Should Bill Gates be sent to Prison?
Gennica Hamilton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
collar criminal.
His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
stole code from competitors...
The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics have
been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
been returned to the rightful owners...
---
Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
--
1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications, Languages.
These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
a period of 10 years.
2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
or press releases for a period of 5 years.
5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
operating system releases.
6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
fully operational before any operating systems releases.
7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
___
I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
out and solve this problem now...
It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
Gennica
-
daoud
>...it is now known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
Gennica's post, taken as a whole, is patently ridiculous, and the above
quote is untrue and libelous. Shame on Gennica.
daoud, User of Macs and Only Macs
Gennica Hamilton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
collar criminal.
His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
stole code from competitors...
The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
since its users are now guilty of using stolen property...
All in all, it doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what
Xerophyte
On the contrary, Gennica is quite correct. But she's too lenient. Instead of
having that lizard Gates an billiard-ball Ballmer prohibited from Microsoft for 5
years, they ought to be put into prison for 5 years.
A crime is a crime, whether it's killing (or attempting to) a human or killing (or
attempting to) competition. (See Apple, Commodore Amiga, OS/2, probably Atari,
Netscape, AOL, Compuserve {latter two were competitors for MSN}, the first three
were PC makers - PCs which weren't based on Intel processors, thank God)
It's worth noting Microsoft spent $150 mil on Apple so they could gain another
upper-hand with Apple and to ensure Microsoft doesn't meet Sherman...
A crime is a crime, whether it's burglarising somebody's house or stealing another
company's code or idea, or the feel of a product -- (See Apple, the makers of QDOS
{DOS was crap anyway but that's irrelevent})
A crime is a crime, whether it's perjury on the stand about being innocent or
outright lieing to the public about your product's capabilities. (see Office95 or
Windows95, about anything written on the box [designed by a Mac, no less])
A crime is a crime, whether it's date rape or teaming up with a "competitor" in a
joint effort to make a new-generation product, or even a marketing/sales
agreement. (See Apple or OS/2 for the new-generation product and Spyglass (the
maker of IE) for the marketing/sales agreement)
Also, Capitalism doesn't really work if there's nobody but a handful of monopolies
running everything.
Edward P Scholl
: Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
you're not too bright are you genny?
: 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications, Languages.
: These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
: a period of 10 years.
no exchange? then how the hell is the applications part supposed to make
programs that work with the operating system?
: 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
: contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
: 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
: unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
: software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
of course i'm sure you know who should get how much?
: 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
: or press releases for a period of 5 years.
uhhh, why? whether you like their innovations, you can't say they haven't
had any. and what if they come out with something that is REALLLY innovative?
: 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
: operating system releases.
yeah. great. just what i want. AOL included. isn't that giving aol an
unfair advantage over all the other isp's? that sounds kinda unfair to me.
: 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
: fully operational before any operating systems releases.
do you know how much software is out there? what exactly would constitute
"full" testing?
: 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
: for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
: I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
: will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
: out and solve this problem now...
i think you're off your rocker if you think everyone will agree that the above
is very reasonable...
: It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
: goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
: penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
if they're only going to grow fatter and dumber as time goes on, that seems
like it'd be the PERFECT reason to leave them alone- they'd pretty much
become uncompetitive and self-destruct, no?
-ed
Bob the Sane
Scholl) wrote:
>Gennica Hamilton (ge...@ccms.net) wrote:
>: Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
>
>you're not too bright are you genny?
>
>: 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications, Languages.
>
>: These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
>: a period of 10 years.
>
>no exchange? then how the hell is the applications part supposed to make
>programs that work with the operating system?
>
Probably the same way the rest of the world does?
<snip>
>: 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
>: or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>
>uhhh, why? whether you like their innovations, you can't say they haven't
>had any. and what if they come out with something that is REALLLY innovative?
>
They really haven't. They copied everyone else, starting from day
one.
>: 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
>: operating system releases.
>
>yeah. great. just what i want. AOL included. isn't that giving aol an
>unfair advantage over all the other isp's? that sounds kinda unfair to me.
>
AOL already has an icon in the online services folder.
<snip>
>: 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
>: for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
>
>: I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
>: will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
>: out and solve this problem now...
>
>i think you're off your rocker if you think everyone will agree that the above
>is very reasonable...
>
I think it is. It might even be a little light .
>: It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
>: goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
>: penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
>
>if they're only going to grow fatter and dumber as time goes on, that seems
>like it'd be the PERFECT reason to leave them alone- they'd pretty much
>become uncompetitive and self-destruct, no?
>
>-ed
And take out how much of the industry with them? They've already
damaged this industry for all time, I'd hate to imagine them being
left alone another five years.
Pinochet
Xerophyte wrote in message <363CA67F...@pclink.com>...
daoud wrote:
Gennica Hamilton wrote, inter alia:
>>>...it is now known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars >>>and
thieves.
>> Gennica's post, taken as a whole, is patently ridiculous, and the
>>abovequote is untrue and libelous. Shame on Gennica.
> daoud, User of Macs and Only Macs
>Why do you say that Gennica is wrong?
Actually, he doesn't. Just that it's ridiculous...the closest to wrong
is that untrue, which, yes that claim very much is.
>On the contrary, Gennica is quite correct. But she's too lenient.
>Instead of having that lizard Gates an billiard-ball Ballmer >prohibited
from Microsoft for 5 years, they ought to be put into
>prison for 5 years.
Right. Cost the gov't more money for no good reason.
>A crime is a crime, whether it's killing (or attempting to) a human or
>killing (or attempting to) competition. (See Apple, Commodore >Amiga,
OS/2, probably Atari, Netscape, AOL, Compuserve {latter >two were
competitors for MSN}, the first three were PC makers - >PCs which weren't
based on Intel processors, thank God)
No, killing competition or attempting to is not a crime. Certain methods
of it are, yes, but that's not the same. As for your examples Commodore
and Atari lost out because they did stupid things, OS/2 was poorly pushed
by IBM(almost not at all), and AOL and Compuserve seem to be growing
strong. Apple and Netscape are fine as they are, and if they suffered
somewhat, hey, that's not wrong. There's nothing that says companies have
to play nice.
>A crime is a crime, whether it's burglarising somebody's house or
>stealing another company's code or idea, or the feel of a product -- >(See
Apple, the makers of QDOS {DOS was crap anyway but >that's irrelevent})
Look and feel has been determined *not* to be a crime. Certain idea's are
also not patentable, copyrightable, or otherwise protectable....and you do
know that Xerox had the idea of a GUI *before* Apple did, don't you?
>A crime is a crime, whether it's date rape or teaming up with a
>"competitor" in a joint effort to make a new-generation product,
That's now wrong? Oh dear, I guess there's a lot of crime going on that
should be dealt with post-haste.. You do know that companies like GM,
Ford, Chrysler, Toyota frequently work together for research purposes?
So do IBM and Motorola for that matter.
Working with other companies isn't automatically a crime, nor should it
be...
> or even a marketing/sales agreement. (See Apple or OS/2 for the
>new-generation product and Spyglass (the maker of IE) for the
>marketing/sales agreement)
Those are also inherently wrong? Uh-oh. Better send out the guns
against Pepsi and Coke who have exclusive sales agreements with all sorts
of places(for example the local university only has Pepsi machines, no
Cokes..)
>Also, Capitalism doesn't really work if there's nobody but a handful >of
monopolies running everything.
Actually, that's not capitalism.
Pinochet
Bob the Sane wrote in message <363cb6c7...@news.aracnet.com>...
>>Gennica Hamilton (ge...@ccms.net) wrote:
>>: 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems,
>>:Applications, Languages.
>>: These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of
>>:exchange for a period of 10 years.
>>no exchange? then how the hell is the applications part >>supposed to
make programs that work with the operating >>system?
>Probably the same way the rest of the world does?
That would be include calling, e-mailing and other sorts of exchanges with
Microsoft, such as subscribing to MSDN.
>>: 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all
>>:future operating system releases.
>>yeah. great. just what i want. AOL included. isn't that giving aol
>>an unfair advantage over all the other isp's? that sounds kinda >>unfair
to me.
>AOL already has an icon in the online services folder.
Which they pay for. And which any other company can also pay for, if they
so desire. I'd rather MS *not* allow companies to do that, or the OEMs
do it either, but they don't ask me. (And yes, Apple does it too, that's
why Earthlink gets so many iMac customers..)
>>if they're only going to grow fatter and dumber as time goes on, >>that
seems like it'd be the PERFECT reason to leave them >>alone- they'd pretty
much become uncompetitive and self->>destruct, no?
>And take out how much of the industry with them?
Who cares? It's not like any of the above solutions aren't going to
have problems. Not that one can prove either way what will go happen
with either solution.
>They've already damaged this industry for all time,
IMO, neither Microsoft, nor any other company, should be held responsible
for ensuring that the industry develops perfectly. Not that there's any
way to determine that, but that's another matter.
>I'd hate to imagine them being left alone another five years.
And I'd hate to imagine another AT&T break-up-esque fallout.
Pinochet
Mark Grindell wrote in message
<01be067e$de440c00$1d00...@mark.xenotech.com.au>...
>The important thing is simply to stop Microsoft.
HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the consumer.. All
it will probably do is help MS's competitors...and I just can't agree to
that being a desirable goal. It's plain and simply, ludicrous. You
want to help the consumer? Fine, do that, but don't pretend that the
solution merely involves hurting Microsoft.
Edward P Scholl
: >no exchange? then how the hell is the applications part supposed to make
: >programs that work with the operating system?
: >
: Probably the same way the rest of the world does?
uhh, software companies write apps for windows with *aboslutely no exchange
with microsoft*? i don't think so...
: >uhhh, why? whether you like their innovations, you can't say they haven't
: >had any. and what if they come out with something that is REALLLY innovative?
: They really haven't. They copied everyone else, starting from day
: one.
*sigh* you may not like their stuff, but saying they have never innovated
anything is just silly.
: >: 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
: >: operating system releases.
: >
: >yeah. great. just what i want. AOL included. isn't that giving aol an
: >unfair advantage over all the other isp's? that sounds kinda unfair to me.
: AOL already has an icon in the online services folder.
uhh, which release? i don't have an online services folder...
: >: I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
: >: will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
: >: out and solve this problem now...
: >
: >i think you're off your rocker if you think everyone will agree that the above
: >is very reasonable...
: I think it is. It might even be a little light .
and since when did you constitute *everyone*?
: >: It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
: >: goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
: >: penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
: >
: >if they're only going to grow fatter and dumber as time goes on, that seems
: >like it'd be the PERFECT reason to leave them alone- they'd pretty much
: >become uncompetitive and self-destruct, no?
: And take out how much of the industry with them? They've already
: damaged this industry for all time, I'd hate to imagine them being
: left alone another five years.
and what specific damage would you be referring to?
-ed
Chris Welch
>
> Gennica Hamilton wrote, inter alia:
>
> >...it is now known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
>
> Gennica's post, taken as a whole, is patently ridiculous, and the above
> quote is untrue and libelous. Shame on Gennica.
>
> daoud, User of Macs and Only Macs
What about all of the companies MS tells "Oh, yes, we'll work with you.
Just show us some of your new code." Then they steal it and drop the
company sad, alone, used, and unfulfilled.
Chris Welch
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> __|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
> __|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
> collar criminal.
>
> His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
> partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
> stole code from competitors...
>
> The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
> and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
>
> The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
> since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
> known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
>
> It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics have
> been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
> been returned to the rightful owners...
>
Our capitalist system doesn't care about what's right. It's a good idea,
but it might be hard to do.
> ---
>
> Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
>
> --
>
> 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications, Languages.
>
> These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
> a period of 10 years.
>
Sounds fair enough
> 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
> contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
>
Get rid of Gates completely
> 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
> unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
> software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
>
What about the users? What about the lost 100 page dissertations?
> 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
> or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>
I don't really agree with that, though.
> 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> operating system releases.
>
Well, Gates actually said something cool (I know, I was scared too).
Making him put navigator in windows is like making coke put 1 pepsi in
every six pack.
> 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
> fully operational before any operating systems releases.
>
Preferably by the public
> 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
> for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
They should never do it at all.
>
> ___
>
> I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
> out and solve this problem now...
>
> It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
> goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
> penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
>
> Gennica
>
> -
It's scary. I actually agree with you. Weird.
Mark Grindell
the most powerful software at absolutely zero cost, all that kind of thing
is totally irrelevant.
In a mathematical argument, the simpler your suppositions are, or even, the
WEAKER they are, the better the resulting proof.
For example, if you want to show that numbers in a certain subset (P) do
not satisfy a certain property, it is more satisfying to show that a larger
subset Q, containing P has this property. The proof is more satisfying if
the subset Q is larger in some sense.
The arguments for Microsoft being removed or disabled in some way are all
very well and good, and quite convincing. It is clear that a good deal of
journalistic skill has been employed, and in some case, especially those of
Genicca Hamilton, quite appropriate - a measured response.
But in the end, it is probably a fair assessment to say that many of these
arguments have as their foundation a tendency to judge Microsoft on merit.
This is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed. It might be possible (with a
very unreliably independence of the American commercial law system) to come
up with a large set of bogus evidential statements which allow this process
to be abated.
It is much better to remove such foundations altogether from such
arguments. It is far more important, for everybody's future, to remove
Microsoft altogether. Stop giving merit based excuses for them - they will
simply use these and go onwards, destroying whatever industry is there and
abusing the judicial system.
I think you should be very careful to note that once the degree of
compromise is reached by Microsoft to the extent required to allow them to
continue, you have the very frightening prospect of a judicial system
probably permanently compromised for many other purposes, quite unrelated
to Microsoft's' endeavors.
This corruption is likely to be highly contagious, and flow over into other
areas of public life. If Microsoft can subvert the judiciary, then other
companies, some in fields quite unrelated to Microsoft, will "have a go"
too.
Unless the destruction or breakup of Microsoft can be successfully
achieved, it is possible that the eventual rule of law in this and other
spheres will be deeply compromised.
This whole argument is not just about Microsoft. It is a much more broadly
based issue, and has implications far beyond the apparent scope of any of
these posts.
Mark Grindell
Edward P Scholl <sch...@joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote in article
<71ibql$khg$1...@joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu>...
> Gennica Hamilton (ge...@ccms.net) wrote:
> : Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
>
> you're not too bright are you genny?
>
> : 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
Languages.
>
> : These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange
for
> : a period of 10 years.
>
> no exchange? then how the hell is the applications part supposed to make
> programs that work with the operating system?
>
> : 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have
no
> : contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
> : 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by
the
> : unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
> : software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
>
> of course i'm sure you know who should get how much?
>
> : 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its
advertising,
> : or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>
> uhhh, why? whether you like their innovations, you can't say they
haven't
> had any. and what if they come out with something that is REALLLY
innovative?
>
> : 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> : operating system releases.
>
> yeah. great. just what i want. AOL included. isn't that giving aol an
> unfair advantage over all the other isp's? that sounds kinda unfair to
me.
>
> : 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it
is
> : fully operational before any operating systems releases.
>
> do you know how much software is out there? what exactly would
constitute
> "full" testing?
>
> : 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer
software
> : for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be
divested.
>
> : I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> : will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure
it
> : out and solve this problem now...
>
> i think you're off your rocker if you think everyone will agree that the
above
> is very reasonable...
>
> : It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
> : goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and
"fairly"
> : penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
>
> if they're only going to grow fatter and dumber as time goes on, that
seems
> like it'd be the PERFECT reason to leave them alone- they'd pretty much
> become uncompetitive and self-destruct, no?
>
> -ed
>
Loren Petrich
Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the consumer..
It does, because it gets a major pest out of the way.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
TimeWarp
practices. I will let the courts decide what actions of Microsoft are
subject to the law.
Microsoft employs 22 thousand people. Thanks to Microsoft, the software
business is centered in the US. This includes the thousands of software
companies that have ridden the Windows wave. Yea, Microsoft must compete
fairly. Yes they should be held accountable for any illegal activities they
have been involved in.
All I am saying is let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
-jls
Chris Welch <899...@128.128.92.93> wrote in message
<363CC49A...@128.128.92.93>...
>Gennica Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> __|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> | |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
>> __|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>>
>> Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
>> collar criminal.
>>
>Oh, right and sending him to jail is a good idea. Sure, whatever.
>
>> His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
>> partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
>> stole code from competitors...
>>
>> The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
>> and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
>>
>> The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
>> since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
>> known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
>>
>> It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics
have
>> been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
>> been returned to the rightful owners...
>>
>Our capitalist system doesn't care about what's right. It's a good idea,
>but it might be hard to do.
>> ---
>>
>> Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
>>
>> --
>>
>> 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
Languages.
>>
>> These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
>> a period of 10 years.
>>
>
>Sounds fair enough
>
>> 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
>> contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
>>
>Get rid of Gates completely
>
>> 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by
the
>> unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
>> software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
>>
>What about the users? What about the lost 100 page dissertations?
>
>> 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
>> or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>>
>I don't really agree with that, though.
>
>> 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
>> operating system releases.
>>
>Well, Gates actually said something cool (I know, I was scared too).
>Making him put navigator in windows is like making coke put 1 pepsi in
>every six pack.
>
>> 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it
is
>> fully operational before any operating systems releases.
>>
>
>Preferably by the public
>
>> 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
>> for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be
divested.
>
>They should never do it at all.
>>
>> ___
>>
>> I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
>> will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
>> out and solve this problem now...
>>
>> It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
>> goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and
"fairly"
>> penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
>>
Pinochet
Loren Petrich wrote in message ...
>In article <71j1eg$il1$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>>HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the >>consumer..
> It does, because it gets a major pest out of the way.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't necessarily mean diddly, especially considering
that all that might happen is a simple replacement with someone else.
That's hardly more desirable. You want to increase competition in certain
segments of the computer industry? Fine, but don't pretend that the
solution only requires you to remove one company. Or that that is the
best solution for that matter.
And think of what does happen if MS is "stopped" meaning no more products
from them. No MS, means consumers are probably going to be at least a
little skittish about buying new computer products. That means less
software and hardware is sold. That means those companies have to cut
corners, which means both firings and stopping of research, along with
cutting of supply orders which means more companies lose business, which
goes on and on from there. You shouldn't just play around with billions
of dollars and not look at the possible consequences.
Kerry Westfall
> collar criminal.
I think you have your words mixed up. Criminal->Hero.
>
> His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
> partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
> stole code from competitors...
You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildy naive and
paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code. MS has many of the worlds best
coders, I have met many of them. And as far as stealing ideas? Study your
history. EVERY Company adopts an original idea. Look at every product
availible today and try to guess how many of them are 100% original. This
whole industry is based on sharing ideas. Maybe you should get a clue by
using your "IBM Clone PC."
>
> The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
> and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
>
> The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
> since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
> known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
Laughing stock? By who? I have seen maybe 3-4 MS haters in my life (besides
those on this ng) and they, much like you, had a very shallow and
narrow-minded view.
>
> It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics have
> been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
> been returned to the rightful owners...
*sigh* You must live in a cardboard box under the street.
> 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
Languages.
We are already broken up into 3 sections, apps, languages and os's
> These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
> a period of 10 years.
Where do we live again? Cambodia?
>
> 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
> contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
Someone needs their prozac.
> 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
> unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
> software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
Ok, so then MS should be paid by all the companies that developed teir
software using WINDOWS API's then right? Since MS did develop API and win32
programming architectures. But those were made free you say? Well, so were
these other products MS supposedly stole, free in that anyone could look at
them and develop there own ideas based on that product. DesQview anyone? How
about OS/2.
> 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
> or press releases for a period of 5 years.
So, no one else can either, right?
> 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> operating system releases.
Two out of three, we include AOL and Explorer in all of our OS's. So, OS/2,
*NIX and MAC must all include explorer right? Yes, IE is developed on all
platforms.
>
> 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
> fully operational before any operating systems releases.
We already do that, on all of our products.
>
> 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
> for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
So, this includes everyone right? All software and hardware companies spend
considerable time scoping out competitors, you just choose to hate MS
because, well I don't knw why exactly, because MS is successful maybe?
>
> ___
>
> I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
> out and solve this problem now...
Agree? Hardly. Reasonable? Definately not.
- Kerry
*** All opinions expressed are mine and mine alone, I do NOT represent
Microsoft Inc. or any of its subsidiaries in any way. **
Chad Irby
> You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildy naive and
> paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code.
This is completely false, and you should know better.
Two simple examples:
Stac vs. Microsoft (when MS stole Stac's disk compression software).
The "Video for Windows = QuickTime" situation, when Microsoft
intentionally hired a company with access to Apple's QT source code to
"write" Video for Windows, and got caught. This has been covered meny
times here, and the whole story is just starting to be noticed by some of
the media. Microsoft is paying some quite large "licensing fees" to Apple
because of this.
> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
And what, pray tell, have they ever "innovated?" Name three. Hell, name
*one* real innovation out of Microsoft in the last decade.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Ola Jensen
>it will probably do is help MS's competitors...and I just can't agree to
>that being a desirable goal. It's plain and simply, ludicrous. You
>solution merely involves hurting Microsoft.
Bill gates and mickeysoft should DIE AND DIE AND DIE AND DIE!!!
--
TEAM *AMIGA*
-----------------------------------
4pLaY
--
Ola Jensen
>Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
--
TEAM *AMIGA*
4pLaY
--
Jerry Coffey
>>
>> You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildy naive and
>> paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code.
>
>This is completely false, and you should know better.
>
>Two simple examples:
>
>Stac vs. Microsoft (when MS stole Stac's disk compression software).
>
I am *REALLY* sick of this myth. MS didn't steal anything from Stac.
They developed their product in-house, but they used an algorithm
similar to one that Stac had patented. The problem is that the
algorithm is totally obvious to anyone familiar with data compression,
so Stac should never have gotten the patent for it in the first place
(but did due to the cluelessness of the patent office).
Imagine if id Software had patented the use of texture mapping and BSP
trees for games, back when Doom first came out. If they had done that,
*NOBODY* but id Software would be able to create competitive 3D games
today. *THAT*'s the kind of patent Stac held.
Stephen Edwards
: I'm sorry, but that doesn't necessarily mean diddly, especially considering
: that all that might happen is a simple replacement with someone else.
It would seem that many "youngsters" are a bit dense when it comes to
understanding that, when there's money involved, ANY corporation would do
ANYTHING within their abilities to stay on top. Many of today's young
OS/2 users were too young to remember the old IBM days of "domination".
: And think of what does happen if MS is "stopped" meaning no more products
: from them. No MS, means consumers are probably going to be at least a
: little skittish about buying new computer products. That means less
: software and hardware is sold. That means those companies have to cut
: corners, which means both firings and stopping of research, along with
: cutting of supply orders which means more companies lose business, which
: goes on and on from there. You shouldn't just play around with billions
: of dollars and not look at the possible consequences.
Are you deliberately trying to scare the sh** out of me, Pinochet?! :)
This scenario is quite possible. And, like I and others have said far too
many times... when it comes to business, there is no FAIR player.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| Fight the warez-weenies!... Support GNU and OpenSource software.
| | Please send all flames, trolls, and complaints to /dev/toilet.
|_..._| LUSER: I have a problem. ADMIN: Keep talking... I'm reloading.
nate
>"Kerry Westfall" <a-ke...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildy naive and
>> paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code.
>
>This is completely false, and you should know better.
>
>Two simple examples:
>
>Stac vs. Microsoft (when MS stole Stac's disk compression software).
Do you have anything which backs up this claim? Where can I download
a copy of the case's proceedings in which M$ was found guilty?
>
>The "Video for Windows = QuickTime" situation, when Microsoft
>intentionally hired a company with access to Apple's QT source code to
>"write" Video for Windows, and got caught. This has been covered meny
>times here, and the whole story is just starting to be noticed by some of
>the media. Microsoft is paying some quite large "licensing fees" to Apple
>because of this.
Once again, where can I download the proceedings of the case?
In either ccase, where can I download or view the charges which were
filed?
>
>> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
>
>And what, pray tell, have they ever "innovated?" Name three. Hell, name
>*one* real innovation out of Microsoft in the last decade.
Wizards.
On-line updating of an OS via the web.
Combining a web browser into the OS
OLE
--
Nathan A. Hughes
The University Theatre, KU
www.scenedesign.com
Chris Alsan
>
of
>having that lizard Gates an billiard-ball Ballmer prohibited from Microsoft
for 5
>years, they ought to be put into prison for 5 years.
>
killing (or
>attempting to) competition. (See Apple, Commodore Amiga, OS/2, probably
Atari,
>Netscape, AOL, Compuserve {latter two were competitors for MSN}, the first
three
>were PC makers - PCs which weren't based on Intel processors, thank God)
Apple: Bad management, Steve Jobs is back at the helm, thank god.
Commodore Amiga: Commodore had no marketing... but good machine, Gateway
owns the Amiga now.
OS/2: All three of my banks use OS/2, and until last year IBM still made
more money from software than MS.
Atari: Nintendo killed them.
Netscape: Half the market is still theirs.
AOL: The Online service leader
Compuserve: Bought by AOL
MSN was recently rated top in customer satisfaction, followed by AT&T
internet services.
Chris Alsan
Bob the Sane wrote in message <363cb6c7...@news.aracnet.com>...
>On 1 Nov 1998 14:12:21 -0500, sch...@joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu (Edward P
>Scholl) wrote:
>
>>Gennica Hamilton (ge...@ccms.net) wrote:
>>
>>you're not too bright are you genny?
>>
Languages.
>>
>>: These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange
for
>>: a period of 10 years.
>>
>>programs that work with the operating system?
>>
>
>
>>: 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
>>: or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>>
>>had any. and what if they come out with something that is REALLLY
innovative?
>>
>one.
And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
Chris Alsan
Gennica Hamilton wrote in message ...
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
>__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
>collar criminal.
Jesus Christ!, you should take your medication before it's to late!
Chris Alsan
Chris Johnson wrote in message ...
>In article <genny-01119...@ppp36.ccms.net>, ge...@ccms.net
>(Gennica Hamilton) wrote:
>>Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
>>Languages.
>>These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
>>a period of 10 years.
That would be a stupid thing to do. All MS would have to do is Integrate
various Applications and Languages into various versions of windows, for
example, Windows, Office edition $400, Windows, Programmers edition $400,
Windows, Deluxe edition $600, etc.
>>2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
>>contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
Remove stockholders from control of their corporation, because the do a good
job... the day after that happend the DOW would hit 500.
>>3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
>>unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
>>software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
It would take a millenia to sort that out!
>>4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
>>or press releases for a period of 5 years.
ohhh, restrict one word, SCARY. how about "novel idea", "invention", "new",
etc.
>>5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
>>operating system releases.
Why not Oprah?, and every little Mozilla open source variant. I'll download
Netscapes open source, tweak it to startup on to my website filled with
porno ad banners, then force MS to include it in "Windows, Educational
Edition"!
>>6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
>>fully operational before any operating systems releases.
Do you know how many BILLIONS of lines of code there is?
Microsoft already does this, Windows 95 was delayed, costing MS millions of
dollars because of a bug in AOL's software!, AOL's software took at 32 bit
pointer and trashed it to 16 bits, then gave it back to Windows causing a
crash, MS had to work around this bug, making Windows 95 slower to test for
this case on every memory allocation, just so IDIOTS like you wouldn't blame
MS for changing windows to break compeditors software! (by going 32 bit!)
>>7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
>>for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
Like what?
>
> I'll gladly settle for 2 and 7.
>
<snip>
Chris Alsan
Loren Petrich wrote in message ...
>In article <71j1eg$il1$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>
>>HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the consumer..
>
> It does, because it gets a major pest out of the way.
>
Yep, we consumers LOVE it when the government makes choices for us, yes we
do!
Chris Alsan
Kerry Westfall wrote in message <71ksf1$b...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
>So, this includes everyone right? All software and hardware companies spend
>considerable time scoping out competitors, you just choose to hate MS
>because, well I don't knw why exactly, because MS is successful maybe?
>
I'll bet she had a chance to buy stock in Microsoft, but bought Apple
instead.
Pinochet
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>"Chris Alsan" <bgo...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
>A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, >that was
offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro >hobby gave away
software for free.
Wrong. Thank you, and come again.
His first product was actually something to do with traffic counting or
something, and nothing to do with BASIC.
Oh, and if Gates was selling a product, he wasn't in a hobby, he was
in a business. Of course, if he was the first to do that...hmm, isn't
that an innovation?
Pinochet
Stephen Edwards wrote in message <71laq0$5t7$2...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...
<Snip>What if MS goes away Doomsday scenario<snip>
>Are you deliberately trying to scare the sh** out of me, Pinochet?! :)
No, there's enough people spewing it out. I'd like to shock some sense
into them myself.
>This scenario is quite possible. And, like I and others have said >far
too many times... when it comes to business, there is no FAIR >player.
When it comes to life, there are very few fair players.
Pinochet
Chris Alsan wrote in message <71lj2q$pv4$9...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>>>5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all >>>future
operating system releases.
>Why not Oprah?,
Oh man, this had me ROTFL.....just the picture of it.. Oh what a funny
typo.. }:+)
Chad Irby
> On 2 Nov 1998 19:26:31 GMT, ci...@magicnet.net (Chad Irby) wrote:
> >
> >Stac vs. Microsoft (when MS stole Stac's disk compression software).
>
> Do you have anything which backs up this claim? Where can I download
> a copy of the case's proceedings in which M$ was found guilty?
You can look into the back issued of the various ZD magazines, which
mention that Microsoft settled for $120 million. But you've been around
long enough to have read all of the articles and read them when it
happened. So the fact that you even ask the question pretty much gives
away your agenda here.
> >The "Video for Windows = QuickTime" situation, when Microsoft
> >intentionally hired a company with access to Apple's QT source code to
> >"write" Video for Windows, and got caught. This has been covered meny
> >times here, and the whole story is just starting to be noticed by some of
> >the media. Microsoft is paying some quite large "licensing fees" to Apple
> >because of this.
>
> Once again, where can I download the proceedings of the case?
Ditto.
> In either ccase, where can I download or view the charges which were
> filed?
>
> >> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
> >
> >And what, pray tell, have they ever "innovated?" Name three. Hell, name
> >*one* real innovation out of Microsoft in the last decade.
>
> Wizards.
Online help, just like the Balloon Help that Apple put out in System 7.
The only difference was that Wizards had cute little animations.
Even if you don't count System 7, you can find similar "helpers" in
pre-W95 applications from several different vendors.
> On-line updating of an OS via the web.
IBM. DEC. The only thing that MS added was the possibility of
downloading parts of your personal information while they were at it.
> Combining a web browser into the OS
That's pretty interesting, but since it came *after* CyberDog and OpenDoc,
it's not even in the running.
> OLE
...as a response to Apple's Publish and Subscribe. When OLE came out, it
wasn't even as good as the P&S it had copied (and which came out more than
a year earlier).
Chad Irby
> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, that was
offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro hobby gave away
software for free.
--
Bob the Sane
<a-ke...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
>> collar criminal.
>
>
>I think you have your words mixed up. Criminal->Hero.
>
>>
>> His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
>> partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
>> stole code from competitors...
>
>You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildy naive and
>paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code. MS has many of the worlds best
>coders, I have met many of them. And as far as stealing ideas? Study your
>history. EVERY Company adopts an original idea. Look at every product
>availible today and try to guess how many of them are 100% original. This
>whole industry is based on sharing ideas. Maybe you should get a clue by
>using your "IBM Clone PC."
>
So, y our argument is that Bill and his party boys can't be guilty of
stealing code, or just out and out buying the companies who come up
with new products, simply because 'everyone else' does it too?
>>
>> The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
>> and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
>
>Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
>
No, they are not. Every product they release has been done before by
someone else. This is not innovation. This is at the very least
copycat behaviour, and in a couple of cases out and out piracy (to
whit, some of the original code contained in Win98 beta releases for
multimedia support still had the Apple logo on the product information
screen. This is FACT. Verifiable fact. I have seen it.) The list goes
on.
>>
>> The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
>> since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
>> known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
>
>Laughing stock? By who? I have seen maybe 3-4 MS haters in my life (besides
>those on this ng) and they, much like you, had a very shallow and
>narrow-minded view.
>
You don't hang out with many people who use M$ products on a regular
basis, then. Or maybe it's just that I generally associate with
people who have to support products that run on M$ platforms, and you
will be hard pressed to find a single one of them with something good
to say about M$. Straight from the techie's mouth. From a
technological standpoint, Micro$loth products blow goats. The 'ease of
use' factor generally is completely annhilated by the necessity to
reboot your computer every few hours due to a system crash.
>>
>> It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics have
>> been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
>> been returned to the rightful owners...
>
>*sigh* You must live in a cardboard box under the street.
>
Don't you read the news? The testimony so far has been quite
damning...
>> 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
>Languages.
>
>We are already broken up into 3 sections, apps, languages and os's
>
Under the aegis of Uncle Bill. We're talking about 3 seperate
companies.
>> These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
>> a period of 10 years.
>
>Where do we live again? Cambodia?
>
The rest of us live in a Micro$oft induced Hell, why sh ouldn't you?
>>
>> 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
>> contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
>
>Someone needs their prozac.
>
Substanceless statement. Disregarded as inane and asinine.
>> 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
>> unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
>> software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
>
>Ok, so then MS should be paid by all the companies that developed teir
>software using WINDOWS API's then right? Since MS did develop API and win32
>programming architectures. But those were made free you say? Well, so were
>these other products MS supposedly stole, free in that anyone could look at
>them and develop there own ideas based on that product. DesQview anyone? How
>about OS/2.
>
In other words, you just admitted that Micro$oft is NOT innovative.
Get your stories straight, dude. Bill's gonna come knock down the door
to your office with a crowbar and have his bully boys kick yer skull
in if you're not careful.
>> 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
>> or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>
>So, no one else can either, right?
>
>
Other companies ARE innovative. You know, those same ones you steal
from.
>> 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
>> operating system releases.
>
>Two out of three, we include AOL and Explorer in all of our OS's. So, OS/2,
>*NIX and MAC must all include explorer right? Yes, IE is developed on all
>platforms.
>
And unused on *nix platforms. Not sure about OS/2, but I know a great
many Mac users who hate IE. I did get a particular kick out of
Micro$oft's claim that 'IE brings the web to unix!'. That was worth a
belly laugh, believe me.
>>
>> 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
>> fully operational before any operating systems releases.
>
>We already do that, on all of our products.
>
To find better, more subtle ways to break them?
>>
>> 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
>> for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
>
>So, this includes everyone right? All software and hardware companies spend
>considerable time scoping out competitors, you just choose to hate MS
>because, well I don't knw why exactly, because MS is successful maybe?
>
No, because the ONLY reason Micro$loth is in the shape it's in today
is due to predatory licensing schemes, contracts the devil himself
would be proud of, and either out and out buying your competition,
stealing their code, or driving them out of business.
>>
>> ___
>>
>> I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
>> will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
>> out and solve this problem now...
>
>Agree? Hardly. Reasonable? Definately not.
>
Well no shit, you're a Micro$lut. You've sold your soul to the devil.
Bob the Sane
>
>>
>>> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
>>
>>*one* real innovation out of Microsoft in the last decade.
>
>Wizards.
I thought InstallShield did it first?
>On-line updating of an OS via the web.
Oh, you mean FTPing updates? Unix has been doing it for far longer
than Micro$oft. The only difference is that with M$ OSes you don't
know exactly what files are being replaced (NOT an 'innovation',
IMNSHO. A Bad Idea.)
>Combining a web browser into the OS
And this is an innovation... how? Combining an app into the OS? Not
only is it a STUPID idea, it's pretty durned obvious the only reason
BG ordered it done was to annhilate his opposition. I would ask you,
if incorporating apps into an OS is such a great idea, why didn't he
do it with Word? Or perhaps Excel? How about PowerPoint? Oh! Wait! I
know! Flight Simulator! Gimme a break.
>OLE
>
And who uses it? Anyone? Anyone?
Gennica Hamilton
> > Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
> > collar criminal.
>
> I think you have your words mixed up. Criminal->Hero.
Too funny, I think most people would still pick "Criminal"... Bill Gates
is the next OJ Simpson, the killer of people's careers & dreams, that gets
away scott free... Don't you think its sad that no child can grow up and
become wealthy by writing software anymore? Isn't it sad that no bank will
finance a software venture that might at some point be targeted by
MicroSoft? Kerry, come out of that maze Bill has you locked in... your no
longer in touch with what the public is feeling...
> > His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
> > partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
> > stole code from competitors...
>
> You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildly naive and
> paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code. MS has many of the worlds best
> coders, I have met many of them. And as far as stealing ideas? Study your
> history. EVERY Company adopts an original idea. Look at every product
> available today and try to guess how many of them are 100% original. This
> whole industry is based on sharing ideas. Maybe you should get a clue by
> using your "IBM Clone PC."
What about "regions"? in the MacOS? What about QuickTime Code that was
"lifted" by another company that you subcontracted to build for you...
sure its a fine line... but you still directly benefited by stolen code...
Now why is it you sent a check to Apple for an extra $100 Million, just
after the initial $150 million payback for making IE the default browser?
Why was QuickTime taken off CNN's website after a MS payment to that
company? Why doesn't QuickTime 3.0 correctly install on Win98? Doesn't
this seem odd?
What is the deal in Texas, where all public university students can buy
entire suites of MS software for $5. NT for $5, Windows 98 for $5,
Office97 for $5, Office98 for $5, C++ for $5, Visual Studio for $5...
Isn't that called "dumping"? Now explain Mr Kerry, how is Corel,
MetroWerks, etc to compete with this type of illegal licensing deals?
Your company has gotten to the top, unfairly... it is VERY clear...
Sure, MS has some of the better programmers, but does not have the best...
You have to remember, programmers are a smart breed, and many will not
work for unethical companies... Avie turned you guys down cold for this
reason... and doesn't he speak tomorrow for protection of public?
I've studied this industry for years... and something is very, very fishy
about microsoft... very very fishy...
> > The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
> > and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
>
> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
Too much fun... "they even have ms employees thinking goofy". To be
correct, its much closer to "world leader in legal innovation"... you have
to remember your boss comes from a family of lawyers, not innovators,
there are nearly no examples of microsoft innovation... Its mostly legal
manipulations, history books 100 years out will remember Microsoft for...
> > The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
> > since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
> > known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
>
> Laughing stock? By who? I have seen maybe 3-4 MS haters in my life (besides
> those on this ng) and they, much like you, had a very shallow and
> narrow-minded view.
Oh, people in the computer industry, consumers frustrated as to why their
3rd party hardware & software doesn't work... MS is the butt of jokes in
many corners... I'm not a MS hater... far from it... I just afraid of
allowing one person, one company this much power... it's not healthy over
the longer term.
> > It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics have
> > been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
> > been returned to the rightful owners...
>
> *sigh* You must live in a cardboard box under the street.
Actually, I live quite well... but are you saying you wouldn't listen to a
homeless person down on his luck, who is quite possibly correct?
> > 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
> Languages.
>
> We are already broken up into 3 sections, apps, languages and os's
As already been pointed out: It will be "3 separate companies".
> > These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
> > a period of 10 years.
>
> Where do we live again? Cambodia?
You are forgetting these are "Penalties" for having "too close" of a
relationship in the current structure. This needs to be simplified to say
the 3 new companies would not have better treatment than other
software/hardware vendors... but yes, there can be information exchange.
> > 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
> > contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
>
> Someone needs their prozac.
Bill or Steve? Of the 7 fixes I suggested on Sunday, this has been the
No. 1 favorite... if you think it through... its the most fair to the
public in terms of cost and benefit to get the software industry back on
track...
> > 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
> > unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
> > software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
>
> Ok, so then MS should be paid by all the companies that developed teir
> software using WINDOWS API's then right? Since MS did develop API and win32
> programming architectures. But those were made free you say? Well, so were
> these other products MS supposedly stole, free in that anyone could look at
> them and develop there own ideas based on that product. DesQview anyone? How
> about OS/2.
You don't need to make it complex! Its just 17.5 billion spread out to
any software or hardware company from 86-98. Federal Tax ID's can give
these amounts pretty quickly... (17.5 billion is the amount of cash MS has
on hand)
> > 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
> > or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>
> So, no one else can either, right?
It just cannot be used if there is "nothing" to back it up... this needs
to be handled more by the advertising laws already on the books... I'm
just pointing out its the "deception of the public" by microsoft that
needs to be cleaned up... Certainly Microsoft is a laughing stock in a
american business on this point!... Honestly, Kerry... everyone chuckles
(HARD) when MicroSoft mentions its "innovative"... You guys can't be
serious about innovations you've contributed, can you? It would be very
similar to General Motors touting: "We make the world best ice cream!"
> > 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> > operating system releases.
>
> Two out of three, we include AOL and Explorer in all of our OS's. So, OS/2,
> *NIX and MAC must all include explorer right? Yes, IE is developed on all
> platforms.
Jeezzee... I bet if you just included Netscape, and kept quiet, your boss
would of never been hauled into federal court... But he is so scared, he
went over board and caused himself even more trouble.. Apple puts AOL,
Netscape, IE on its System CDs... Couldn't MS be a bit more fair to Mark
Andreessen and include his work also?
> > 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
> > fully operational before any operating systems releases.
>
> We already do that, on all of our products.
>
Great quote! "on all of our products" hum... is that why, realaudio,
quicktime failed upon the win98 release? It certainly wasn't an error on
their part!
> > 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
> > for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
>
> So, this includes everyone right? All software and hardware companies spend
> considerable time scoping out competitors, you just choose to hate MS
> because, well I don't knw why exactly, because MS is successful maybe?
No, this is only for Microsoft for a period of 5 years... Again, this is a
penalty for your company... It's like when a referee says; "Holding, 10
yard penalty" --- It never means to the "Honest Team" they are penalized
also for simply having a player to "hold""...
> > I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> > will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
> > out and solve this problem now...
>
> Agree? Hardly. Reasonable? Definitely not.
Okay, if you disagree, then how would you fix your company's poor buiness
behavior once and for all? I'm interested in your simple solution -
Gennica
-
Chad Irby
> Chad Irby wrote in message ...
> >"Chris Alsan" <bgo...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> >> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
>
> >A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, >that was
> offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro >hobby gave away
> software for free.
>
> Wrong. Thank you, and come again.
>
> His first product was actually something to do with traffic counting or
> something, and nothing to do with BASIC.
You said "his first product," not "what was the first thing he worked on
for someone else."
> Oh, and if Gates was selling a product, he wasn't in a hobby, he was
> in a business. Of course, if he was the first to do that...hmm, isn't
> that an innovation?
Yep. Once again, Bill Gates' one and only innovation: Market the hell out
of something that you didn't invent...
Marcus Turner
Traf-O-Data with Paul Allen in 1972. He was in high school at the time.
>>A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, >that was
>offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro >hobby gave away
>software for free.
The next was a BASIC for MTS Altair. It was purchased by MTS, who
controlled the distribution, marketing and licensing. Gates and Allen had
no control over that product.
nate
wrote:
>"Kerry Westfall" <a-ke...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> > Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
>> > collar criminal.
>>
>> I think you have your words mixed up. Criminal->Hero.
>
>Too funny, I think most people would still pick "Criminal"... Bill Gates
>is the next OJ Simpson, the killer of people's careers & dreams, that gets
>away scott free... Don't you think its sad that no child can grow up and
>become wealthy by writing software anymore? Isn't it sad that no bank will
People are getting rich by writing software every day. If you are
good at it, and you write what people want, then you will sell
product. That has been proven time and time again.
The rest are wannabes, and a subset of those are just whiny bitches.
Peter
<98BD3E72B2A8ABED.7A4ECD37...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
nhu...@sunflower.com (nate) wrote:
> People are getting rich by writing software every day. If you are
> good at it, and you write what people want, then you will sell
> product. That has been proven time and time again.
And if your software is real good then maybe MS will make it part of their
OS and you will be remembered foreever.
Peter
--
"don't you eat that yellow snow
Watch out where the huskies go"
FZ
Rod & BJ
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>for someone else."
While still a teen(highchool?) his first "Gates& Allen effort" did a
automated traffic counter...The rumor is that it wasn't wildly profitable
but he did contract with the state for some work....The traffo Data effort
at some level I believe lasted well into his Harvard & subsequent first
software company days.... By the time the IBM PC came around they were the
number 1 small computer language house(Digital Research was no. 1 in OS's)
with a million (?) dollar gross.
>Yep. Once again, Bill Gates' one and only innovation: Market the hell out
>of something that you didn't invent...
>Chad Irby
Well aside from the obvious falsehood of your statement, why would it mater
anyway? Obviously one of the most important functions of a company is
"marketing" .....without which the best widget in world languishes unsold.
Actually though Gates strongest suit was developing a product & related
efforts that more third party developers could and would work with, develop
for, be it hardware or software related. That so many could develop and
prosper within his umbrella of influence is to his credit. Soggy
Kerry Westfall
attitude, "If I don't like it, MS shouldn't recieve credit." And FYI OLE is
used in many MANY apps, corel products, adobe products..
** Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the
opinions of my employer, Microsoft, or any of its subsidiaries **
--
Kerry Westfall - (70) x31413
a-ke...@microsoft.com
Microsoft Outlook Team
"I don't want to analyze why everything sucks, i'm perfectly happy just
knowing that it does!"
Bob the Sane <jup...@die.spammer.die.highfiber.com> wrote in message
news:363e8c8f...@news.aracnet.com...
> <snip>
> >
> >>
> >>> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology
innovation.
> >>
Chad Irby
> You're stating personal opinions and not factual statements. Typical anti-ms
> attitude, "If I don't like it, MS shouldn't recieve credit." And FYI OLE is
> used in many MANY apps, corel products, adobe products..
In other words, Microsoft didn't innovate anything except for advanced
marketing techniques.
You might note that it wasn't a question of "not liking it," it was a
question of "someone else had the idea first..."
Kerry Westfall
> is the next OJ Simpson, the killer of people's careers & dreams,
This is just too much, are you insane? Not only is this accusation a little
loony, it is entirely false. Microsoft employs (and i am making a hypothesis
here) around 20,000 people world wide. Killer of careers? Hardly. MS has
created nothing but good. For the industry and the people in it.
that gets
> away scott free... Don't you think its sad that no child can grow up and
> become wealthy by writing software anymore? Isn't it sad that no bank will
> finance a software venture that might at some point be targeted by
> MicroSoft? Kerry, come out of that maze Bill has you locked in... your no
> longer in touch with what the public is feeling...
And MS controls what the banks do I suppose? I have heard nothing of this to
begin with. It is my understanding that most banks won't finance hardware
and software companies due to the high risk factor and the deprecation
factor and overall swiftness of the computer industry, as in what is a good
comodotie now may be obsolete in under a year. This was not created by
Microsoft, nor was it created by a single entity. The industry as a whole
contributes to the innovative grace period of a product.
> What about "regions"? in the MacOS? What about QuickTime Code that was
> "lifted" by another company that you subcontracted to build for you...
> sure its a fine line... but you still directly benefited by stolen code...
MacOS? You are saying Windows is a rip-off of MacOS? That is just silly, and
you know it. I have no direct knowlege of the quiktime code, so I can't
comment to any extent other than saying I highly doubt any of this, assuming
it is true, was deliberate, based on my experience at MS and with the
developers.
> What is the deal in Texas, where all public university students can buy
> entire suites of MS software for $5. NT for $5, Windows 98 for $5,
> Office97 for $5, Office98 for $5, C++ for $5, Visual Studio for $5...
> Isn't that called "dumping"? Now explain Mr Kerry, how is Corel,
> MetroWerks, etc to compete with this type of illegal licensing deals?
No, I call that making software, which students need, availible at discount
rates. I remember in college I was able to buy any software at majorly
discounted rates. I bought Sun Solaris x86 at the student store for $12, I
bought Corel Paint for $22, MS Office for $45 for the entire pro suite. A
lot of software companies do the same exact thing, MS is not the only one,
dear.
> Sure, MS has some of the better programmers, but does not have the best...
> You have to remember, programmers are a smart breed, and many will not
> work for unethical companies... Avie turned you guys down cold for this
> reason... and doesn't he speak tomorrow for protection of public?
Right, and this is why we have some of the worlds best developers. MS is not
an unethical company, MS just gets a bad rap from muckrakers and whining
liberal companies who can't compete. Can't compete for the sole reason that
MS is just plain better. MS markets better, we develop better products. And
that is a fact.
> I've studied this industry for years... and something is very, very fishy
> about microsoft... very very fishy...
I'm sure you have, I'm also sure that you are biased and have a narrow point
of entry into the industry. You lack a broad view, and are secluded to
personal experience and bias.
> to remember your boss comes from a family of lawyers, not innovators,
> there are nearly no examples of microsoft innovation... Its mostly legal
> manipulations, history books 100 years out will remember Microsoft for...
Family history is not, necassarily, indicitive of personal action.
> Oh, people in the computer industry, consumers frustrated as to why their
> 3rd party hardware & software doesn't work... MS is the butt of jokes in
> many corners... I'm not a MS hater... far from it... I just afraid of
> allowing one person, one company this much power... it's not healthy over
> the longer term.
Why don't you try asking yourself "Why?" Honestly, why do you think these
people are supposedly laughing at MS? Maybe windows crashed on them once or
maybe a particular piece of hardware wouldn't function correctly.
NArrrow-minded.
> Actually, I live quite well... but are you saying you wouldn't listen to a
> homeless person down on his luck, who is quite possibly correct?
No i'm stating that you couldn't possibly grasp the entire scope of things
whilst living under the street in a box. It's a metaphor, kind of. People
tend to jump to conclusions and rationalize their views that pertain to
their enviornment rather than an over-all view.
> As already been pointed out: It will be "3 separate companies".
Even if this happens, what will this do? We are basically already this way,
you could not enforce a restriction of communication as it violates our
rights as people and as a corporation.
> Bill or Steve? Of the 7 fixes I suggested on Sunday, this has been the
> No. 1 favorite... if you think it through... its the most fair to the
> public in terms of cost and benefit to get the software industry back on
> track...
That would be you who needs prozac. Just because you having paranoid
delusions about Mr. Gates or Mr. Ballmer does not justify taking away their
livlihood or right to enterprise.
> You don't need to make it complex! Its just 17.5 billion spread out to
> any software or hardware company from 86-98. Federal Tax ID's can give
> these amounts pretty quickly... (17.5 billion is the amount of cash MS has
> on hand)
I am using the clasic phrase, "whats good for the goose, is good for the
gander." Your suggestions are 1-dimensional and fairly laughable. You want
to invent new rules based on your hatred, or fear, of MS, and don't think
these rules should apply to anyone else.
> Jeezzee... I bet if you just included Netscape, and kept quiet, your boss
> would of never been hauled into federal court... But he is so scared, he
> went over board and caused himself even more trouble.. Apple puts AOL,
> Netscape, IE on its System CDs... Couldn't MS be a bit more fair to Mark
> Andreessen and include his work also?
He probably would have been better off but it would be OBSURD to include a
3rd party product, which directly competes with you, in one of your
products. Why didn't OS/2 include IE 3 when it shipped? or this reason, why
would they promote a competing company in their product? It's a conflict of
interest. Apple has no proprietary browser which it develops or dialup
networking service, so they should include those, hey shoulkdn't be forced
to, but it is a nice addition since they have no market in those areas.
> Great quote! "on all of our products" hum... is that why, realaudio,
> quicktime failed upon the win98 release? It certainly wasn't an error on
> their part!
Yes it was actually, they had some docile registry keys which were left
behind on the G2 release which was breaking their software, someone posted
the emaail from MS to RN concerning this, go read it.
> Okay, if you disagree, then how would you fix your company's poor buiness
> behavior once and for all? I'm interested in your simple solution -
My "simple" solution is that MS has done nothing wrong.
Brian Wheeler
"Kerry Westfall" <a-ke...@microsoft.com> writes:
>> Too funny, I think most people would still pick "Criminal"... Bill Gates
>> is the next OJ Simpson, the killer of people's careers & dreams,
>
> This is just too much, are you insane? Not only is this accusation a little
> loony, it is entirely false. Microsoft employs (and i am making a hypothesis
> here) around 20,000 people world wide. Killer of careers? Hardly. MS has
> created nothing but good. For the industry and the people in it.
Now who's insane? Please give us examples of how MS has done
nothing but good for the industry. I can give you examples to the
contrary: Limiting choice through per-processor agreements. Limiting
innovation through vaperware announcements. Releasing inferior products
which _require_ upgrades to fix bugs. How did these help the market?
>
> that gets
>> away scott free... Don't you think its sad that no child can grow up and
>> become wealthy by writing software anymore? Isn't it sad that no bank will
>> finance a software venture that might at some point be targeted by
>> MicroSoft? Kerry, come out of that maze Bill has you locked in... your no
>> longer in touch with what the public is feeling...
>
> And MS controls what the banks do I suppose? I have heard nothing of this to
> begin with. It is my understanding that most banks won't finance hardware
> and software companies due to the high risk factor and the deprecation
> factor and overall swiftness of the computer industry, as in what is a good
> comodotie now may be obsolete in under a year. This was not created by
> Microsoft, nor was it created by a single entity. The industry as a whole
> contributes to the innovative grace period of a product.
As any investor (banks aside) about what startups they're willing
to invest in, and you'll find they will stay away from any market that
Microsoft is looking into. Can you guess how this stifles innovation?
Can you guess _why_ investors stay away from these startups...regardless
of how good their product may be? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing
to do with the risks of the startups themselves.
>
>> What about "regions"? in the MacOS? What about QuickTime Code that was
>> "lifted" by another company that you subcontracted to build for you...
>> sure its a fine line... but you still directly benefited by stolen code...
>
> MacOS? You are saying Windows is a rip-off of MacOS? That is just silly, and
> you know it. I have no direct knowlege of the quiktime code, so I can't
> comment to any extent other than saying I highly doubt any of this, assuming
> it is true, was deliberate, based on my experience at MS and with the
> developers.
MS and Intel contracted with the company who ported quicktime to
windows. Their instructions were to make the product (the AVI player) as
fast as quicktime by using what they did in the quicktime code. The company
_did_ use quicktime code, and MS was aware of it. Intel bailed out of
the deal when Apple started the accusations, and MS refused to admit
wrongdoing or even acknowlege the code was in there....until it
was brought out in court, and then they settled.
>
>> What is the deal in Texas, where all public university students can buy
>> entire suites of MS software for $5. NT for $5, Windows 98 for $5,
>> Office97 for $5, Office98 for $5, C++ for $5, Visual Studio for $5...
>> Isn't that called "dumping"? Now explain Mr Kerry, how is Corel,
>> MetroWerks, etc to compete with this type of illegal licensing deals?
>
> No, I call that making software, which students need, availible at discount
> rates. I remember in college I was able to buy any software at majorly
> discounted rates. I bought Sun Solaris x86 at the student store for $12, I
> bought Corel Paint for $22, MS Office for $45 for the entire pro suite. A
> lot of software companies do the same exact thing, MS is not the only one,
> dear.
>
>> Sure, MS has some of the better programmers, but does not have the best...
>> You have to remember, programmers are a smart breed, and many will not
>> work for unethical companies... Avie turned you guys down cold for this
>> reason... and doesn't he speak tomorrow for protection of public?
>
> Right, and this is why we have some of the worlds best developers.
I'm sure you do. But a bunch of great developers doesn't mean
that you'll have a great product.
> MS is not
> an unethical company, MS just gets a bad rap from muckrakers and whining
> liberal companies who can't compete.
You have no sense of ethics, then. How is lying to customers ("Win95
doesn't need DOS", "NT Server and NT Workstation are two completely different
products from different code bases", etc) ethical? How is product dumping
ethical? Well? I didn't make these up. These are things which have
happened (and continue to happen).
> Can't compete for the sole reason that
> MS is just plain better. MS markets better, we develop better products. And
> that is a fact.
MS markets better. That is the only fact in your above statements.
The rest of it is bullshit.
>
>> I've studied this industry for years... and something is very, very fishy
>> about microsoft... very very fishy...
>
> I'm sure you have, I'm also sure that you are biased and have a narrow point
> of entry into the industry. You lack a broad view, and are secluded to
> personal experience and bias.
How is personal experience automatically invalid? You seem to
have the impression that if your personal experience doesn't match what
MS says, then you're narrow minded. Seems a bit backwards, now doesn't it?
>
>> to remember your boss comes from a family of lawyers, not innovators,
>> there are nearly no examples of microsoft innovation... Its mostly legal
>> manipulations, history books 100 years out will remember Microsoft for...
>
> Family history is not, necassarily, indicitive of personal action.
>
>> Oh, people in the computer industry, consumers frustrated as to why their
>> 3rd party hardware & software doesn't work... MS is the butt of jokes in
>> many corners... I'm not a MS hater... far from it... I just afraid of
>> allowing one person, one company this much power... it's not healthy over
>> the longer term.
>
> Why don't you try asking yourself "Why?" Honestly, why do you think these
> people are supposedly laughing at MS? Maybe windows crashed on them once or
> maybe a particular piece of hardware wouldn't function correctly.
> NArrrow-minded.
How about frustration? How about being tired of crappy MS products
which are a complete mystery? These are not narrow mindedness in action...
this is the result of shoddy software.
>
>> Actually, I live quite well... but are you saying you wouldn't listen to a
>> homeless person down on his luck, who is quite possibly correct?
>
> No i'm stating that you couldn't possibly grasp the entire scope of things
> whilst living under the street in a box. It's a metaphor, kind of. People
> tend to jump to conclusions and rationalize their views that pertain to
> their enviornment rather than an over-all view.
You can't possibly grasp reality because runs against your
employer.
>
>> As already been pointed out: It will be "3 separate companies".
>
> Even if this happens, what will this do? We are basically already this way,
> you could not enforce a restriction of communication as it violates our
> rights as people and as a corporation.
Right, and this is why windows should be made _OPEN_, and not
that shoddy Open that MS is claiming it is. Full API disclosure. Full
reference implementation source disclosure.
[snip]
>> Great quote! "on all of our products" hum... is that why, realaudio,
>> quicktime failed upon the win98 release? It certainly wasn't an error on
>> their part!
>
> Yes it was actually, they had some docile registry keys which were left
> behind on the G2 release which was breaking their software, someone posted
> the emaail from MS to RN concerning this, go read it.
>
>> Okay, if you disagree, then how would you fix your company's poor buiness
>> behavior once and for all? I'm interested in your simple solution -
>
> My "simple" solution is that MS has done nothing wrong.
Keep singing the party line and maybe you'll get a promotion. However,
reality isn't on your side. MS has done wrong, illegally or not. Its
credibility is fading, and people are sick of the lies.
Brian Wheeler
bdwh...@indiana.edu
Peter
>
> This is just too much, are you insane? Not only is this accusation a little
> loony, it is entirely false. Microsoft employs (and i am making a hypothesis
> here) around 20,000 people world wide. Killer of careers? Hardly. MS has
> created nothing but good. For the industry and the people in it.
Just because MS employs a lot of peaple does not mean that more would not
have been employed by the many start ups that would have exsisted if MS
did not squash them. Remeber that the majority of peaple in this country,
USA, are employed by small companies under 200 employees.
Peter
> And MS controls what the banks do I suppose? I have heard nothing of this to
> begin with. It is my understanding that most banks won't finance hardware
> and software companies due to the high risk factor and the deprecation
> factor and overall swiftness of the computer industry, as in what is a good
> comodotie now may be obsolete in under a year. This was not created by
> Microsoft, nor was it created by a single entity. The industry as a whole
> contributes to the innovative grace period of a product.
First Banks rarely finance "start ups" that is not their business. They
finance only stuff with equity/assets to back loans up with. With this
said, Venture capatilist will not touch start ups that may come into the
sights of MS. It would be foolish to go up against MS.
Peter
> MacOS? You are saying Windows is a rip-off of MacOS? That is just silly, and
> you know it. I have no direct knowlege of the quiktime code, so I can't
> comment to any extent other than saying I highly doubt any of this, assuming
> it is true, was deliberate, based on my experience at MS and with the
> developers.
Are you loony? The start button is quite similar to the Apple menu. And
if you drag it up to the top of the screen it even looks like the Apple
menu. I reckon you would just that this is just coincedence. as for
breaking QT, well MS did this type of thing before with the beta release
of Windows. It did not run on DR DOS. or real time player or.....
Pinochet
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>> Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>> >"Chris Alsan" <bgo...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> >> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
>> >A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for >>microcomputers, that was
offered for sale at a time when >>everyone else in the micro hobby gave
away software for free.
>> Wrong. Thank you, and come again.
>> His first product was actually something to do with traffic >>counting
or something, and nothing to do with BASIC.
>You said "his first product," not
I didn't say anything, thank you. Please try to remember that different
people can respond to your comments on USENET.
> "what was the first thing he worked on for someone else."
Right that explains why he and Paul Allen sold
>> Oh, and if Gates was selling a product, he wasn't in a hobby, he >>was
in a business. Of course, if he was the first to do >>that...hmm, isn't
that an innovation?
>Yep. Once again, Bill Gates' one and only innovation: Market the >hell
out of something that you didn't invent...
Hmm, no, actually, Bill Gates didn't start that. Except perhaps
specifically in the computer industry, but that's it. For the example of
someone preceding Gates by marketing the hell out of something he didn't
invent, try Coca-Cola.
Pinochet
Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote in message
<71njs9$ovb$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>>"Pinochet" <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>
>>> >"Chris Alsan" <bgo...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
>>> Wrong. Thank you, and come again.
>>> His first product was actually something to do with traffic >>>counting
or something, and nothing to do with BASIC.
>>You said "his first product," not
>> "what was the first thing he worked on for someone else."
>Right that explains why he and co-founder Paul Allen sold
Whups, sorry, hit the post button by accident, and since Earthlink doesn't
allow cancels, I'm not going to try.
Anyway, let me continue:
Traf-O-data to various state DOT. Not contracted. Not even employed by.
They wrote the stuff together. Or so their various biographies would tell
us. Not having been with them at the time, it's impossible to be sure.
Pinochet
Peter wrote in message ...
silly, and you know it. I have no direct knowlege of the >>quiktime code,
so I can't comment to any extent other than >>saying I highly doubt any of
this, assuming it is true, was >>deliberate, based on my experience at MS
and with the
>> developers.
>Are you loony? The start button is quite similar to the Apple >menu.
Didn't appear till Windows 95 anyway, but is hardly a major issue.
> And if you drag it up to the top of the screen it even looks like the
>Apple menu. I reckon you would just that this is just coincedence.
I would say this isn't a real problem anyway, but that's just me.
If you find this to be a problem, well, I hope you're honest enough to also
have problems with the other clone-window managers, such as Afterstep,
Litestep, and Feeble-View95(or somethink like that..)
>as for breaking QT, well MS did this type of thing before with the >beta
release of Windows. It did not run on DR DOS. or real time >player
or.....
Some reason Microsoft is responsible for working out all the problems
*before* going into beta software? I thought that was the point, that
things need fixing, or at least testing. Certainly MS didn't guarantee
that that copy of Windows was safe on DR-DOS, but then I don't see why they
should. Why they wanted to put a screen telling people that is obvious,
though....to prevent law suits.
Chris Welch
>
> > Too funny, I think most people would still pick "Criminal"... Bill Gates
> > is the next OJ Simpson, the killer of people's careers & dreams,
>
> This is just too much, are you insane? Not only is this accusation a little
> loony, it is entirely false. Microsoft employs (and i am making a hypothesis
> here) around 20,000 people world wide. Killer of careers? Hardly. MS has
> created nothing but good. For the industry and the people in it.
>
Matt H.
Gennica Hamilton wrote in message ...
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
>__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
>Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
>collar criminal.
>
I think you should be sent to prison for smoking CRACK while writing this
message
Matt H
Kerry Westfall
companies. Hey if intel didn't make cpu's i'm sure amd would be so much
better, obviously.
--
Kerry Westfall - (70) x31413
a-ke...@microsoft.com
Microsoft Outlook Team
"I don't want to analyze why everything sucks, i'm perfectly happy just
knowing that it does!"
Peter <pxp...@unixs.cis.pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:pxpst2-0311...@pelli.pathology.pitt.edu...
> In article <71ngvd$1...@news.dns.microsoft.com>, "Kerry Westfall"
> <a-ke...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > This is just too much, are you insane? Not only is this accusation a
little
> > loony, it is entirely false. Microsoft employs (and i am making a
hypothesis
> > here) around 20,000 people world wide. Killer of careers? Hardly. MS has
> > created nothing but good. For the industry and the people in it.
>
> Just because MS employs a lot of peaple does not mean that more would not
> have been employed by the many start ups that would have exsisted if MS
> did not squash them. Remeber that the majority of peaple in this country,
> USA, are employed by small companies under 200 employees.
>
>
John R. Sellers
> internet services.
>
>
Does that really they've changed their policy of charge a user's credit card
after canceling, like they did to me?
Chris Alsan wrote:
> Xerophyte wrote in message <363CA67F...@pclink.com>...
> >Why do you say that Gennica is wrong?
> >
> >On the contrary, Gennica is quite correct. But she's too lenient. Instead
> of
> >having that lizard Gates an billiard-ball Ballmer prohibited from Microsoft
> for 5
> >years, they ought to be put into prison for 5 years.
> >
> >A crime is a crime, whether it's killing (or attempting to) a human or
> killing (or
> >attempting to) competition. (See Apple, Commodore Amiga, OS/2, probably
> Atari,
> >Netscape, AOL, Compuserve {latter two were competitors for MSN}, the first
> three
> >were PC makers - PCs which weren't based on Intel processors, thank God)
>
> Apple: Bad management, Steve Jobs is back at the helm, thank god.
> Commodore Amiga: Commodore had no marketing... but good machine, Gateway
> owns the Amiga now.
> OS/2: All three of my banks use OS/2, and until last year IBM still made
> more money from software than MS.
> Atari: Nintendo killed them.
> Netscape: Half the market is still theirs.
> AOL: The Online service leader
> Compuserve: Bought by AOL
>
> MSN was recently rated top in customer satisfaction, followed by AT&T
> internet services.
--
--------------------------------------------------
User: John R. Sellers
Message Authorization: Master Control Program
End of Line
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Welch
Ah yes, intelligent posts.
Pinochet
John R. Sellers wrote in message <363F764F...@csi.com>...
>> MSN was recently rated top in customer satisfaction, followed by >>AT&T
internet services.
>Does that really they've changed their policy of charge a user's >credit
card after canceling, like they did to me?
More than likely you merely had a billing error, though lacking details
that would make me sure. These things happen.
Chris Alsan
John R. Sellers wrote in message <363F764F...@csi.com>...
>> MSN was recently rated top in customer satisfaction, followed by AT&T
>> internet services.
>>
>>
>
>Does that really they've changed their policy of charge a user's credit
card
>after canceling, like they did to me?
>
Billing errors may have occurred.
Chris Alsan
>
>Chris Alsan wrote in message <71lj2q$pv4$9...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>
>>>>5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all >>>future
>operating system releases.
>
>
>Oh man, this had me ROTFL.....just the picture of it.. Oh what a funny
>typo.. }:+)
>
Well, to be honest, I don't recall the exact name of 'that browser', so I
just typed some stuff resembling it...
Imagine a web browser named "Springer"...
Bob the Sane
<a-ke...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>You're stating personal opinions and not factual statements. Typical anti-ms
>attitude, "If I don't like it, MS shouldn't recieve credit." And FYI OLE is
>used in many MANY apps, corel products, adobe products..
>
That's interesting, I honestly didn't know that. Last I heard, it
wasn't too highly used.
Now, the breakdown of where my opinion is, vs. the facts that are
listed below which you claim are non-existent.
>--
>> >>> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology
>innovation.
>> >>
>> >>And what, pray tell, have they ever "innovated?" Name three. Hell,
>name
>> >>*one* real innovation out of Microsoft in the last decade.
>> >
>> >Wizards.
>>
>> I thought InstallShield did it first?
>>
Well, did they or didn't they? I was under the impression they did. If
not, why did I see InstallShield wizards FIRST, and then M$ doing it
later? Or am I just stoned? The above was not presented as opinion,
but as fact. If I am wrong, prove it. Don't dismiss it as an opinion.
>> >On-line updating of an OS via the web.
>>
>> Oh, you mean FTPing updates? Unix has been doing it for far longer
>> than Micro$oft. The only difference is that with M$ OSes you don't
>> know exactly what files are being replaced (NOT an 'innovation',
>> IMNSHO. A Bad Idea.)
>>
Okay, FACT: unix has been 'updateable' via the net for far longer than
M$. This is indisputable, and in NO way is it opinion. It IS my
opinion, however, that not knowing what is being done to my system by
an outside agency IS a bad idea. Anyone else care to dispute this
stance?
>> >Combining a web browser into the OS
>>
>> And this is an innovation... how? Combining an app into the OS? Not
>> only is it a STUPID idea, it's pretty durned obvious the only reason
>> BG ordered it done was to annhilate his opposition. I would ask you,
>> if incorporating apps into an OS is such a great idea, why didn't he
>> do it with Word? Or perhaps Excel? How about PowerPoint? Oh! Wait! I
>> know! Flight Simulator! Gimme a break.
>>
Do you know how many problems are caused by the integration of a
browser into the OS? Would you like to know of the security risks
involved in this, and how people are being electronically raped by
such? An operating system is NOT an application, it RUNS applications.
You didn't even attempt to address my accusation that Billy Boy did it
merely to muscle out a competitor that didn't want to play ball by his
rules.
>> >OLE
>> >
>> And who uses it? Anyone? Anyone?
>>
Addressed above.
Todd Bandrowsky
>--
>
>1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
Languages.
Would they still be allowed to make keyboards and mice?
I think Sun should be broken up into hardware, operating systems and
languages. Furthermore, I think the virtual machine should be completely
unlinked from the class libraries. That is, it ought to be illegal for Sun
to compel licensees to ship a set of class libraries with the virtual
machine. That way, hardware vendors could compete by shipping different
kinds of java.
Similarly, IBM ought to be broken up into 5 parts, Operating Systems,
Applications, Languages, Hardware and Services. While everyone thinks IBM
is dead, look at the numbers. They gross more than Sun + MS + Apple +
Oracle per year COMBINED.
IBM is looking at Sun and MS destroy each other and laughing all the way to
the bank.
Oracle should be required to publish a formal specification for Oracle, and
also expose the file formats. That way, businesses would not be held
hostage on enterprise systems.
It strikes me as unfair that Oracle does not allow licensees to publish
benchmarks.. Their web server prices are a rip-off.
Netscape, of course, should be divided into browser and server companies.
>
>These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
>a period of 10 years.
Enforcement might be a problem..
>
>2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
>contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
They should probably ask the same of Baratz and McNealy.
>
>3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
>unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
>software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
In the same vein, Oracle and IBM should also be required to pay restitution
to all the companies they screwed with their early announcements. Let's see
if anyone knows of these: Sybase, Informix, the 7 dwarves.
>
>4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
>or press releases for a period of 5 years.
Oh, please. Every Linux desktop is a cheasy clone of Windows 95.
>
>5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
>operating system releases.
Why not Opera?
>
>6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
>fully operational before any operating systems releases.
Oh, and IBM should ship stuff that does not require PTFs. Sun should quit
raining endless patches on the planet. Every person with a browser should
get $10 from Sun for polluting their machines with the crap called JDK 1.0
>
>7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
>for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
Any mainframe company, including Sun and IBM, should not be allowed to make
client hardware. (NC's).
>
>___
>
>I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
>will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
>out and solve this problem now...
Hmm, if this is really a serious proposal, I would have to think you are a
fucking idiot that should have been aborted for the simple reason of wasting
time. But other than that, I think we agree on just about everything.
>
>It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
>goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
>penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
First off, who defines what is ethical and what is not? What if you are a
right wing muslim and I am a right wing christian, or a left wing jew? The
entire concept of a universal set of ethics is ludicrously flawed.
Then what?
If you don't like their stuff, then don't buy it. The only thing regulatory
practice I would change would be to limit software patents to five years,
and then only as a compromise. The best thing to do would be to get rid of
them all.
Justin The Cynical
->attitude, "If I don't like it, MS shouldn't recieve credit." And FYI OLE is
->used in many MANY apps, corel products, adobe products..
[snip]
And IIRC, the copyright for OLE is owned by IBM. Part of the agreement
between IBM and M$ during the OS/2 development.
--
Wiseman says:
Linux renders ships (_Titanic_, the movie)
NT renders ships.. Useless (U.S. Navy 'Smartship')
Justin The Cynical - mo...@ados.com
Hervé GOUHIER
Edward P Scholl wrote:
> Bob the Sane (jup...@die.spammer.die.highfiber.com) wrote:
>
> : >no exchange? then how the hell is the applications part supposed to make
> : >programs that work with the operating system?
> : >
>
> : Probably the same way the rest of the world does?
>
> uhh, software companies write apps for windows with *aboslutely no exchange
> with microsoft*? i don't think so...
>
> : >uhhh, why? whether you like their innovations, you can't say they haven't
> : >had any. and what if they come out with something that is REALLLY innovative?
>
> : They really haven't. They copied everyone else, starting from day
> : one.
>
> *sigh* you may not like their stuff, but saying they have never innovated
> anything is just silly.
ok... give an example...
MS-DOS: Seattle Labs Q-DOS
Windows: OS/2 / NextStep
IE: i think "SkyLab" (don't remeber) Mosaic
and so on...
>
>
> : >: 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> : >: operating system releases.
> : >
> : >yeah. great. just what i want. AOL included. isn't that giving aol an
> : >unfair advantage over all the other isp's? that sounds kinda unfair to me.
>
> : AOL already has an icon in the online services folder.
>
> uhh, which release? i don't have an online services folder...
beyond Win95b (OSR 2.x)
>
>
> : >: I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> : >: will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
> : >: out and solve this problem now...
> : >
> : >i think you're off your rocker if you think everyone will agree that the above
> : >is very reasonable...
>
> : I think it is. It might even be a little light .
>
> and since when did you constitute *everyone*?
At least people like me, who haven't been polluted by M$ since they were child... try
Linux for example... and then, if your can work in a company technical support, you
WILL understand what M$ products are: bullshit, from the beginning to the end.
You can go to http://www.ens.fr/~dicosmo/Piege/PiegeEN.html if you want to read a few
lines about M$
>
>
> : >: It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
> : >: goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and "fairly"
> : >: penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
> : >
> : >if they're only going to grow fatter and dumber as time goes on, that seems
> : >like it'd be the PERFECT reason to leave them alone- they'd pretty much
> : >become uncompetitive and self-destruct, no?
>
> : And take out how much of the industry with them? They've already
> : damaged this industry for all time, I'd hate to imagine them being
> : left alone another five years.
>
> and what specific damage would you be referring to?
are you kidding ?
just ONE example: IE. M$ bought the license to the company I told you before, for
their product Mosaic. In the contract, M$ should pay several $ to this company for
each IE sold... but it's a long time they didn't pay anything to them, saying they
give IE for free. The problem is each customer of Win95 OSR>2 and Win98 pay for a
bug-fix patch! And don't think M$ doesn't earn any money with IE, cos every Ad you
see all around the web with your IE is money for M$, that's the way Netscape lives
too... but Netscape is honest: they MADE their own program (Mozzilla xxx), and
compiled program and source codes are available for free.
>
>
> -ed
--
Hervé GOUHIER Sté Imaginet
hgou...@imaginet.net http://www.imaginet.net
Hervé GOUHIER
Pinochet wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote in message ...
> >"Chris Alsan" <bgo...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> >> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
>
> >A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, >that was
> offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro >hobby gave away
> software for free.
>
> Wrong. Thank you, and come again.
>
> His first product was actually something to do with traffic counting or
> something, and nothing to do with BASIC.
?
>
>
> Oh, and if Gates was selling a product, he wasn't in a hobby, he was
> in a business. Of course, if he was the first to do that...hmm, isn't
> that an innovation?
first to do what???
Hervé GOUHIER
TimeWarp wrote:
> Let me start by saying that I certainly do not condone illegal business
> practices. I will let the courts decide what actions of Microsoft are
> subject to the law.
>
> Microsoft employs 22 thousand people.
yes, and they "bought" recently Borland developers with huge salaries to make
nothing, cos program like Delphi made M$ afraid: they are to good.
> Thanks to Microsoft, the software
> business is centered in the US.
what ???
> This includes the thousands of software
> companies that have ridden the Windows wave. Yea, Microsoft must compete
> fairly. Yes they should be held accountable for any illegal activities they
> have been involved in.
like... everything.
>
>
> All I am saying is let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
>
> -jls
>
> Chris Welch <899...@128.128.92.93> wrote in message
> <363CC49A...@128.128.92.93>...
> >Gennica Hamilton wrote:
> >>
> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> >> __|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> >> | |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
> >> __|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> >>
> >> Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
> >> collar criminal.
> >>
> >Oh, right and sending him to jail is a good idea. Sure, whatever.
> >
> >> His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
> >> partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
> >> stole code from competitors...
> >>
> >> The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
> >> and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
> >>
> >> The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
> >> since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
> >> known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
> >>
> >> It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics
> have
> >> been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
> >> been returned to the rightful owners...
> >>
> >Our capitalist system doesn't care about what's right. It's a good idea,
> >but it might be hard to do.
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Here is the correct way fix the situation ONCE and for ALL:
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
> Languages.
> >>
> >> These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
> >> a period of 10 years.
> >>
> >
> >Sounds fair enough
> >
> >> 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
> >> contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
> >>
> >Get rid of Gates completely
> >
> >> 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by
> the
> >> unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
> >> software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
> >>
> >What about the users? What about the lost 100 page dissertations?
> >
> >> 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
> >> or press releases for a period of 5 years.
> >>
> >I don't really agree with that, though.
> >
> >> 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> >> operating system releases.
> >>
> >Well, Gates actually said something cool (I know, I was scared too).
> >Making him put navigator in windows is like making coke put 1 pepsi in
> >every six pack.
> >
> >> 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it
> is
> >> fully operational before any operating systems releases.
> >>
> >
> >Preferably by the public
> >
> >> 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
> >> for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be
> divested.
> >
> >They should never do it at all.
> >>
> >> ___
> >>
> >> I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> >> will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
> >> out and solve this problem now...
> >>
> >> It seems... Microsoft is only going to become fatter and dumber as time
> >> goes on, so lets help them understand why they were at fault, and
> "fairly"
> >> penalized them so they can start thinking in a more ethical way...
> >>
> >> Gennica
> >>
> >> -
> >
> >It's scary. I actually agree with you. Weird.
MARK DELUCA
>Kerry Westfall wrote:
>>
>> > Too funny, I think most people would still pick "Criminal"... Bill
Gates
>> > is the next OJ Simpson, the killer of people's careers & dreams,
>>
>> This is just too much, are you insane? Not only is this accusation a
little
>> loony, it is entirely false. Microsoft employs (and i am making a
hypothesis
>> here) around 20,000 people world wide. Killer of careers? Hardly. MS has
>> created nothing but good. For the industry and the people in it.
>>
What it your opinion on Apple's cloning deals? You know where these
companies set up factories, secured orders, inventory, R&D and so on, then
the minute they get fully invested Apple tells um I guess your not gonna.
And then there is well advanced products CHRP etc. ready for production,
once again wanted by Apple, till they offered a far better product than
Apple had. Apple says no way they are much to good for our users and kills
um. Lets see that was 2 yrs ago and there is still nothing out there as
good.
So Apple killed much superior techology u still dont have 2 yrs later. All
in your interest right. Once again thats why they have a 3% userbase.
Cause they give anyone with a brain who can think for themself what they
want-not. Of course there is about 3% of people who want all decisions made
for them, so they have time to whine and blame everyone for everything.
Edward P Scholl
: Edward P Scholl wrote:
: > *sigh* you may not like their stuff, but saying they have never innovated
: > anything is just silly.
: ok... give an example...
: MS-DOS: Seattle Labs Q-DOS
: Windows: OS/2 / NextStep
: IE: i think "SkyLab" (don't remeber) Mosaic
: and so on...
the one i really like is the scroll mouse thing...
: > : AOL already has an icon in the online services folder.
: >
: > uhh, which release? i don't have an online services folder...
: beyond Win95b (OSR 2.x)
sorry. i use(d) 2.1
: > : I think it is. It might even be a little light .
: >
: > and since when did you constitute *everyone*?
: At least people like me, who haven't been polluted by M$ since they were child... try
polluted by MS since i was a child? sorry, but the first computers i was
exposed to was was apple ]['s, then mac's, then dos machines, then vax,
then unix.
: Linux for example... and then, if your can work in a company technical support, you
: WILL understand what M$ products are: bullshit, from the beginning to the end.
: You can go to http://www.ens.fr/~dicosmo/Piege/PiegeEN.html if you want to read a few
: lines about M$
thanks. i use linux. it's pretty nice. but different things for different
jobs and for different people. macs, unix, and windows all have their
place.
: > : And take out how much of the industry with them? They've already
: > : damaged this industry for all time, I'd hate to imagine them being
: > : left alone another five years.
: >
: > and what specific damage would you be referring to?
: are you kidding ?
: just ONE example: IE. M$ bought the license to the company I told you before, for
: their product Mosaic. In the contract, M$ should pay several $ to this company for
: each IE sold... but it's a long time they didn't pay anything to them, saying they
: give IE for free. The problem is each customer of Win95 OSR>2 and Win98 pay for a
: bug-fix patch! And don't think M$ doesn't earn any money with IE, cos every Ad you
: see all around the web with your IE is money for M$, that's the way Netscape lives
: too... but Netscape is honest: they MADE their own program (Mozzilla xxx), and
: compiled program and source codes are available for free.
so what, netscape wasn't honest until this year when they started giving
away their source code? you may have valid points, but it sure doesn't
sound like it. i'm not exactly a MS booster, i just hate it when people
make comments such as xxx company has NEVER done yyy, with out any sort
of backing, other than personal dislike of the company.
-ed
Matt H.
majority of the posts on this thread don't make any sense especially the one
that started it all!
Chris Welch wrote in message <363FA050...@digiscape.com>...
>"Matt H." wrote:
>>
>> Gennica Hamilton wrote in message ...
>> > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> >__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
>> > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> > | |B |I |L |L | |G |A |T |E |S | | | | | |
>> >__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
>> > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>> >
>> >Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
>> >collar criminal.
>> >
Hervé Gouhier
Edward P Scholl wrote:
>
>
> : beyond Win95b (OSR 2.x)
>
> sorry. i use(d) 2.1
??? maybe... that's quite suprising, i installed that about 100 times, and each time i got
a pretty little folder icon on my desktop name 'Services en ligne' in french -> 'Online
Services', which contains AOL & Compurserve connection kits... I dunno but i think it's not
only available on french releases
>
>
> : > : I think it is. It might even be a little light .
> : >
> : > and since when did you constitute *everyone*?
>
> : At least people like me, who haven't been polluted by M$ since they were child... try
>
> polluted by MS since i was a child? sorry, but the first computers i was
> exposed to was was apple ]['s, then mac's, then dos machines, then vax,
> then unix.
allright! That's true I have to admit that *everyone* should mean
*anyone-pissed-off-by-that-trisomy-based-OS*
>
>
> : Linux for example... and then, if your can work in a company technical support, you
> : WILL understand what M$ products are: bullshit, from the beginning to the end.
> : You can go to http://www.ens.fr/~dicosmo/Piege/PiegeEN.html if you want to read a few
> : lines about M$
>
> thanks. i use linux. it's pretty nice. but different things for different
> jobs and for different people. macs, unix, and windows all have their
> place.
ohh, don't wanna look as a nervous-at-M$ guy, but i still can't support a OS which has a
beautiful GUI despite of an absolutly shitty "engine"...
another thing: you, unix user, might know that it's a real networking OS, multi-user.
But can you imagine that M$ manages to sell it's NT ( - developped by VMS developpers - )
for strategic applications... I think you know security holes of NT / IIS / Exchange Server
! those 3 ones are unsafe, bugged and slow... how can you imagine that, for example, the
US army made terst of NT-based supervision of a (don't remeber the name in english: big
army boat with lots of planes on it and which cost lots of $ ;) ): that ship never gone
further that 30 miles from the coast cos NT crashed! and I can tell you the comments US
Army bosses told: "As Unix is a reliable system, maybe NT will become...". And then US army
goes on buying NT licences (wich is NT Workstation + IIS2 + $400).
to finish... you said "different things for different jobs and for different people". For
me the problem is that you can completely by-pass M$ bullshit by using other stuff. In a
company i worked for, me and my boss were more than pissed off by M$ apps problems, running
standalone or on a (Novell) network. We finally purchased *one* license of RedHat Linux,
*one* license of StarOffice, and put that on each PC used by "standard" user (office
workers), with some big beautiful icons on the X desktop, and then... we made our real job
of the company computing service. Total cost: $150, except the week-ends spent to replace
the systems. The last example: I worked just before for a bank, which -like everybody-
thought they HAD to settle an NT server for file-serving.Lots of people i worked with an me
told em there is an almost free and really powerful solution: Linux and Samba. But -like
everywhere- they bought NT, telling us things like "we want an experienced system", "we
want a technical support" etc... but Linux/samba is an *approved* system, and technical
support for this is not conventional but maybe the best in the world (usenet etc...).
hope i didn't make u sleep with that ;)
Pinochet
Herv GOUHIER wrote in message <36401108...@imaginet.net>...
>> >> And what was Bill's first product?, do you even know that?
>> >A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, >that
>>was offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro >hobby
>>gave away software for free.
>> Oh, and if Gates was selling a product, he wasn't in a hobby, he was
>> in a business. Of course, if he was the first to do that...hmm,
isn't
>> that an innovation?
>first to do what???
Apparently sell a software product. Or so Chad Irby claims.
Pinochet
Herv GOUHIER wrote in message <36400FA5...@imaginet.net>...
>Edward P Scholl wrote:
>> Bob the Sane (jup...@die.spammer.die.highfiber.com) wrote:
>> : They really haven't. They copied everyone else, starting from day
>> : one.
>> *sigh* you may not like their stuff, but saying they have never
innovated
>> anything is just silly.
>ok... give an example...
>MS-DOS: Seattle Labs Q-DOS
Bought, not copied.
>Windows: OS/2 / NextStep
Microsoft was involved in the development of OS/2 from the start,
it was only later that they and IBM parted ways.
>IE: i think "SkyLab" (don't remeber) Mosaic
>and so on...
Again, bought not copied.
Anyway examples of things MS bought or copied does not prove
they have never innovated anything. That's like proving you've never
shaved with a straigth razor by saying you currently use an electric
one.
>> : And take out how much of the industry with them? They've already
>> : damaged this industry for all time, I'd hate to imagine them being
>> : left alone another five years.
>> and what specific damage would you be referring to?
>are you kidding ?
>just ONE example: IE. M$ bought the license to the company I told you
>before, for their product Mosaic. In the contract, M$ should pay
several $ >to this company for each IE sold... but it's a long time they
didn't pay >anything to them, saying they give IE for free.
Perhaps Microsoft's plans changed to accomodate the unexpected?
Unless you have Microsoft intended such from the get-go, the only
"problem" here is that MS isn't infallible. Then again, I suppose
that change would be why they and Spyglass renegotiated the contract.
but that's just me. Oh, and BTW, the initial contract *did* specify
certain
minimum payments per quarter, regardless of the actual sales. Or
did you not know that?
>The problem is each customer of Win95 OSR2
Nobody should be buying Win95 OSR2 as that was only released to OEM's.
>and Win98 pay for a bug-fix patch!
That's your belief, which you're welcome to hold in making the purchase
decision, but doesn't make it true.
>And don't think M$ doesn't earn any money with IE, cos every Ad you see
>all around the web with your IE is money for M$, that's the way
Netscape >lives too...
Now that's just plain not true. On the initial default gateway sites,
sure, but
not at other places. The ad's there are paid to the web-host.
>but Netscape is honest: they MADE their own program (Mozzilla xxx),
Uh-huh. You do know most, if not all, of Netscape's founders made
the leap from NCSA Mosaic...I wonder if they borrowed anything
themselves.
>and compiled program and source codes are available for free.
Right. *AFTER* they realized they couldn't effectively compete with MS
with their prior business models.
Chris Welch
I feel pretty much the same about apple as I do MS. They both have
strange and almost always bad business practices.
Chad Irby
> Anyway examples of things MS bought or copied does not prove
> they have never innovated anything.
This is true. Unfortunately, however, just about everything mentioned as
MS "innovations" has been found in other products that predate the MS
version, some times by *years*.
So what do *you* think MS has ever innovated?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Chad Irby
> Apparently sell a software product. Or so Chad Irby claims.
Nope. "Sell a software product that's a copy of a product someone else
invented" was basically my claim.
Try to read the *whole* post next time. Or find someone to read it to you
and explain what it means.
Pinochet
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>> Apparently sell a software product. Or so Chad Irby claims.
>Nope. "Sell a software product that's a copy of a product someone else
>invented" was basically my claim.
Ehnt wrongo. You said this:
**
A bootleg, hacked-together copy of BASIC for microcomputers, that was
offered for sale at a time when everyone else in the micro hobby gave
away
software for free.
**
Let's see, if everyone else in the micro hobby was giving away software,
Bill Gates would have to be the first to do it, thus he innovated the
process, now didn't he? Whether or not he wrote the program itself
from anyone else doesn't matter one bit anyway. They are two distinct
concepts.
>Try to read the *whole* post next time.
Try reading the whole thread next time. You said the above before any
comment's about Microsoft innovating anything. And if you follow the
thread carefully it goes like this:
1:
<cirby-02119...@pm65-40.magicnet.net>
(Where the quoted example above appears)
2:
<71m46h$bvd$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
(My reply to you on that)
3:
<36401108...@imaginet.net>
Herve(sorry don't know the accent mark) Gouhier's reply to my message.
4:
<71q69b$91k$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
My reply to that message
5:
<cirby-04119...@pm61-09.magicnet.net>
Your reply to my second message.
Check on Dejanew's, and you'll find nothing whatsoever about using
someone else's software.
Pinochet
>> they have never innovated anything.
>This is true. Unfortunately, however, just about everything mentioned
as
>MS "innovations" has been found in other products that predate the MS
>version, some times by *years*.
Perhaps. I've not been looking too much at it myself. Rather a
non-issue if you asked me.
>So what do *you* think MS has ever innovated?
I dunno, nor do I much care. Innovation ain't required.
br...@rotfl.com
>
> Loren Petrich wrote in message ...
> >In article <71j1eg$il1$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the consumer..
> >
> > It does, because it gets a major pest out of the way.
> >
>
> Yep, we consumers LOVE it when the government makes choices for us, yes we
> do!
Perhaps you would prefer having Microsoft make your choices?
br...@rotfl.com
>
> > Its looking more and more like Bill Gates is the country's largest white
> > collar criminal.
>
Hero? Why don't you take your MS propaganda back to microsoft.com where
it belongs.
>
> >
> > His operation has sabotaged competitors software products, coerced
> > partners into submitting to unfair licensing deals and has consistently
> > stole code from competitors...
>
> You planning on showing some proof or just keep on with your wildy naive and
> paranoid ranting? MS does NOT steal code. MS has many of the worlds best
> coders, I have met many of them. And as far as stealing ideas? Study your
> history. EVERY Company adopts an original idea. Look at every product
> availible today and try to guess how many of them are 100% original. This
> whole industry is based on sharing ideas. Maybe you should get a clue by
> using your "IBM Clone PC."
It really wouldn't matter if you were shown proof or not. Bill Gates
could confess and you'd simply claim he was an imposter.
>
> >
> > The details of "how" they became so rich are flowing for the first time,
> > and there is no way for Microsoft to be honest, and say otherwise...
>
> Yes I will tell you how, MS is the world leader in technology innovation.
Really? Let's hear what you think MS has "innovated" recently.
>
> >
> > The company is quickly becoming the laughing stock of modern day business
> > since its users are now guilty of using stolen property... and it is now
> > known that all Microsoft employees are cheats, liars and thieves.
>
> Laughing stock? By who? I have seen maybe 3-4 MS haters in my life (besides
> those on this ng) and they, much like you, had a very shallow and
> narrow-minded view.
>
No doubt all your friends work for Microsoft. We already know you MS
employees aren't allowed to practice independant thought.
> >
> > It doesn't look good since the public is now finding out what tactics have
> > been used to get to the top, and they won't back down until the money has
> > been returned to the rightful owners...
>
> *sigh* You must live in a cardboard box under the street.
>
> > 1) Break Microsoft into THREE parts: Operating Systems, Applications,
> Languages.
>
> We are already broken up into 3 sections, apps, languages and os's
Yea but those 3 sections are under central control. Central control
must be eliminated.
>
> > These parts could not share phone, email or have any type of exchange for
> > a period of 10 years.
>
> Where do we live again? Cambodia?
You know, contrary to what they must tell you when they hire you,
Microsoft and Bill Gates are not above the law. They only act that way.
>
> >
> > 2) Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must step down from the board and have no
> > contact with the three divisions for a period of 5 years.
>
> Someone needs their prozac.
Who? Bill Gates? He better get some viagra while he's at it.
>
> > 3) Restitution will be paid to all companies that have been damaged by the
> > unfair acts of Microsoft... 17.5 Billion will be spread between all
> > software and hardware companies based on sales from 1986 through 1998.
>
> Ok, so then MS should be paid by all the companies that developed teir
> software using WINDOWS API's then right? Since MS did develop API and win32
> programming architectures. But those were made free you say? Well, so were
> these other products MS supposedly stole, free in that anyone could look at
> them and develop there own ideas based on that product. DesQview anyone? How
> about OS/2.
>
> > 4) Microsoft cannot use the "term" innovation in any of its advertising,
> > or press releases for a period of 5 years.
>
> So, no one else can either, right?
No one else is on trial. Just Microsoft.
>
> > 5) AOL, Netscape, OmniWeb and Explorer will be included in all future
> > operating system releases.
>
> Two out of three, we include AOL and Explorer in all of our OS's. So, OS/2,
> *NIX and MAC must all include explorer right? Yes, IE is developed on all
> platforms.
IBM, *Nix or Mac are not on trial. Only Microsoft.
>
> >
> > 6) Full testing of competitors software must be completed, to ensure it is
> > fully operational before any operating systems releases.
>
> We already do that, on all of our products.
Really? You couldn't tell it when you bought one. BTW: Beta means
"in testing" not "ready to sell"
>
> >
> > 7) Microsoft is not to engage in any industries outside computer software
> > for a period of 5 years. All current outside activities must be divested.
>
> So, this includes everyone right? All software and hardware companies spend
> considerable time scoping out competitors, you just choose to hate MS
> because, well I don't knw why exactly, because MS is successful maybe?
Again, no one else is on trial except MS. So why or even how could the
other companies be punished for Microosft's actions?
Those of us that dislike MS didn't just pick some random company to
hate. I doubt if anyone here 'hates' MS because of their success - look
at it a little more rationally and you'll see a company that continually
bullies it's way through everything. And it's that bully-like behavior
that creates MS haters.
>
> >
> > ___
> >
> > I think everyone will agree with the above... its very reasonable, and
> > will fix the issue at hand... If there is any disagreement lets figure it
> > out and solve this problem now...
>
> Agree? Hardly. Reasonable? Definately not.
I doubt if anyone expected YOU to agree - or should I say anyone
expected you to have the freedom to agree?
There is no other company in existance that has a monopoly such as the
one Microsoft has on the Operating System industry. This is why
Microsoft needs to adhere to a stricter set of moral standards than
other companies do. Microsoft needs to concentrate on correcting the
problem rather than on making useless accusations against companies that
are NOT on trial at this time. Microsoft is the only one on trial;
accusations against others are simply NOT RELEVANT at this time.
Your post sounds as if it was quoted directly from Microsoft "official"
replies. You're going to have to do more than come here and quote the
official line before you convince anyone here that Microsoft's a
victim.
>
> - Kerry
>
> *** All opinions expressed are mine and mine alone, I do NOT represent
> Microsoft Inc. or any of its subsidiaries in any way. **
Really? The comment's you've written make me wonder if you're trying to
get Mark Murray's job.
Gennica Hamilton
> What it your opinion on Apple's cloning deals? You know where these
> companies set up factories, secured orders, inventory, R&D and so on, then
> the minute they get fully invested Apple tells um I guess your not gonna.
Your refering to the old Apple... and that is loooong gone... trust me...
the old apple is no where to be found... Steve Jobs basically came in,
turned off the lights and looked for the groups that still shined... clone
vendors weren't bright (save moto) so the went the way of Franklin, Bell &
Howell and Laser, the long forgotten Apple II clones...
People somehow forget... clones add too much COST to the user experience..
just look at the wintel space... a sea of user anguish, junky hardware.. a
truely bad "personal computer" experience ---
> And then there is well advanced products CHRP etc. ready for production,
> once again wanted by Apple, till they offered a far better product than
> Apple had. Apple says no way they are much to good for our users and kills
> um. Lets see that was 2 yrs ago and there is still nothing out there as
> good.
A Complete Myth... the CHRP designs are what the iMac has become... The
standard Power, Moto, Umax designs were nothing more than "tweaking" the
box for 10% - 15% more performance, then paying MacWorld, MacWeek, etc..
through advertising dollars for good reviews... Fact was.. the Cases in
all these boxes where cheap, fans loud, poor manuals ---- basically... it
was like a wintel clone, with a much more advanced os... big deal! Since
Apple is no longer using premium pricing it no longer matters about the
clones... it was just one more "apple experiment" which wasn't good for
the end user no matter how you look at it..
> Once again thats why they have a 3% userbase.
> Cause they give anyone with a brain who can think for themself what they
> want-not. Of course there is about 3% of people who want all decisions made
> for them, so they have time to whine and blame everyone for everything.
Apple has about 20% of the "personal computer" market... for some reason
many people forget that most of the wintel boxes end up as "cash
registers", "dumb terminals in factories" "word processing / typewriters"
NOT "personal computers" as Alan Kay envisioned... Apple is standing on
very firm ground when you speak of "userbase"... The Apple machines are
easily the most powerful... and I think a few people reading these
newsgroups forget that... And now that Apple products are now the most
inexpensive in the industry, I think many people will move up...
gennica
-
Poison Ivan
Justin The Cynical wrote ...
>
> And IIRC, the copyright for OLE is owned by IBM. Part of the agreement
>between IBM and M$ during the OS/2 development.
I find this very unlikely. OLE ships with NT and Win98, and appears to be
under active development BY MICROSOFT.
Perhaps it is just OS/2's version of OLE that is owned by IBM?
Pinochet
br...@rotfl.com wrote in message <3640BA5C...@rotfl.com>...
>Chris Alsan wrote:
Yeah, because I can tell Microsoft to go to Hell a whole of a lot easier
than
the Gov't. For some reason, the gov't doesn't like it when you don't
want
to pay your taxes, or follow their laws, among other things.
Pinochet
>> I dunno, nor do I much care. Innovation ain't required.
>So I guess you're posting from a VT100, right?
Like I said, it ain't required. Desirable is another matter entirely.
Pinochet
Gennica Hamilton wrote in message ...
>
>> companies set up factories, secured orders, inventory, R&D and so on,
>>then the minute they get fully invested Apple tells um I guess your
not >>gonna.
>Your refering to the old Apple... and that is loooong gone... trust
me...
>the old apple is no where to be found...
Oh, good, when I can get another Clone machine? Oh, and when can my
good friends at Be Inc get those specs for the G3 machines they've been
asking for?? (And yes, they're willing to pay a reasonable sum).
>Steve Jobs basically came in, turned off the lights and looked for the
>groups that still shined... clone vendors weren't bright (save moto) so
the >went the way of Franklin, Bell & Howell and Laser, the long
forgotten Apple >II clones...
Uh-huh, right. Or maybe the clones were just too much better.
>People somehow forget... clones add too much COST to the user
>experience..
Yeah, that time consumed by shopping around.
>just look at the wintel space... a sea of user anguish, junky
hardware.. a
>truely bad "personal computer" experience ---
As I have no need to dispute this, I won't. I'll just ask you were
this problem appeared in the Mac Clone industry.
>> Once again thats why they have a 3% userbase.
>> Cause they give anyone with a brain who can think for themself what
they
>> want-not. Of course there is about 3% of people who want all
decisions >>made for them, so they have time to whine and blame
everyone for >>everything.
>Apple has about 20% of the "personal computer" market... for some
>reason
Right. According to what source?
>many people forget that most of the wintel boxes end up as "cash
>registers", "dumb terminals in factories" "word processing /
typewriters"
>NOT "personal computers" as Alan Kay envisioned...
Ok, so what's your data on this claim??
>Apple is standing on very firm ground when you speak of "userbase"...
Well, they are at the bedrock..
> The Apple machines are easily the most powerful...
I think not. Not unless Apple has a 30K or more Workstation I don't
know about.
> and I think a few people reading these newsgroups forget that... And
now >that Apple products are now the most inexpensive in the industry, I
think >many people will move up...
Apple products the most inexpensive in the industry. Uh-huh. Sure.
Whatever.
John R. Sellers
br...@rotfl.com wrote:
> Chris Alsan wrote:
> >
> > Loren Petrich wrote in message ...
> > >In article <71j1eg$il1$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > >Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the consumer..
> > >
> > > It does, because it gets a major pest out of the way.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, we consumers LOVE it when the government makes choices for us, yes we
> > do!
>
> Perhaps you would prefer having Microsoft make your choices?
HHEEEEEEEELLLLLLLL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
In my mind, Windows 98 does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------
User: John R. Sellers
Message Authorization: Master Control Program
End of Line
--------------------------------------------------
gs
[...]
Hmm... besides taping, stapling, bolting, and then welding a browser
into an OS? Man, looks like I get an 'F'.
Chad Irby
> I dunno, nor do I much care. Innovation ain't required.
So I guess you're posting from a VT100, right?
--
Steve
>Chris Alsan wrote:
>>
>> Loren Petrich wrote in message ...
>> >In article <71j1eg$il1$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> >Pinochet <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>HELL NO! Stopping Microsoft doesn't necessarily help the consumer..
>> >
>> > It does, because it gets a major pest out of the way.
>> >
>>
>> Yep, we consumers LOVE it when the government makes choices for us, yes we
>> do!
>
> Perhaps you would prefer having Microsoft make your choices?
I'd rather make my own choices, of course. However, if it was a
choice between having the government make software choices for me and
Microsoft making software choices for me... it's no contest... I'd
much rather it be MS. For example, look at the computers being used
by the FAA and the IRS... no thanks!
-Steve
*The only thing certain about the future is that it hasn't happened yet.*
Troy Dawson
> "Pinochet" <3spam3gra...@5not5sprint6scum6mail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway examples of things MS bought or copied does not prove
> > they have never innovated anything.
>
> This is true. Unfortunately, however, just about everything mentioned as
> MS "innovations" has been found in other products that predate the MS
> version, some times by *years*.
>
> So what do *you* think MS has ever innovated?
uh, _Bob_, and that f*ing silly paperclip.
=td=
Jeff Barber
>MS is not an unethical company, MS just gets a bad rap from muckrakers
>and whining liberal companies who can't compete.
^^^^^
The inclusion of the word 'liberal' in this is kinda disturbing. Is that
really your viewpoint concerning the source of the troubles that MS
finds itself facing these days?
Jeff Barber
Kerry Westfall
Yes. Whining liberal companies who try to distort everything and manipulate
MS's words. Companies like apple are the real unethical ones. They are
whining at the government because basically MS has beaten the hell out of
apple and shattered their monopoly (yes its true -- the only reason why
apple is crying monopoly is because their monopoly no longer exists thanks
to MS). I defy each and every one of you to try to rationalize apple's
testimoney; i will summize:
Apple contends that MS threatened to delay and even cancel its development
of MacOffice (a macintosh version of MSOffice) if they did not back off on
the media playback market.
This has 2 faults, 1. Who is the unethical one, Apple claims MS is
leveraging to take over the quicktime market (oh no!! You mean someone
actually wants to compete with apple?!?! you dont say!) by refusing to
furtherly develop MacOffice (Oh no!! MS chooses not to develop a product
which would further its competitors market share?!?! Oh NO!) 2. Apple had no
written contracts with MS concerning MacOffice, or the development thereof,
so why SHOULD MS help out apple in the first place?? I'll tell you why,
Apple and MS have had a silent partnership for years, MS has done everything
it could to keep apple alive -- even bought out part of apple to keep them
from filing chapter 11 bankruptcy. MS has long supported apple and apple
decides to ruthlessly stab MS in the back and make up blatently false
accusations (e.g. Rogue error messages which mislead users and functionality
defects intentionally coded into Windows)
What this all boils down to is you (anti-ms gang) are trying to strip MS of
its freedom, freedom to choose and freedom to integrate its products
together. This reminds me of a discussion we had in a marilyn manson
newsgroup, "just because manson chooses to change his look and music gives
you no right to strip him of his humanity, after all, to change is human;
and it is his choice." This relates in that MS wants to develop its
multi-media player and market it as a key part of it's OS, and MS has no
contract with Apple concerning MacOffice, so why should it be illegal for MS
to do whatever the hell they want with MacOffice?
--
Kerry Westfall - (70) x31413
a-ke...@microsoft.com
Microsoft Outlook Team
"I don't want to analyze why everything sucks, i'm perfectly happy just
knowing that it does!"
Chris Welch
>
> > >MS is not an unethical company, MS just gets a bad rap from muckrakers
> > >and whining liberal companies who can't compete.
> > ^^^^^
> >
> > The inclusion of the word 'liberal' in this is kinda disturbing. Is that
> > really your viewpoint concerning the source of the troubles that MS
> > finds itself facing these days?
>
> Yes. Whining liberal companies who try to distort everything and manipulate
> MS's words.
Liberals being bad? You must want to kill me then (I can't blame you,
most people here probably do)!
>
> What this all boils down to is you (anti-ms gang) are trying to strip MS of
> its freedom, freedom to choose
What about our freedom to choose?
>and freedom to integrate its products
> together.
It's freedom to destroy other companies...
> --
> Kerry Westfall - (70) x31413
> a-ke...@microsoft.com
> Microsoft Outlook Team
> "I don't want to analyze why everything sucks, i'm perfectly happy just
> knowing that it does!"
Assuming you do work for MS (I doubt it though) aren't you gonna be just
a BIT biased?
Allan Meidlein
I've been reading this entire thread and the arguements are quite
entertaining -- better then a movie; however, the above response is quite
inappropriate... regardless of what side all of us are on. I believe "Bob
the Sane" has gone too far.
Boris
should send capitalist shark Gates to prison; why not just kill him to defend working
people?
Boris
Poison Ivan
>> Yep, we consumers LOVE it when the government makes choices for us, yes
we
>> do!
>
> Perhaps you would prefer having Microsoft make your choices?
Fortunately for me, Microsoft does not have the power to force me to buy
things, so I don't have to choose between the government and Microsoft; I
only have to choose between the government and me.
And I think I'm pretty good at looking out after my own finances, and I'm a
*lot* better at it than the government is. Please, pretty please, keep the
government far, far away.
Poison Ivan
Bob the Sane wrote in message <364267b5...@news.aracnet.com>...
>
>Kerry, read the 'Halloween document' mentioned in another thread. THEN
>tell me you work for an ethical company.
Just out of curiosity ... what precisely did you find unethical? Wouldn't
you expect Microsoft to have a strategy to compete against Linux?
I don't remember seeing anything *I* thought was unethical, but I didn't
carefully read every word. I think as a corporation owned by its
stockholders, Microsoft would be ethically responsible to have a plan to
compete against Linux.
Bob the Sane
Bob the Sane believes BG's is the Embodiment of Evil. So? Opinions are
like assholes: everyone has one and they all stink.
Bob the Sane
Christopher Smith
Bob the Sane <jup...@die.spammer.die.highfiber.com> wrote in message
36426742...@news.aracnet.com...
It does however indicate how much credibility to give your opinions - none.
>