and start charging for it again.
Christopher Smith
> > I sincerely doubt that if MS "sold" Windows for $0 _anywhere_ they
wouldn't
> > be hit with dumping charges.
> >
>
> If they sell it anywhere for $0, they have to sell it everywhere for $0.
Why ? Nearly every other industry allows things like bulk discounts.
> For example, if they give it away in Japan, but charge in the US, Japan
> will properly charge them with dumping. If you give it to my competitor,
> and charge me, I will charge you with unfair trade practices.
I still doubt they'd be able to "sell" it for $0. Even if it was
"everywhere".
> > > The problem wasn't that they gave away IE, but that they make getting
> > > good prices for the OS contingent on including IE and excluding
> > > Netscape.
> >
> > Proof ? I seem to remember them insisting that the Netscape (or any
other)
> > icon not be included on the Desktop, but I don't recall anything at all
> > about it not being installed.
> >
>
> See the trial testimony. Its there.
Does the Findings of Fact count as "trial testimony" ? From them:
"Microsoft's license agreements have never prohibited OEMs from
pre-installing programs, including Navigator, on their PCs and placing icons
and entries for those programs on the Windows desktop and in the "Start"
menu."
> > > MS could make a case that other OS vendors (Linux, FreeBSD)
> > > give away their product, and that the per-unit-cost of Win2000 is so
> > > near zero that the difference doesn't matter.
> >
> > Linux and FreeBSD are not really competing in the same market as Win2k
> > (yet). And in the cases where they are, I'd imagine commercial
> > distributions are far more common.
> >
> The OS is free, you just pay for the disks, box, and book.
Thus it isn't free since it costs money.
> You can also
> download them all for free.
But most don't, that being the point.
Saying "but it's free" when nearly everyone pays for it, is useless.
> > > If I thought there was a
> > > snowballs chance in hades of MS adopting such a strategy, I would
> > > mortgage the farm and buy more MS stock. But Gates is too much of a
> > > control freak to do that.
> >
> > It'd be about as likely as Apple giving away MacOS.
> If they did that, I would by Apple stock instead. It would be even a
> better buy than MS.
But neither of them are likely to do it. At least not without getting into
trouble.
Hal Burgiss
wrote:
>> >
>> The OS is free, you just pay for the disks, box, and book.
>
>Thus it isn't free since it costs money.
You miss the point entirely.
>> You can also
>> download them all for free.
>
>But most don't, that being the point.
>
>Saying "but it's free" when nearly everyone pays for it, is useless.
Nonsense. People give it away all the time. The local LUG has gotten
many free copies of SuSE, Turbolinux and others. And they give them out
at events too. Anybody who wants a free copy here, can call the LUG.
They still have to pay for the bus ticket though (I mention this before
you do). Go to a trade and give away copies of MS and see who comes
knocking on your door.
Christopher Smith
"Hal Burgiss" <hbur...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8f2oe6....@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:01:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <drsm...@usa.net>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> The OS is free, you just pay for the disks, box, and book.
> >
> >Thus it isn't free since it costs money.
>
> You miss the point entirely.
No, I don't. *You* do.
I'm well aware of all the different levels of "freeness" the Linux crowd
like to talk about.
> >> You can also
> >> download them all for free.
> >
> >But most don't, that being the point.
> >
> >Saying "but it's free" when nearly everyone pays for it, is useless.
>
> Nonsense. People give it away all the time. The local LUG has gotten
> many free copies of SuSE, Turbolinux and others. And they give them out
> at events too. Anybody who wants a free copy here, can call the LUG.
> They still have to pay for the bus ticket though (I mention this before
> you do). Go to a trade and give away copies of MS and see who comes
> knocking on your door.
I'm sure, but we're talking about commercial entities, as I understand it,
and most of them will be purchasing Linux from a commercial vendor, along
with (hopefully) some support.
Erik Funkenbusch
machine.
> >I even have Real Player and Microsoft Media Player happyily coexisting
> >on the same desktop.
> >
> But it took a while for Netscape to find out about the windows "default
> browser" setting as IE would be installed as the "default browser"; forgot
> what it was, but had an app that just started the unused IE even when the
> Netscape was set as the "default browser". So for a time, Netscape was
> excluded....
Actually, Netscape did this first. There are HTML file types that are
assigned to a browser. Netscape just naturally set them to itself without
even prompting the user every time it was run. Microsoft and Netscape
agreed to prompt the user before doing it first.
Erik Funkenbusch
> > But it took a while for Netscape to find out about the windows "default
> > browser" setting as IE would be installed as the "default browser";
forgot
> > what it was, but had an app that just started the unused IE even when
the
> > Netscape was set as the "default browser". So for a time, Netscape was
> > excluded....
> Now you can get Netscape preinstallec, then you couldn't. Now that
> Netscape is dead, Ms has made an offer to the DoJ to un-bundle IE for
> the OS, and start charging for it again.
I got Netscape pre-installed on my Toshiba Laptops in 1996, 1997 and 1998.
It was right there on the desktop. This was before the lawsuit.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:38F1376E...@earthlink.net...
> > > C: AT&T
> > Actually, C was invented by Brian Kerningham and Dennis Ritchie. They
> > weren't working at AT&T when they invented it.
>
> Only if you're playing semantic games. K&R were at Bell Labs.
I thought at least one of them was a student at MIT at the time.
> > > C++: ibid
> > Yes.
> > > Unix: ibid
> > No, it was invented by the aforementioned people as a scaled down
Multics.
>
> Do you mean no, it wasn't an innovation, or no, it wasn't At&T? Either
way,
> you're laughably wrong.
I mean that I don't think either of them were employed by AT&T (or bell
labs) at the time. I could be wrong though.
> > > Ethernet: Xerox PARC
> > I thought it was developed by DEC.
>
> Actually, it was Dec, Intel, and Xerox working together.
The man usually given credit for being the "father" of Ethernet, worked at
DEC at the time.
> > > GUI: Staford research institute, then Xerox PARC
> > There were GUI's even before that. Just not what we see today.
>
> Not worth the name. Check the patents.
Why? Just because it's not the same as we use today?
> > > Java: Sun
> > Java has fewer innovations than anything else. For instance, the JVM
was
> > really just a take on the SmallTalk VM. The only thing innovative was
their
> > useage of existing technologies, something which Microsoft does all the
> > time.
>
> Not having pointers? RMI? Boy, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid.
SmallTalk didn't have pointers, and it existed for many years before Java.
RMI is little more then RPC.
> > > WWW: Tim Berners-Lee/CERN
> > Though it's really based on Gopher, invented at the University of
Minnesota.
>
> Sort of the same way you're "based on" your parents, I guess.
No, Gopher came before WWW and was part of the WAIS (Wide area information
system). I was using Gopher in 1992, and it had been around for quite a
while before that. This provided linked information that you moved a curser
over and clicked or hit enter to access it.
> > > Audio/video streaming: Progressive Networks / Real Networks
> > No, these existed for a long time before that. Real just figured out a
way
> > to compress the data to go over normal phone lines.
>
> Really? Got an example? I didn't think so.
PictureTel was doing Video Conferencing for years before this. The first
types of video conferencing were video streams across T1 lines.
> > > True Type: Apple
> > In conjunction with Microsoft.
>
> Well, no. Microsoft was an early adopter of the technology.
I distinctly recall reading about TrueType and Microsoft and Apple being in
a joint venture to work on it in the early 90's prior to System 7 shipping
(I read this in MacWorld on a System 7 special... of course System 7 didn't
ship for almost 2 years after that, but it's beside the point).
> > > PostScript: Adobe
> > PostScript is just another page layout language.
>
> When you look at it that way, virtually *nothing* is innovative. The atom
bomb
> was just another firecracker. I hate the way Microsoft and their minions
try to
> drag everyone else down to their level.
Other languages such as PCL were in existance at the time. The difference
with PostScript was that it was device independant and required a hefty
processor in the printer to interpret the language.
> > > Integrated Development Environment: Borland
> > Mainframes were doing for years before them.
>
> Again, examples? I spent a good bit of time working on mainframes, and the
> closest thing I ever saw to an IDE was ISPF. Calling that an IDE is like
saying
> that a penguin is basically a headwaiter if you squint hard enough and tip
> heavily.
ISPF had many of the features of an IDE, even by todays standards. It had a
text editor, submission facility, the ability to read output from the
submission, and you could embed debuggers and other facilities in it, or use
things like screen painters for CICS. And ISPF was considered "low end".
> > > Word Processor: WordStar?
> > Newspapers were using things similar to word procesors for years before
> > then.
>
> The real break was between "text processors" like ROFF, troff, TeX, and
SCRIPT
> (mainframe) and "word processors" that were more or less "WYSIWYG".
Newspapers
> had *text processors*, but not really word processors. Still, I'm not sure
that
> some of the work at PARC didn't predate WordStar.
WordStar wasn't WYSIWYG. It was DOS based.
> > > TeX: Donald E Knuth
> > Another page layout language.
>
> Your ignorance is embarrassing, or at least should be.
The only difference between TeX and PostScript is that PostScript is the
output of the processor while TeX is the input. They both serve the same
purpose, which is to define the page and the type. It's entirely possible
to create a printer that reads TeX natively, and i'm sure it's been done.
> > > I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
> > > one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> > > innovation?
> > Mass market operating systems?
>
> Perhaps if you ignore CP/M, among others.
CP/M wasn't "mass market" anymore than the Altair was.
I can't see CP/M selling more than a few thousand copies in any given year,
while Dos sold millions and Windows 10's of millions in a year.
> > Certainly the integrated web browser.
>
> Gee, here and I thought a big part of their antitrust defense was that the
> browser *wasn't* integrated.
No. In fact, Microsoft stated it was integrated. The DOJ tried to prove
that it wasn't, and failed. Then they tried to prove that it was
artificially integrated for no good reason which they got the judge to buy,
even though there were plenty of good reasons to do so.
> And let me say that I'm rather underwhelmed by the length of that list.
It wasn't meant to be comprehensive. Just a couple of examples.
Want a few more?
The Wheel Mouse.
On-the-fly-as-you-type grammar checking in Word 97 (others had done
on-the-fly spell checking before MS, but not grammar)
DirectX (or in other words, device independant low-level hardware access for
games).
Paul Black
>
> <btolder> wrote in message news:OAiWEiko$GA.265@cpmsnbbsa04...
> >
> > Grant Edwards <nob...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:kfJH4.1029
> >
> > > Except that they've never developed anything. Not anything new
> > > anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
> > > stuff other people invented.
> >
> > Where do you see the real innovation happening in this business? What
> > companies? What specific technologies?
>
> for the disabled, internationalization/localization, enterprise distributed
> computing, client-side Internet application interaction, server-side
> Internet application interaction, and much, much more: Microsoft.
>
> Microsoft usually doesn't invent a lot of big innovations, they make them
> usable for the general public.
ROTFL
Paul
Johan Kullstam
> I can't think of a single innovation to come out of Microsoft. Not
> one. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to Microsoft's most important
> innovation?
what about bob?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> "Grant Edwards" <nob...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message
> news:kfJH4.1029$9L.3...@ptah.visi.com...
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:47:37 GMT, Otto <ot...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Every company, which ever developed anything, will recuperate
>> >the cost of the R & D. Microsoft is not different in that
>> >respect.
>>
>> Except that they've never developed anything. Not anything new
>> anyway. MS products are mostly just bloated, crappy copies of
>> stuff other people invented.
>>
> That would explain why Windows OS has 90+ % of the market share.
No... MARKETTING would explain why windows has 90% Market share.
M$ isn't a software developer. It's a marketting company.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> My point still stands, however, that companies budget more per year per
> employee for staples and post it notes than they do for Microsoft operating
> systems. Your cost argument means nothing.
All right then. Add in downtime due to reboots (as everyone else is).
And take into account the VAST difference between $30 (or even $0) for the
entire company vs $1500...
Then add in the cost of M$ TURD and other "standards"...
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Willmann
> I choose to use linux. Why should it bother me if someone else chooses to
> use Windows?
because it inflicts negative network externalities on those who
don't. Just think of all those mindless MS users sending you their
documents in proprietary MS formats.
GErald
--
Seán Ó Donnchadha
>> >
>> > Unix: ibid
>>
>> No, it was invented by the aforementioned people as a scaled down Multics.
>
>Do you mean no, it wasn't an innovation, or no, it wasn't At&T? Either way,
>you're laughably wrong.
>
Unix was a castrated version of Multics. Its name is even a pun on
that. There was *NOTHING* innovative about it, at least in the first
version.
>>
>> Java has fewer innovations than anything else. For instance, the JVM was
>> really just a take on the SmallTalk VM. The only thing innovative was their
>> useage of existing technologies, something which Microsoft does all the
>> time.
>
>Not having pointers? RMI? Boy, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid.
>
Not having pointers was a Java innovation?! Man oh man, if the other
guy's on Kool-Aid, you must be in a crack coma! Not to mention that
Java does have pointers (although it calls them references).
>> >
>> > PostScript: Adobe
>>
>> PostScript is just another page layout language.
>
>When you look at it that way, virtually *nothing* is innovative. The atom bomb
>was just another firecracker. I hate the way Microsoft and their minions try to
>drag everyone else down to their level.
>
And I hate the way anti-Microsoft buffoons hold Microsoft to higher
standards than their pet companies and technologies.
Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG **
[Snip...]
|> Microsoft's most important
|> innovation?
"Bob" the GUI from Hell: a babysitter better sat by the babies themselves.
[Snip...]
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon the bogus email domain (dseg etc.) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.
Mats Olsson
Pjtg0707 <Pjtg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>It turned out the reason the
>PCs and macs were always crashing was because people who were using
>the machines were constantly altering the system configurations to do
>what they wanted to do and installing/deinstalling their softwares.
Which you have to do if you want to install/deinstall any software
on a PC/Mac. Sort of an inherent assumption when using a PC/Mac.
>Under conditions like that, it's no wonder macs and pcs, whose file
> systems that do not have sophisticated access controls, were always
> crashing. I hardly think it's the fault of the OS to fail under
> conditions like that.
You do have a point. Assuming that it's well known that Win9x and Macs
are are _PERSONAL_ computers and never should be used in multi-user
settings, it would be unfair to blame the OS for not being what it never
claimed to be.
/Mats
Mats Olsson
>
>Mats Olsson <ma...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote in message
>news:8cqt0p$s6g$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se...
>> In article <eIsDuemo$GA.304@cpmsnbbsa04>, <btolder> wrote:
>> >I can find a long list of articles stating Windows has a lower cost of
>> >ownership (even compared to Mac),
>>
>> Cool. Mind posting an URL?
>
>A URL? Hah. There's more than that. Go the MS sight and search on TCO. Then
>get a cup of coffee and start browsing the links. I didn't post them because
>it tends to make folks dwell on the problems with each study rather than
>letting me make up my own mind.
Really? You go to MS own page to get the word on low TCO? You don't
think that there might a bit of spin put on those reports?
/Mats, "lies, damn lies and statistics"
Floyd Davidson
>Mike Jones <mdj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> > Unix: ibid
>>>
>>> No, it was invented by the aforementioned people as a scaled down Multics.
>>
>>Do you mean no, it wasn't an innovation, or no, it wasn't At&T? Either way,
>>you're laughably wrong.
>>
>
>Unix was a castrated version of Multics. Its name is even a pun on
>that. There was *NOTHING* innovative about it, at least in the first
>version.
The file permissions scheme, and command line redirection using
'>', '<', and '|', all of which made the concept of processes
which are connected to each other a rather innovative idea, at
that time.
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Robert Wiegand
> > You must be new to this industry. Follow the link below, then
> > come back and tell us if you still have trouble believing the
> > story:
> > http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=282694102
>
> The link produces a 404 error, evidently the urban legend what you were
> referencing no longer exists.
No, it is just a bad link in the e-mail - only part of the path gets used.
Type in the full path and it works.
--
Regards,
Bob Wiegand wie...@enteract.com
Floyd Davidson
>"Floyd Davidson" <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
>news:87ln2mj...@barrow.com...
>
>In the early 80s ? Which Unix was that ?
In the early 80's AT&T was not *allowed* to sell UNIX at all! It
was free... to those who could get it (Stanford and USCB, for
example).
By the late 80's there were several inexpensive versions of UNIX
available. By the early 90's there were several free versions.