Microsoft Hatred FAQ
Xah Lee
Xah Lee, 20020518
Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.
Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
right.
Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.
How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you
are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.
When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones.
Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
not monopoly, i don't know what is.
A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have
the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors
looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as
decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers
and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the
perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra
time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well.
Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are
forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use
Mac/Linux/UNIX?
A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have
decisions that you liked.
Q: What about MS buying out all competitors?
A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them.
They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe.
Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them.
It's nothing like under gunpoint.
Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's
applications or OSes.
A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to
the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT
or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and
network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the
opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all
OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft!
Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free,
using their “monopoly” power to put Netscape out of business.
A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to
give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating
Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun
Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to
bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free.
Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every
version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually
bought out by AOL and still shit.
• Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01,
industry shock
http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html
• Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ.
http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html
• AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet
• Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
• suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/200004,greg_knauss_netscape.zip
• Xah Lee, Netscape Crap
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt
Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in
their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS
while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace &
Extend to lock out competitors.
A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits
over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment).
Now, lots of “standard” protocols in the industry is a result of
popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from
being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the
truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve
these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the
incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would
adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a
commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my
improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or
SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same,
not that they haven't.
Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot
see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid
protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple
fanatics are simply chronically fanatic.
Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security.
A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is
measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes
suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers
will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This
can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well:
• http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g.
ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd,
login, rsh, rlogin.)
• on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/buffer_overflow.html
• Fast Food The UNIX Way:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_fastfood_dir/fastfood.html
• Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/
• The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how
fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just
technically slacking in the “security” department, but the unix
ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic
to discuss.
The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire
system and “philosophy” created an entire generation of incompetent
programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a
few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in
history combined. See also:
• Responsible Software License:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality.
A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority
of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then
competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices
(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game
titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their
technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications
(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s).
e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony
Playstation 2. (2002-02):
http://www4.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q1/020204/index.html
the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser &
MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s.
Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and
basically at the end fucked Be up.
A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java,
No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical
purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes.
Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime
technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by
refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis
Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom?
Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart.
A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot
find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what
you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free
to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not
rape the morning after.
Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research
over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an
OpenSource advocate, i demand free things.
A: •
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/default.htm
(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism)
• http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html (The
Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03)
local copy
Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What
do you suggest to begin with?
A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/jdini/basic_economics.html
Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for
what you say?
A: No. But I put my reputation in.
-------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/mshatredfaq.html
Roedy Green
quoted :
>
> Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
>not monopoly, i don't know what is.
They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
because they have a large market share.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
kasi...@gmail.com
Why did you post this in comp.lang.perl.misc?
Keith Thompson
> Hm... What does this have to do with Perl?
>
> Why did you post this in comp.lang.perl.misc?
He posted this in comp.lang.python, comp.lang.perl.misc,
comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.java.programmer, *and*
comp.os.linux.misc because he's a troll.
I wish I could say that he'll go away if we ignore him. I can say,
however, that ignoring him will minimize his impact. In the past, his
rants have led to long rambling arguments across multiple newsgroups,
none of them relevant to any point that might be made -- which is
probably exactly what he wants.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Tim Hammerquist
Roedy Green <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote:
> "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote or quoted :
> > Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs.
> > If that's not monopoly, i don't know what is.
>
> They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are
> evil, not because they have a large market share.
Mr. Lee is a troll. And an increasingly obscene one.
I think his mother didn't pay him enough attention.
Perhaps she locked him in the basement... and he never left?
IAC, I've had enough. I don't killfile many people... but Mr.
Lee seems to have gone above and beyond. His arguments are
nothing but incendiary, and he doesn't even know Perl well
enough to bash it as he does.
*plonk*
Tim
Jeroen Wenting
>>
>> Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
>>not monopoly, i don't know what is.
>
> They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
> because they have a large market share.
no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product that
was easier to use for the average user than anything the competition made
and a lot more powerful than other products created for their main target
market.
Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be no
other software manufacturers at all.
Prices would be far far higher than they are today, like they were back in
the days before Microsoft started competing with the likes of Ashton Tate
and WordPerfect corporation by offering similar products at 20% the price
(which is the real reason they got to be top dog, they delivered a working
product for a fraction of the price their competition did, and the
competition couldn't drop their prices that much and remain profitable).
Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
mainframe terminals.
IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game
computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have come
true.
Jim Moe
>
> Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
> not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.
>
> Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
> heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
> Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
> right.
>
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Peter T. Breuer
> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
> mainframe terminals.
Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
And a mean game of tetris it played too. Chess wasn't worth the
humiliation at level 5.
I believe every researcher in britain got one as a matter of course, but
they only replaced the perq machines that everyone had had to put up
with before then. The vaxen running hpux or so were plentiful too, and
had fine monitors, tending more to the PC shape. We'd made our own word
processor machines and spreadsheet automatons before that. It didn't
take that many components, just a good engineer and a room full of
lackeys with soddering irons. The BBC were selling kits too (what were
they? Ataris?), not that I ever fell for that.
Maybe five years earlier I'd designed and built my own computer from
scratch using the MC 6802 chip as processor. Somebody really should
have told me about assembler - I wrote in machine code, flashing the
code into prom with a 100ms pulse from a 16V battery. Goodness knows
how much memory I had ... maybe a few KB.
I think the Suns were abut $30000 each when they first appeared, but
prices dropped rapidly so that after maybe three years the standard
price was about $8000. PCs had appeared and came in at about $4000, if I
recall right, so there was a price differential but it wasn't huge,
especially when a Sun could support a whole research team via vt100
lines, and a PC was a one-person job, thanks to the o/s.
Peter
Mike Meyer
>>> Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
>>>not monopoly, i don't know what is.
>> They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
>> because they have a large market share.
> no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product that
> was easier to use for the average user than anything the competition made
> and a lot more powerful than other products created for their main target
> market.
What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.
MS didn't start chanting the "Ease of Use" Mantra into it after Apple
did - which happened long after MS had a sufficient stranglehold on
the industry to force anti-competitive contracts down the throats of
their "partners". Ease of use is something that Apple is much better
at than MS, which is why Apple is dominating the market, right?
> Prices would be far far higher than they are today
I disagree. Before Gates decided to sell BASIC, software was very
cheap. It started getting cheap again in the late 80s. Now that cheap
software is threatening MS, they're doing their best to shut down all
the sources of quality cheap software, with there usual disregard for
truth, legality, ethics or the good of either the customer or their
business partners.
> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
> mainframe terminals.
Oh, horseshit. You clearly weren't paying attention to what the rest
of the microcomputer industry was doing while Gates was selling IBM
non-existent software. While IBM was introducing 16-bit processors and
DOS was doing a flat file system, Tandy was selliig systems - for a
fraction of the price of any MS-DOS based system - that were
multitasking, multiuser, had an optional windowing system that came
with a complete (for the time) office suite. Of course, that was while
Tandy still thought they could sell computers by selling better
computers than you could get running MS software. But it was already
to late for that. MS single-handedly set the industry back 20 years.
> IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game
> computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have come
> true.
I see. You're a troll.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
George Sakkis
> "kasi...@gmail.com" <kasi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Hm... What does this have to do with Perl?
> >
> > Why did you post this in comp.lang.perl.misc?
>
> He posted this in comp.lang.python, comp.lang.perl.misc,
> comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.java.programmer, *and*
> comp.os.linux.misc because he's a troll.
>
> I wish I could say that he'll go away if we ignore him. I can say,
> however, that ignoring him will minimize his impact. In the past, his
> rants have led to long rambling arguments across multiple newsgroups,
> none of them relevant to any point that might be made -- which is
> probably exactly what he wants.
Exactly, Mr. Lee is a self-proclaimed troll
(http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/troll.html). Actually he seems to be
more than a plain troll; the style of many of his posts is indicative
of one or more mental disorders, so he'll probably continue trolling
even if he's ignored. Nevertheless, I agree that ignoring him will
minimize his impact.
John Bokma
> no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product
> that was easier to use for the average user than anything the
> competition made and a lot more powerful than other products created
> for their main target market.
I agree with the first part of your sentence, the rest is BS of course.
> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more
> powerful than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used
> only dumb mainframe terminals.
More BS of course.
> IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game
> computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have
> come true.
Yeah, sure, and we all would be living in caves.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)
Michael Heiming
> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
>> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>> mainframe terminals.
> Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
> And a mean game of tetris it played too. Chess wasn't worth the
> humiliation at level 5.
> I believe every researcher in britain got one as a matter of course, but
> they only replaced the perq machines that everyone had had to put up
> with before then. The vaxen running hpux or so were plentiful too, and
> had fine monitors, tending more to the PC shape. We'd made our own word
> processor machines and spreadsheet automatons before that. It didn't
> take that many components, just a good engineer and a room full of
> lackeys with soddering irons. The BBC were selling kits too (what were
> they? Ataris?), not that I ever fell for that.
Yep, Atari 400/800, Atari ST/etc, Commodore VC20/C64, there were
quite some systems much more stable/powerful then anything M$ had
to offer.
> Maybe five years earlier I'd designed and built my own computer from
> scratch using the MC 6802 chip as processor. Somebody really should
> have told me about assembler - I wrote in machine code, flashing the
> code into prom with a 100ms pulse from a 16V battery. Goodness knows
> how much memory I had ... maybe a few KB.
> I think the Suns were abut $30000 each when they first appeared, but
> prices dropped rapidly so that after maybe three years the standard
> price was about $8000. PCs had appeared and came in at about $4000, if I
> recall right, so there was a price differential but it wasn't huge,
> especially when a Sun could support a whole research team via vt100
> lines, and a PC was a one-person job, thanks to the o/s.
The only thing positive about M$ entering the market, probably
due to their ineffective programming style they pushed Intel into
producing pretty fast while cheapo CPUs. Ironically exactly this
is the key to Linux/*BSD success in the unix server market. ;)
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 387: Your computer's union contract is set to
expire at midnight.
Roy Schestowitz
> Microsoft Hatred, FAQ
>
> [The world is actually round]
Hmmm... 3 year-old 1-pager... PageRank 5.
I sure hope it's not a troll, as some other responders suggested, because I
cited that site in my blog several hours ago.
Remove? leave out link? It's rel="nofollow"ed for the time being.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux + tax = Mac OS = (Windows - functionality)
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
8:10am up 50 days 20:24, 5 users, load average: 0.15, 0.26, 0.30
Martin P. Hellwig
<cut>
>
> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
> mainframe terminals.
At the time you "PC" guys where hacking around monochrome green and a
bit lighter green screens I was doing multi-media editing on my Amiga 600.
So perhaps we should state that we would have been a lot further if not
an incredible amount of cool technologies where bought by MS and then
simply put in the freezer to protect their future market share.
Although Commodore where never serious competitors, they had some
"intern" difficulties, too bad but life goes on.
To go on, stable version of truly free unix likes where released around
1994 that was in the same time MS was working on their super stable
released windows 95 and a slightly better NT 3.5 and let me not forget
OS/2 warp 3.0 .
I'm not a MS basher, hey I make money of them administrating them,
however to state that if we didn't had MS we would been in the IT stone
ages is blatantly wrong, I think we would have been a lot further then
where we are now. Perhaps we even had a other mainstream architecture
like sparcs and powerpc's.
--
mph
Steven D'Aprano
post appears to be reasonable, and yet so utterly wrong that it needs to
be responded to.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:52:57 +0200, Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>>> Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
>>>not monopoly, i don't know what is.
>>
>> They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
>> because they have a large market share.
>
> no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product that
> was easier to use for the average user than anything the competition made
> and a lot more powerful than other products created for their main target
> market.
That's what Microsoft would like us to be believe, but it isn't what the
historical record shows.
The historical facts show that Microsoft had one piece of good fortune,
which they leveraged into the massive corporate empire they have today:
the US Justice Department investigated IBM for abuse of monopoly position.
That investigation lead to IBM playing it safe when they decided to move
into the personal computer market with the IBM Junior. Instead of making
their own operating system, they went out and licenced one from Microsoft.
And because they were desperate to licence something *quickly*, they
foolishly signed an agreement with Microsoft whereby Microsoft got paid
for every PC that they shipped *regardless of whether it had PC-DOS or not*.
IBM did the work to make PC-DOS a de facto standard, which allowed
Microsoft to foist that same sort of agreement on PC clone manufacturers.
This was anti-competitive in the extreme. Who in the highly competitive,
low-margin PC business would commit economic suicide by paying Microsoft
for DOS, and pay another operating system manufacturer as well, unless the
customer asked for the other operating system? The result was, everybody
shipped with MS-DOS, and competition got a bullet in the head.
This was illegal, and in the early 1990s the US Justice Department slapped
Microsoft with a consent decree where Microsoft agreed to stop breaking
the law and the DoJ agreed not to prosecute.
(To see how much they have stopped, you just try buying a laptop or
a Tier One PC with no operating system or something other than Windows.
The Tier One vendors won't do it, or if they do, you pay just as much for
the operating system free PC as the one with Windows. Hands up anyone who
thinks that Dell gets Windows for free?)
Even with the luck of IBM's foolish mistake, Microsoft couldn't quite
knock out their last operating system competitor, DR-DOS. And that's where
they got really dirty. Months before Windows 3.1 was released, they
started sending out test versions of Windows to journalists to review. In
those days, Windows ran as an application on top of DOS. Journalists
discovered that Windows generated an error on DR-DOS. In their reviews,
they of course reported that Windows wouldn't run on DR-DOS. This
effectively killed DR-DOS -- consumers wanted an operating system that
would run Windows.
When Windows was released, a few IT professionals noticed that it would
run under DR-DOS. Of course it was too late now: the DR-DOS market was
effectively gone, except for a few diehards. One of these people was
Andrew Schulman, who wondered why there was a great big piece of encrypted
code inside the review version of Windows 3.1, with a flag that shut the
test off in the release version.
Schulman wrote:
"Whether in spite or because of the books Undocumented DOS and
Undocumented Windows, I've often had to publicly defend Microsoft against
what I felt were acts of scapegoating from whining competitors ..."
No enemy of Microsoft is he.
Schulman discovered that this code had no purpose except to detect DR-DOS,
and then put up a misleading and pointless warning message.
For details, see: http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm
See also:
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factrel.html
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Microsoft#Monopoly_and_legal_issues
http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html
Microsoft has *repeatedly* been found guilty of engaging in illegal
practices, including outright theft of code, perjury ("oh no judge, this
is not a doctored video"), breaking non-disclosure agreements, misleading
conduct, patent and copyright infringement, and breach of contract. In
addition, they have engaged in unscrupulous and unethical behaviour,
including "astro-turf" media campaigns where they have written letters on
behalf of non-existent and dead people to pretend that they had more
community support than they really have.
Perhaps my favourite example of Microsoft's behaviour is what they did to
the inventors of Internet Explorer. IE was originally called Mosaic, one
of the first graphical web browsers in existence. Mosaic was licenced from
Spyglass, on the basis of a percentage of sales. Microsoft then promptly
bundled the re-named Mosaic/IE with Windows, making IE sales equal to (can
you do the maths?) zero.
Let's see now... some percentage of zero is... zero.
> Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
> If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be no
> other software manufacturers at all.
So according to Jeroen, if every computer in the world ran Windows,
except for one thrity-year-old Amstrad in somebody's basement, Microsoft
wouldn't have a monopoly. Yeah, right.
In law and in economics, a monopoly does not mean that there are
absolutely no competitors to a supplier. That is an overly literal
definition, and is about as sensible as arguing that a fly swatter isn't a
fly swatter because you can also use it to squish spiders.
At the time the US Justice Department tackled Microsoft (for the *second*
time, I should point out) Microsoft had approximately 98% of all desktop
PC operating systems in the USA, and approximately the same around the
world. 98% is close enough to 100% to be a monopoly. Economically, 80% is
probably enough market share to be effectively a monopoly (although that
depends on precisely what market we're talking about).
Today, Microsoft's share of the desktop has fallen to perhaps 93% or
90%, still giving them effective monopoly power.
> Prices would be far far higher than they are today, like they were back in
> the days before Microsoft started competing with the likes of Ashton Tate
> and WordPerfect corporation by offering similar products at 20% the price
> (which is the real reason they got to be top dog, they delivered a working
> product for a fraction of the price their competition did, and the
> competition couldn't drop their prices that much and remain profitable).
In Jeroen's dreams. Perhaps some reality check is needed here. In 1989, I
purchased MS Word for approximately $100, and Word Perfect for about $90.
(Prices are in Australian dollars, not adjusted for inflation.) Word
Perfect was discounted somewhat because it was a "cross-grade" from Word.
If I recall correctly, the normal price was about $120. Excel was also
about $100.
By contrast, I paid $4000 for my PC and a dot matrix printer.
Today, I can buy a PC for $500, a monitor for an extra $100, and a laser
printer for another $200 dollars: $800 all up. The recommended retail
price of MS Office is $1000. My PC has plummeted in price, falling by 80%,
while MS Office has gone up in price by 150%.
But who pays recommended retail price on Office? A more realistic price is
the OEM price, which is about $300 here. So while my PC has become
thousands of times more powerful, it has fallen in price by 80%, while
Word and Excel have had only incremental improvements, but have increased
in price by 50%.
That is a textbook example of monopoly power in action.
> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more
> powerful than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used
> only dumb mainframe terminals.
> IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game
> computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have
> come true.
Except for, oh I don't know, Apple, Apricot, Amstrad, Wang, Xerox, and all
the other thousands of computer companies that existed before Microsoft
destroyed competition in the software arena.
IBM's prediction, for the record, was well before Steve Jobs and Steve
Wozniak had invented the personal computer with the Apple. IBM's
prediction at a time when everybody thought that computers would cost
billions of dollars and be as large as a house. Trying to credit Microsoft
for the invention of the PC is foolish to the extreme. Microsoft didn't
even exist when the Apple II was bringing computers to ordinary people.
--
Steven.
Drazen Gemic
Send that to some advocacy group, please.
DG
Rhino
"Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote in message
news:11l16ds...@corp.supernews.com...
I'd be VERY surprised if IBM predicted that there would be only 5 COMPUTERS
in *2000* - perhaps you mean 5 *manufacturers* of computers? - unless the
prediction was made a VERY long time ago. I think you are giving a
badly-mangled version of something I saw when I worked at IBM.
About 10 years ago, when I was working at IBM, there was an employee
newsletter circulated commemorating the death of Thomas J. Watson Jr., a
former CEO of IBM. They cited an old interview with him in which he had
predicted that the world wide market for computers would be 3 in the next
year; in other words, he expected IBM to sell three of their computers in
that year. However, he was not making this prediction in or for the year
2000; the interview had taken place just after World War II - 1946 perhaps -
and was for the next year. I wasn't born then but, from what I recall about
computer history, selling 3 Eniacs (or whatever model they were making that
year) isn't too far out of line with what actually happened.
Of course, we are talking about a time when computers were absolutely
immense, ran on vacuum tubes (the transistor hadn't been invented yet) and
filled very large rooms - and yet probably had less computing power than the
average microwave oven you can buy today. Only very large companies or
national governments would want or need a computer in those days. Everyone
else was still using typewriters - which was IBM's bread and butter in those
days - for their business needs.
Rhino
John Wingate
> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
>> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>> mainframe terminals.
>
> Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
Peter, if you are serious, and not just pulling our legs, your memory is
failing. MS-DOS 1.0 came out in August 1981; SunOS 3.0 in February 1986.
Sun Microsystems was incorporated (with four employees) in February 1982.
There never was a SunOS 3.8. (SunOS 3.5 was succeeded by 4.0.) And I'm
not sure what you mean by "Sun 360"--a Sun 3/60, maybe?
--
John Wingate Mathematics is the art which teaches
joh...@worldpath.net one how not to make calculations.
--Oscar Chisini
Real Gagnon
> COMPUTERS in *2000* - perhaps you mean 5 *manufacturers* of computers?
> - unless the prediction was made a VERY long time ago. I think you are
> giving a badly-mangled version of something I saw when I worked at
> IBM.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." ~ IBM Chairman
Thomas Watson, 1943.
ref : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Computers
Bye.
--
Real Gagnon from Quebec, Canada
* Looking for Java or PB code examples ? Visit Real's How-to
* http://www.rgagnon.com/howto.html
Rhino
"Real Gagnon" <realgagnon_@_yahooSpamIsBadSstripunderscore.com> wrote in
message news:Xns96F0827ADD1F8re...@140.99.99.130...
> > I'd be VERY surprised if IBM predicted that there would be only 5
> > COMPUTERS in *2000* - perhaps you mean 5 *manufacturers* of computers?
> > - unless the prediction was made a VERY long time ago. I think you are
> > giving a badly-mangled version of something I saw when I worked at
> > IBM.
>
> "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." ~ IBM Chairman
> Thomas Watson, 1943.
>
> ref : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Computers
>
> Bye.
I stand corrected; I understated the world market by 2 units and was 4 years
late in my guesstimate for the timing of the quote :-) Oh well, not bad for
something I read 10 years ago....
Rhino
John Bokma
> The only thing positive about M$ entering the market, probably
> due to their ineffective programming style they pushed Intel into
> producing pretty fast while cheapo CPUs.
Amazing, I thought Xah Lee was the only one able to fit so much BS in one
sentence.
> Ironically exactly this
> is the key to Linux/*BSD success in the unix server market. ;)
Yeah, right.
Peter T. Breuer
> Peter T. Breuer <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
>>> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>>> mainframe terminals.
>>
>> Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
>> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
>> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
> Peter, if you are serious, and not just pulling our legs, your memory is
> failing.
Well, it might be a bit off. I am talking about 1986.
> MS-DOS 1.0 came out in August 1981; SunOS 3.0 in February 1986.
Seems about right.
So what version of msdos was around at that time? Obviously I didn't
use it!
> Sun Microsystems was incorporated (with four employees) in February 1982.
> There never was a SunOS 3.8. (SunOS 3.5 was succeeded by 4.0.) And I'm
It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?
> not sure what you mean by "Sun 360"--a Sun 3/60, maybe?
Seems likely. I recall it as a Sun 360m. "Monica" by name, following
the cpu serial number, mncaxxx (or something close). "Sun 3" definitely
rings a bell.
Peter
John Bokma
> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> <cut>
>>
>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more
>> powerful than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used
>> only dumb mainframe terminals.
> <cut>
> At the time you "PC" guys where hacking around monochrome green and a
> bit lighter green screens I was doing multi-media editing on my Amiga
> 600. So perhaps we should state that we would have been a lot further
> if not an incredible amount of cool technologies where bought by MS
> and then simply put in the freezer to protect their future market
> share.
You mean like the lamp that keeps burning forever, like Philips has?
> Although Commodore where never serious competitors,
Because there programming skills were as worse as MS? I mean, their
BASIC had only 2 instuctions: PEEK and POKE?
> they had
> some "intern" difficulties, too bad but life goes on.
Yup, same for Acorn. Their RISC work station was the fastest computer
available for home users at that moment.
> To go on, stable version of truly free unix likes where released
> around 1994 that was in the same time MS was working on their super
> stable released windows 95 and a slightly better NT 3.5 and let me not
> forget OS/2 warp 3.0 .
>
> I'm not a MS basher,
Yet you call NT slightly better compared to Windows 95. So you have no
clue what you're talking about.
> hey I make money of them administrating them,
> however to state that if we didn't had MS we would been in the IT
> stone ages is blatantly wrong,
Now there is truth.
> I think we would have been a lot
> further
No, since companies are just companies, not little gods like some want
them to be.
> then where we are now. Perhaps we even had a other mainstream
> architecture like sparcs and powerpc's.
But "crippled" like Intel.
Michael Heiming
> Michael Heiming <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>> The only thing positive about M$ entering the market, probably
>> due to their ineffective programming style they pushed Intel into
>> producing pretty fast while cheapo CPUs.
> Amazing, I thought Xah Lee was the only one able to fit so much BS in one
> sentence.
You them to have a talent to piss-off people with just a single
terse contribution. ;-)
>> Ironically exactly this
>> is the key to Linux/*BSD success in the unix server market. ;)
> Yeah, right.
Good riddance!
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 146: Communications satellite used by the military
for star wars.
Michael Heiming
>> Peter T. Breuer <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>> Sun Microsystems was incorporated (with four employees) in February 1982.
>> There never was a SunOS 3.8. (SunOS 3.5 was succeeded by 4.0.) And I'm
> It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
> remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?
Looks like SunOS 1.0 came out February 1982, according to:
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#05
Kudos to the one who did the work!
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 44: bank holiday - system operating credits
not recharged^
John Bokma
> In comp.os.linux.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>:
>> Michael Heiming <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>
>>> The only thing positive about M$ entering the market, probably
>>> due to their ineffective programming style they pushed Intel into
>>> producing pretty fast while cheapo CPUs.
>
>> Amazing, I thought Xah Lee was the only one able to fit so much BS in
>> one sentence.
>
> You them to have a talent to piss-off people with just a single
> terse contribution. ;-)
Only if their contribution is utter BS and I point this out.
Michael Heiming
> Michael Heiming <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>:
>>> Michael Heiming <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> The only thing positive about M$ entering the market, probably
>>>> due to their ineffective programming style they pushed Intel into
>>>> producing pretty fast while cheapo CPUs.
>>
>>> Amazing, I thought Xah Lee was the only one able to fit so much BS in
>>> one sentence.
>>
>> You them to have a talent to piss-off people with just a single
>> terse contribution. ;-)
> Only if their contribution is utter BS and I point this out.
Dunno what's so BS about the possibility that the wintel mafia
works hand in hand, M$ introduces a new OS and Intel faster CPU.
People need to use the first, luckily both come bundled with the
latest PC people just need to buy right now. Iirc this is called
marketing, you don't seem to have much clue about.
BTW
Thx for reminding me to actually kill-file you.
PLONK
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 183: filesystem not big enough for Jumbo Kernel
Patch
Martin P. Hellwig
<cut>
> You mean like the lamp that keeps burning forever, like Philips has?
>
No more like all the hydrogen technologies that shell has in their
possession for the last decades and only recently has begun to restart
those projects.
>> Although Commodore where never serious competitors,
>
> Because there programming skills were as worse as MS? I mean, their
> BASIC had only 2 instuctions: PEEK and POKE?
eehm Amiga?
<cut>
>
> Yet you call NT slightly better compared to Windows 95. So you have no
> clue what you're talking about.
So I see you never worked serious with 3.5 .
>
>> hey I make money of them administrating them,
>> however to state that if we didn't had MS we would been in the IT
>> stone ages is blatantly wrong,
>
> Now there is truth.
>
>> I think we would have been a lot
>> further
>
> No, since companies are just companies, not little gods like some want
> them to be.
>
>> then where we are now. Perhaps we even had a other mainstream
>> architecture like sparcs and powerpc's.
>
> But "crippled" like Intel.
Yeah right sparc is crippled...
Matt Garrish
"Michael Heiming" <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote in message
news:ig0823-...@news.heiming.de...
> In comp.os.linux.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>:
>> Michael Heiming <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>:
>>>> Michael Heiming <michael...@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The only thing positive about M$ entering the market, probably
>>>>> due to their ineffective programming style they pushed Intel into
>>>>> producing pretty fast while cheapo CPUs.
>>>
>>>> Amazing, I thought Xah Lee was the only one able to fit so much BS in
>>>> one sentence.
>>>
>>> You them to have a talent to piss-off people with just a single
>>> terse contribution. ;-)
>
>> Only if their contribution is utter BS and I point this out.
>
> Dunno what's so BS about the possibility that the wintel mafia
> works hand in hand, M$ introduces a new OS and Intel faster CPU.
Your presumption that poor coding has anything to do with CPU development is
absurd. There may be times that M$ has to wait on faster chips before
pushing new technologies or Intel has to wait on M$ before pushing new chips
(like their 64bit chips that probably won't be get over-hyped until the next
iteration of Winblows rolls around), but that's hardly evidence of the two
working hand-in-hand.
> People need to use the first, luckily both come bundled with the
> latest PC people just need to buy right now. Iirc this is called
> marketing, you don't seem to have much clue about.
>
Er, that's not called marketing but a software/hardware bundle. Marketing
would be the propaganda that tries to convince you that you need both. When
you have no option that's not marketing but a monopoly, which sort of brings
this all full-circle...
Matt
Michael Heiming
>> Dunno what's so BS about the possibility that the wintel mafia
>> works hand in hand, M$ introduces a new OS and Intel faster CPU.
> Your presumption that poor coding has anything to do with CPU development is
> absurd. There may be times that M$ has to wait on faster chips before
> pushing new technologies or Intel has to wait on M$ before pushing new chips
> (like their 64bit chips that probably won't be get over-hyped until the next
> iteration of Winblows rolls around), but that's hardly evidence of the two
> working hand-in-hand.
Doesn't really matter who is providing faster something that'll
need or provide more power, the other will catch up soon, just to
keep the game going.
>> People need to use the first, luckily both come bundled with the
>> latest PC people just need to buy right now. Iirc this is called
>> marketing, you don't seem to have much clue about.
>>
> Er, that's not called marketing but a software/hardware bundle. Marketing
> would be the propaganda that tries to convince you that you need both. When
> you have no option that's not marketing but a monopoly, which sort of brings
> this all full-circle...
Ops, sorry. Having no option is M$ marketing (monopoly) for the
usual user. Glad to see you got my point. ;-)
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 71: The file system is full of it
John Bokma
> PLONK
So you think you can make points by PLONKing people? Grow up and get a
life. You can learn from listening. You'll learn nothing from ploinking.
Oh, and I am not amazed, since people who claim utter BS is right, plonk
people who don't agree.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
> <cut>
>> You mean like the lamp that keeps burning forever, like Philips has?
>
> No more like all the hydrogen technologies that shell has in their
> possession for the last decades and only recently has begun to restart
> those projects.
>
>>> Although Commodore where never serious competitors,
>>
>> Because there programming skills were as worse as MS? I mean, their
>> BASIC had only 2 instuctions: PEEK and POKE?
>
> eehm Amiga?
Eehm: Acorn Archimedes?
> <cut>
>>
>> Yet you call NT slightly better compared to Windows 95. So you have
>> no clue what you're talking about.
>
> So I see you never worked serious with 3.5 .
Yeah, that's it, I am sure.
>>> then where we are now. Perhaps we even had a other mainstream
>>> architecture like sparcs and powerpc's.
>>
>> But "crippled" like Intel.
>
> Yeah right sparc is crippled...
Yeah, right: Sparc is the ultimate goal in processor design, the best of
the best. You think it would have been that good if it was a mainstream
processor?
Tim Roberts
>
>If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be no
>other software manufacturers at all.
This is wrong. The dictionary definition of a monopoly is when a
manufacturer has all or nearly all of a market. Microsoft DOES have a
monopoly on PC operating systems.
That, in itself, is not necessarily illegal. However, Microsoft then USED
that monopoly power to stifle their competition, and that IS illegal.
Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
>than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>mainframe terminals.
Utter hogwash. Computer hardware would still have followed the path it
did. I suspect we'd all be using WordPerfect or AbiWord on some kind of
Unix clone, and I also suspect application integration wouldn't be as
commonplace as it now is, but it's silly to credit Microsoft with the
ubiquity of powerful computers.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
John Bokma
> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
Opera seems to be making money with it. Also, Firefox gets money from
Google kickback. Maybe MS had a similar idea in mind, but it failed
(remember how they wanted to add ads to keywords in webpages?)
David Schwartz
"Mike Meyer" <m...@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86ll0vs...@bhuda.mired.org...
> What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.
Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car
without an engine.
DS
David Schwartz
"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
> wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
> market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based applications that
work in any browser on any OS threaten to make it irrelevent what OS you're
running. MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important to be
running on one of their OSes.
DS
steve
John Bokma
>
> "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
> news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
>
>> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
>> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
>> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>
> It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based
> applications that
> work in any browser on any OS threaten to make it irrelevent what OS
> you're running.
And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense.
It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the Linux
kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results. Yet people
seem to prefer one distribution over one other.
> MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
> to be running on one of their OSes.
Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
j...@invalid.address
> "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
> > news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
> >> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
> >> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
> >
> > It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based
> > applications that work in any browser on any OS threaten
> > to make it irrelevent what OS you're running.
>
> And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense.
>
> It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the Linux
> kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results. Yet people
> seem to prefer one distribution over one other.
He was talking about the browser war, and gave a pretty good reason
why it was important. So you respond by pointing out that people
choose a linux distribution for personal (non-technical,
non-marketing) reasons. I think I missed the connection.
> > MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
> > to be running on one of their OSes.
>
> Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
Which is?
Joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Matt Garrish
>>
>>Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
>>If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be no
>>other software manufacturers at all.
>
> This is wrong. The dictionary definition of a monopoly is when a
> manufacturer has all or nearly all of a market. Microsoft DOES have a
> monopoly on PC operating systems.
>
> That, in itself, is not necessarily illegal. However, Microsoft then USED
> that monopoly power to stifle their competition, and that IS illegal.
>
> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
> wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
> market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>
It may not be worth loads of money in-and-of itself now (don't forget
Netscape wasn't always free, though), but if you control how people view the
Internet you can make a lot of money in other ways, especially if you build
your browser into your operating system and warp standards so that people
who design sites take advantage of the proprietary features. Eventually the
hope is that your OS and browser will become the only means of accessing the
internet. And if your OS and browser are the only way to access the
Internet, who in their right mind would use another system?
Matt
David Schwartz
"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F0B7AE1A...@130.133.1.4...
> "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>> "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
>> news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
>>> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
>>> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
>>> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>> It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based
>> applications that
>> work in any browser on any OS threaten to make it irrelevent what OS
>> you're running.
> And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense.
To you, if you don't understand it.
> It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the Linux
> kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results. Yet people
> seem to prefer one distribution over one other.
Right, and that's what Microsoft wants to avoid. They wants to make sure
people *have* to choose a Microsoft operating system to get their
applications to work. He doesn't want most applications to work the same on
all operating systems. MS was afraid the browser would replace the operating
system in the sense that it would be the target platform for applications.
>> MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
>> to be running on one of their OSes.
> Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
Well, they have their vision of the future of computing, and you can bet
all things made by Microsoft are at the center of it.
DS
Greymaus
> You clearly weren't paying attention to what the rest
> of the microcomputer industry was doing while Gates was selling IBM
> non-existent software. While IBM was introducing 16-bit processors and
> DOS was doing a flat file system, Tandy was selliig systems - for a
> fraction of the price of any MS-DOS based system - that were
> multitasking, multiuser, had an optional windowing system that came
> with a complete (for the time) office suite. Of course, that was while
> Tandy still thought they could sell computers by selling better
> computers than you could get running MS software.
Was that the Color Computer III running OS9 Level II for an operating
system, that you're talking about? Motorola 6809 processor? HELLUVA
little computer! OS9 was a bit quirky, though, even for a UNIX clone.
Måns Rullgård
That's more like buying a computer without a CPU, which I can in fact
do. Buying a computer without ms windows is more like buying a hifi
set without a Britney Spears CD. I can do that too.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@inprovide.com
John Bokma
> John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
>
>> "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
>> >> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
>> >> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>> >
>> > It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based
>> > applications that work in any browser on any OS threaten
>> > to make it irrelevent what OS you're running.
>>
>> And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense.
>>
>> It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the
>> Linux kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results.
>> Yet people seem to prefer one distribution over one other.
>
> He was talking about the browser war, and gave a pretty good reason
> why it was important. So you respond by pointing out that people
> choose a linux distribution for personal (non-technical,
> non-marketing) reasons. I think I missed the connection.
web based applications that work with any browser make OS irrelevant ->
not true, since for OpenOffice it doesn't matter which Linux
distribution one runs (or even if it's Linux), yet people seem to make a
point of which distribution they use.
>> > MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
>> > to be running on one of their OSes.
>>
>> Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
>
> Which is?
That it *does* matter. It doesn't matter which brand makes your graphics
card, since most stick close to the reference design of the GPU chip
supplier, yet people take the brand in consideration when they buy.
John Bokma
>
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96F0B7AE1A...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
>>>> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
>>>> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>
>>> It really isn't that hard to understand that web-based
>>> applications that
>>> work in any browser on any OS threaten to make it irrelevent what OS
>>> you're running.
>
>> And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense.
>
> To you, if you don't understand it.
See my other example regarding graphics cards. Even if something comes
out of exactly the same factory (for example CD recordables), people
prefer one brand over one other, even if the only difference is the name
on the box. So even if some applications run in a web browser, there
will be people who prefer OS a over OS b, or Linux distribution c over
Linux distribution d. Even if it doesn't matter at all.
>> It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the
>> Linux kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results.
>> Yet people seem to prefer one distribution over one other.
>
> Right, and that's what Microsoft wants to avoid. They wants to
> make sure
> people *have* to choose a Microsoft operating system to get their
> applications to work. He
Who?
> doesn't want most applications to work the
> same on all operating systems. MS was afraid the browser would replace
> the operating system in the sense that it would be the target platform
> for applications.
I have no idea what MS was afraid off. They just deny at first that
something is important, and then take over. Somehow it works for them.
>>> MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
>>> to be running on one of their OSes.
>
>> Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
>
> Well, they have their vision of the future of computing, and you
> can bet
> all things made by Microsoft are at the center of it.
Yup, and I think they will be right for quite some time.
John Bokma
>
> "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
> news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
>> "Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
>>>If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be
>>>no other software manufacturers at all.
>>
>> This is wrong. The dictionary definition of a monopoly is when a
>> manufacturer has all or nearly all of a market. Microsoft DOES have
>> a monopoly on PC operating systems.
>>
>> That, in itself, is not necessarily illegal. However, Microsoft then
>> USED that monopoly power to stifle their competition, and that IS
>> illegal.
>>
>> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
>> browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
>> dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>>
>
> It may not be worth loads of money in-and-of itself now (don't forget
> Netscape wasn't always free, though), but if you control how people
> view the Internet you can make a lot of money in other ways,
> especially if you build your browser into your operating system and
> warp standards
Which standards? W3C doesn't make standards (they talk about working
drafts and recommendations), so nothing to warp there for MS.
> so that people who design sites take advantage of the
> proprietary features.
Yup, Netscape did the same, remember LiveScript (renamed to JavaScript
for obvious reasons), and the elements they added? (Like the, horror,
blink)
> Eventually the hope is that your OS and browser
> will become the only means of accessing the internet. And if your OS
> and browser are the only way to access the Internet, who in their
> right mind would use another system?
It's not happening, so what are you talking about? Any developer hoping
the above has no clue what he/she is developing.
j...@invalid.address
A linux distribution isn't an OS, it's a distribution, so I'm not sure
what your point here is.
In fact, there are lots of Microsoft-centric web pages that don't
work well when accessed from a linux system. ActiveX, MS Java, etc.
> >> > MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
> >> > to be running on one of their OSes.
> >>
> >> Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
> >
> > Which is?
>
> That it *does* matter. It doesn't matter which brand makes your
> graphics card, since most stick close to the reference design of the
> GPU chip supplier, yet people take the brand in consideration when
> they buy.
I don't think that's true, at least not yet. I recently bought a
Compaq Presario, which came with XP installed. I wiped the disk and
installed Linux, only to find that the hardware would only work under
XP. So I then had to install network, video, sound etc cards to get it
working.
joe
John Bokma
Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web based,
and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions matter? It
doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example, OpenOffice. Yet
people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one reason is that people
like to belong to a group. So even if it really doesn't matter which OS
you are going to use to access a web application, or even which browser,
people will pick a certain browser, and a certain OS, just because.
> In fact, there are lots
How much?
> of Microsoft-centric web pages that don't
> work well when accessed from a linux system. ActiveX, MS Java, etc.
Does it matter? There are webpages that just don't work for some people,
no matter that they do work for others. You can't just make up one
standard average user and design the web for it.
>> >> > MS has a strong interest in making sure it's important
>> >> > to be running on one of their OSes.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe *they* do have a point :-).
>> >
>> > Which is?
>>
>> That it *does* matter. It doesn't matter which brand makes your
>> graphics card, since most stick close to the reference design of the
>> GPU chip supplier, yet people take the brand in consideration when
>> they buy.
>
> I don't think that's true, at least not yet. I recently bought a
> Compaq Presario,
Hey, me too :-) (SR1505LA to be exactly, and it does work with Kubuntu,
or at least I get a picture).
> which came with XP installed. I wiped the disk and
Me too (but that was to get rid of the Spanish XP)
> installed Linux, only to find that the hardware would only work under
> XP.
Now that's odd, since mine worked, network, video, sound, etc.
> So I then had to install network, video, sound etc cards to get it
> working.
Odd, very odd. But I am quite sure that if you don't have a driver for a
certain chip set, that it doesn't matter who puts the chip set on a
piece of PCB, it isn't going to work.
John W. Kennedy
> Everyone
> else was still using typewriters - which was IBM's bread and butter in those
> days - for their business needs.
Oh dear, no. Not quite. There were, going back decades, machines that
used punched cards, relays, stepper wheels, and punched cards. It was
/that/ that was the foundation of IBM's business, and IBM had an
effective monopoly. This was not altogether due to evil; their one
competitor, Remington Rand, made machines that were slightly better, but
had to be factory-programmed, whereas IBM's machines used panels full of
jumper wires, and the panels themselves could be swapped, so that you
could have a "program library" of prewired panels. Which would /you/ buy?
Remington Rand made a similar mistake with computers. They wouldn't give
you a programming manual until you contracted to buy the bloody thing.
IBM pulled ahead of them during the year when Univac computers were real
and IBM computers weren't, and they never looked back.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Steve Sobol
> Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
> heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
> Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
> right.
Y'know, I'm Jewish, I have friends who are Holocaust survivors, and I still
think you're a complete asshole for even attempting to compare anything
Microsoft does to what Hitler did. It trivializes the Holocaust.
Fuck off.
Please.
(There, I said "please.")
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjs...@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
Steve Sobol
> no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product that
> was easier to use for the average user than anything the competition made
> and a lot more powerful than other products created for their main target
> market.
People forget that Bill Gates may have dabbled in programming, but his
background is in business. He dropped out of Harvard Business School, not
MIT. :)
Steven D'Aprano
That's a false analogy. A better analogy is, "go to your local car dealer
and see if you can buy a new car with the tyres of your choice."
Even non-technical types can choose to run a non-Windows operating system
on an Intel-compatible PC. So why do the tier-one vendors and all laptop
manufacturers make their machines available only with Windows? Or on the
very few occasions they will offer a naked PC, the price is the same as
for PC + Windows.
I'm aware of talk that Dell is selling Linux PCs at Walmart for less than
the same hardware plus Windows. Talk is cheap -- I'm not aware of anyone
who has actually seen these Linux PCs. I'd love to know either way.
(Oh, and since I am in Australia, and we haven't yet been invaded by
Walmart, I can't go and look for myself.)
--
Steven.
Mike Schilling
> Which standards? W3C doesn't make standards (they talk about working
> drafts and recommendations), so nothing to warp there for MS.
Umm, a recommendation *is* a standard.
And Microsoft must disagree with you. When the spec editor for XML took a
consulting gig with Netsacpe, they insisted he be fired. (See
http://www.textuality.com/xml/Opinion.html)
Steven D'Aprano
> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web based,
> and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions matter? It
> doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example, OpenOffice. Yet
> people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one reason is that people
> like to belong to a group. So even if it really doesn't matter which OS
> you are going to use to access a web application, or even which browser,
> people will pick a certain browser, and a certain OS, just because.
Dude, do you think that Microsoft gives a rat's tail[1] for what a handful
of computer enthusiasts and geek programmers pick? They want to control
the business world, and believe me, corporations don't pick the OS of
their computer because they want to join a community, they pick the OS
that lets them run the applications that their business needs to run.
Operating-system independent browser-based applications threaten the
ability of Microsoft to tie that choice to Windows. That is why MS decided
to bundle IE with Windows and (try to) kill off Netscape as a competitor.
[1] Or any other part of the rat.
--
Steven.
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Xah Lee wrote:
> Microsoft Hatred, FAQ
Once again you fools have been tricked by the XL troll to hold an
endless off-topic discussion in several groups.
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
Matt Garrish
>
>> Eventually the hope is that your OS and browser
>> will become the only means of accessing the internet. And if your OS
>> and browser are the only way to access the Internet, who in their
>> right mind would use another system?
>
> It's not happening, so what are you talking about? Any developer hoping
> the above has no clue what he/she is developing.
>
What happened is irrelevant to what the desire was of M$ when it set out to
take the browser market away from Netscape. When you control the OS market
and make your browser a tied component of it and to the benefit of yourself
only, you limit the ability of anyone else to compete.
I'm still waiting for you to enlighten the rest of us as to the real reason,
though. The anti-trust case that they lost would tend not to bode well for
whatever altruistic argument you might have. I'd also like to hear how MS
Java and jscript show a desire for people to be using anything but M$
products to access or publish pages on the Internet?
Matt
John W. Kennedy
> "Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>
>>Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
>>If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be no
>>other software manufacturers at all.
>
>
> This is wrong. The dictionary definition of a monopoly is when a
> manufacturer has all or nearly all of a market. Microsoft DOES have a
> monopoly on PC operating systems.
>
> That, in itself, is not necessarily illegal. However, Microsoft then USED
> that monopoly power to stifle their competition, and that IS illegal.
>
> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
> wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
> market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
So they can disrupt standards and make it extremely difficult to create
websites that work both with IE and with any non-Windows browser. The
most blatant example is that, a full five years after XHTML came out, IE
doesn't render it at all.
A few years ago, they did the same thing with browser plugins. IE used
to support the same plugins that Netscape did. Then MS arbitrarily
designed a new way of doing plugins that can only work with Windows (and
which, incidentally, opens security holes), and removed support for
standard plugins. As a result, plugin makers have to support two
different plugins, or else choose between compatibility with IE and
compatibility with everybody else.
The message -- "co-operate with us, or be punished".
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
John Wingate
> In comp.os.linux.misc John Wingate <joh...@worldpath.net> wrote:
>> Peter T. Breuer <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
>>>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
>>>> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>>>> mainframe terminals.
>>>
>>> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
>>> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
>
>> Peter, if you are serious, and not just pulling our legs, your memory is
>> failing.
>
> Well, it might be a bit off. I am talking about 1986.
>
>> MS-DOS 1.0 came out in August 1981; SunOS 3.0 in February 1986.
>
> Seems about right.
>
> So what version of msdos was around at that time? Obviously I didn't
> use it!
In 1986? That would be version 3. I have MS-DOS 3.10 (Victor/Sirius
version corresponding to 3.1 for x86) dated 1986.
>> Sun Microsystems was incorporated (with four employees) in February 1982.
>> There never was a SunOS 3.8. (SunOS 3.5 was succeeded by 4.0.) And I'm
> It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
> remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?
Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.
--
John Wingate Mathematics is the art which teaches
joh...@worldpath.net one how not to make calculations.
--Oscar Chisini
John Bokma
>
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96F0C5CC4C...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> Which standards? W3C doesn't make standards (they talk about working
>> drafts and recommendations), so nothing to warp there for MS.
>
> Umm, a recommendation *is* a standard.
No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they would
call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it recommendations? Because
it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML standard though, but when people
babble about HTML standards they talk about W3C *recommendations*.
"Recommendation
Specifications published by the W3C. They cannot be officially called
"standards," since the W3C is a consortium that does not have the status of
the standard body reserved for the ISO and national standard bodies. The
specifications, which are finalized and approved by the Director, are then
called "W3C Recommendations.""
(Quote from an O'Reilly book)
> And Microsoft must disagree with you.
So that must mean you're right? Then wonder why there is an ISO standard
(yes) for HTML.
David Schwartz
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@inprovide.com> wrote in message
news:yw1x4q7i...@ford.inprovide.com...
> "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> writes:
I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want an
engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They
just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.
DS
David Schwartz
> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web based,
> and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions matter? It
> doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example, OpenOffice. Yet
> people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one reason is that people
> like to belong to a group. So even if it really doesn't matter which OS
> you are going to use to access a web application, or even which browser,
> people will pick a certain browser, and a certain OS, just because.
You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux distribution and
still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft *doesn't*
want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft OSes. For then to do
this, applications have to be as tied to the OS as possible. The browser as
a target platform threatened this Microsoft vision, so Microsoft reacted by
trying to corner the browser market and balkanize Java.
You can agree or disagree with the rationale and by sympathetic with or
antagonistic to Microsoft's motive. But these are historical facts.
DS
John Bokma
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:47:09 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
>> based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
>> matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
>> OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
>> reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it really
>> doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
>> application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
>> browser, and a certain OS, just because.
>
> Dude, do you think that Microsoft gives a rat's tail[1] for what a
> handful of computer enthusiasts and geek programmers pick?
So you missed the point again.
> They want
> to control the business world, and believe me, corporations don't pick
> the OS of their computer because they want to join a community, they
> pick the OS that lets them run the applications that their business
> needs to run.
So basically you're saying that even if web based applications become
the shit, everybody keeps running Microsoft? So I am right :-)
> Operating-system independent browser-based applications threaten the
> ability of Microsoft to tie that choice to Windows.
Ah, sure, you really think that a business is going to run office
applications on a web server? Are they already moving to Linux with
OpenOffice (free as in speech?).
> That is why MS
> decided to bundle IE with Windows and (try to) kill off Netscape as a
> competitor.
So and when exactly do we see the web based office?
David Schwartz
"Steven D'Aprano" <st...@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.16....@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:48:18 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> "Mike Meyer" <m...@mired.org> wrote in message
>> news:86ll0vs...@bhuda.mired.org...
>>> What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
>>> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
>>> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
>>> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
>>> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.
>>
>> Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car
>> without an engine.
> That's a false analogy. A better analogy is, "go to your local car dealer
> and see if you can buy a new car with the tyres of your choice."
How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have
on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon
your choice of OS.
> Even non-technical types can choose to run a non-Windows operating system
> on an Intel-compatible PC. So why do the tier-one vendors and all laptop
> manufacturers make their machines available only with Windows? Or on the
> very few occasions they will offer a naked PC, the price is the same as
> for PC + Windows.
I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a
lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals
Microsoft offers.
The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the
total package price, buy elsewhere.
DS
Peter T. Breuer
> I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want an
> engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They
> just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.
There would be if an engine manufacturer refused to provide car
manufacturers with ANY engines for any model, unless all buyers were
charged for THEIR engine in every model, whether their engine was in
there or not.
You want to cease this line of apologism.
Peter
John Bokma
>
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96F0C5CC4C...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Matt Garrish" <matthew...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually the hope is that your OS and browser
>>> will become the only means of accessing the internet. And if your OS
>>> and browser are the only way to access the Internet, who in their
>>> right mind would use another system?
>>
>> It's not happening, so what are you talking about? Any developer
>> hoping the above has no clue what he/she is developing.
>
> What happened is irrelevant to what the desire was of M$ when it set
> out to take the browser market away from Netscape. When you control
> the OS market and make your browser a tied component of it and to the
> benefit of yourself only, you limit the ability of anyone else to
> compete.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to enlighten the rest of us as to the real
> reason, though.
The same reason why Google is into IM, GMail, WIFI, and many other things.
And Apple into music, phones, you name it. Just don't bet on one horse.
Tim Hammerquist
> Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
> If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and
> there'd be no other software manufacturers at all.
Interesting. Standard Oil only had about 2/3 of the oil
refining market when they were split up. And Microsoft has
a fair bit more of the home computer market than that.
The fact is, while Microsoft is not the only firm in the market,
and are not a "pure monopoly", they are a de facto monopoly, and
have been found on multiple occasions to violate many of the
same practices which Standard Oil performed and caused to become
illegal.
Microsoft is a monopoly, as defined by US Antitrust Law. And as
they've been found similarly guilty by other governing bodies,
it doesn't seem to be a purely American deduction.
I won't deny that Microsoft has done possibly more than any
other single entity to further the mass adoption of public
computer use. I also won't deny that they used a combination of
good products and good business tactics to get to the top of the
industry. I also can't in good conscience call them "evil".
I will, however, say that they have engaged in immoral[*],
unethical, and illegal practices to artificially maintain and
augment their position in the industry and has not yet provided
products/services to back it up.
[*] Yeah, I know. What place do morals have in the business
world. I'm an idealist. Sue me.
Cheers,
Tim Hammerquist
Tim Hammerquist
> Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new
> car without an engine.
Even if you want to equate a car's engine with a computer's OS,
a better indicator would be to ask the car salesman if, when you
take the car home, are you legally prevented from being able to
remove the engine, or replace/upgrade parts?
Tim
Steven D'Aprano
>>> Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car
>>> without an engine.
>
>> That's a false analogy. A better analogy is, "go to your local car dealer
>> and see if you can buy a new car with the tyres of your choice."
>
> How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have
> on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon
> your choice of OS.
Within rather broad limits, you can put any tyre you like on your car, but
it is not practical to change your engine.
Within rather broad limits, you can run any OS you like on your computer.
Car manufacturers *like* the fact that there is enormous competition in
the tyre market. If (say) Bridgestone had an effective monopoly, they
could charge whatever they liked and car manufacturers would have to pay
it, or else not sell cars at all. So car manufacturers do not discourage
consumers from choosing their own brand of tyre. If you, the consumer,
cares enough to ask for Brand X tyres on your car, the dealer will fall
over himself to please.
PC manufacturers, on the other hand, do discourage consumers from choosing
their own brand of OS. As a result, the royalties they pay to Microsoft
per PC is frequently more than the profit they make. Most white-goods PC
resellers are lucky to make $50 profit on a PC, *before* wages.
(Presumably Tier One vendors make more than that, but not that much more.)
And that is the mystery that needs to be explained. H-P/Compaq, Dell,
Toshiba, and all the other Tier One and Tier Two vendors have no problem
selling servers without operating systems. Some will even pre-install
Linux on them for you. So why are consumers forced to make the choice of
either paying for Windows with their laptop, or no laptop at all?
You will notice that only 30% of servers run Windows (lots of competition
in the server market) and over 90% of desktops (no competition in the
desktop market). Coincidence? I think not.
--
Steven.
Tim Hammerquist
> Was that the Color Computer III running OS9 Level II for an
> operating system, that you're talking about? Motorola 6809
> processor? HELLUVA little computer! OS9 was a bit quirky,
> though, even for a UNIX clone.
I loved my little CoCo! I had the original CoCo, upgraded with
the 5 1/4" floppy drive, and later upgraded the whole system to
CoCo 3 with OS9.
<3 <3 <3
Of course, it all went downhill from there. MS-DOS 3.1, Pascal,
Windows 3.1...
*sigh*
10 years later, things picked up. Huzzah!
Tim Hammerquist
Steven D'Aprano
> Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:47:09 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
>>> based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
>>> matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
>>> OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
>>> reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it really
>>> doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
>>> application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
>>> browser, and a certain OS, just because.
>>
>> Dude, do you think that Microsoft gives a rat's tail[1] for what a
>> handful of computer enthusiasts and geek programmers pick?
>
> So you missed the point again.
"Again"?
What exactly *is* your point? You seem to be oscillating from "Microsoft
doesn't care what browser people use" to "Microsoft cares deeply what
browser people use". I don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> They want
>> to control the business world, and believe me, corporations don't pick
>> the OS of their computer because they want to join a community, they
>> pick the OS that lets them run the applications that their business
>> needs to run.
>
> So basically you're saying that even if web based applications become
> the shit, everybody keeps running Microsoft? So I am right :-)
No. My point is, IF web-based apps become popular, and back in the 1990s
people thought that they would, and they would run on any browser, then
you could run your browser on any operating system on any hardware. That's
what Microsoft wanted to stop, by gluing the browser to the OS.
>> Operating-system independent browser-based applications threaten the
>> ability of Microsoft to tie that choice to Windows.
>
> Ah, sure, you really think that a business is going to run office
> applications on a web server? Are they already moving to Linux with
> OpenOffice (free as in speech?).
As I said, back in the 90s that's what people thought, including Microsoft.
As for OpenOffice, yes, there is a slow migration away from MS Office. If
you are in the US, the UK or Australia, you probably won't have noticed
it, since it is a tiny trickle in those countries. But in the emerging IT
markets of Asia (especially China), Europe and South America, that trickle
has become a steady stream.
Especially now that Gartner has claimed that migrating from current
versions of Office to Office 12 will cost ten times more for training
alone than migrating to OpenOffice, I think we can expect to see that
trickle start gushing in the next twelve months or so.
>> That is why MS
>> decided to bundle IE with Windows and (try to) kill off Netscape as a
>> competitor.
>
> So and when exactly do we see the web based office?
Rumour has it that Google is preparing to do exactly that.
Personally, I don't see the point. I would never use a web-based office
suite, but then I don't even like web mail.
What's more important these days from Microsoft's strategic planning is
multimedia. Yes, they want -- need -- to keep control of the office suite,
Office gives them something like 1/2 their revenue. But for the long-term,
they want to lock folks into their proprietary Internet-based multimedia
systems (e.g. streaming wmv over mms) because they think that this will
give them control of a very lucrative business. I can't really disagree
with them.
--
Steven.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> In 1986? That would be version 3. I have MS-DOS 3.10 (Victor/Sirius
> version corresponding to 3.1 for x86) dated 1986.
Yes, a better example of existing platforms (when PC-DOS 1.0 was
shipped with IBM's PCs) is CP/M, which QDOS -> PCDOS -> MSDOS was a
bastardized clone of.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else.
It is a de facto standard instead of a de jure standard.
Sort of how the SMTP "recommendation" is the de facto standard for
internet mail instead of ISO-MOTIS (built on the X.400 spec).
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have
> on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon
> your choice of OS.
Which cars let you install another engine as easily as you can install
a new operating system? Admit the analogy sucks, like all car-computer
analogies invariably do.
> I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a
> lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals
> Microsoft offers.
Microsoft apologists always assume that training cost for Windows
users are zero, that people "know" Windows from the start. If that was
true, there would not be a multi-million market in Windows user
support.
> The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
> problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the
> total package price, buy elsewhere.
But when Microsoft were doing their illegal arm-wringing of dealers,
there was no "elsewhere" to go.
Roel Schroeven
> j...@invalid.address wrote:
>
>
>>John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
>>>>>browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
>>>>>dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
>>>>
>>>> applications that work in any browser on any OS threaten
>>>> to make it irrelevent what OS you're running.
>>>
>>>And it's even easier to understand that your statement is nonsense.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter which Linux distribution you pick, all use the
>>>Linux kernel. On all I can run OpenOffice, and get the same results.
>>>Yet people seem to prefer one distribution over one other.
>>
>>He was talking about the browser war, and gave a pretty good reason
>>why it was important. So you respond by pointing out that people
>>choose a linux distribution for personal (non-technical,
>>non-marketing) reasons. I think I missed the connection.
>
>
> web based applications that work with any browser make OS irrelevant ->
> not true, since for OpenOffice it doesn't matter which Linux
> distribution one runs (or even if it's Linux), yet people seem to make a
> point of which distribution they use.
You make the point yourself now: if web based applications work with any
browser, people can freely choose their distribution based on their own
preferences.
- An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx, Links,
Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS
- An application only works in IE -> users are forced to use Windows (or
one of the other few OS's that IE exists on)
--
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton
Roel Schroeven
Jeroen Wenting
"Peter T. Breuer" <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:t3k623-...@news.it.uc3m.es...
> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl>
> wrote:
>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more
>> powerful
>> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>> mainframe terminals.
>
> Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
>
OS) would have been able to afford those?
My point is that Microsoft made computers that were more than glorified
gaming consoles affordable for the common man.
They are the ones who lowered the price of shrinkwrapped software for home
and office application from thousands or tens of thousands to hundreds of
dollars.
Jeroen Wenting
>>>> Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
>>>>not monopoly, i don't know what is.
>>> They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
>>> because they have a large market share.
>> no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product
>> that
>> was easier to use for the average user than anything the competition made
>> and a lot more powerful than other products created for their main target
>> market.
>
> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.
>
known for his anti-Microsoft activism.
>> Prices would be far far higher than they are today
>
> I disagree. Before Gates decided to sell BASIC, software was very
> cheap. It started getting cheap again in the late 80s. Now that cheap
> software is threatening MS, they're doing their best to shut down all
> the sources of quality cheap software, with there usual disregard for
> truth, legality, ethics or the good of either the customer or their
> business partners.
>
WordPerfect (to take an example) cost several thousand dollars.
When Microsoft released Office 4 for a few hundred WP was forced to lower
prices radically, and so was Lotus (to name a few).
>> IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game
>> computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have
>> come
>> true.
>
> I see. You're a troll.
>
nope, I'm just sick and tired of trolls like you calling everyone who
doesn't share their hatred of Microsoft a troll.
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
>> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
>> wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
>> market. Why would you risk anything to own it?
> It may not be worth loads of money in-and-of itself now (don't forget
> Netscape wasn't always free, though), but if you control how people view the
> Internet you can make a lot of money in other ways, especially if you build
> your browser into your operating system and warp standards so that people
> who design sites take advantage of the proprietary features. Eventually the
> hope is that your OS and browser will become the only means of accessing the
> internet. And if your OS and browser are the only way to access the
> Internet, who in their right mind would use another system?
There was a time in the early-mid 1990s that Microsoft was making noises
about setting up a 'commercial Internet' through which they hoped
to control all online trading (with a percentage of each transaction
going to themselves of course). I forget the exact details but it
seemed a very real suggestion at the time.
Axel
Steven D'Aprano
> My point is that Microsoft made computers that were more than glorified
> gaming consoles affordable for the common man.
Microsoft has never made a computer in its existence. Not one. They are a
software company. The only hardware they sell are keyboards and mice.
> They are the ones who lowered the price of shrinkwrapped software for home
> and office application from thousands or tens of thousands to hundreds of
> dollars.
Yeah, if you ignore Apple, Wordperfect, Adobe, Aldus, Wordstar, and dozens
of other software suppliers.
Is it possible for you to get your arguments even more wrong? What's next?
Microsoft invented the transistor?
--
Steven.
Steven D'Aprano
>> What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
>> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
>> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
>> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
>> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.
>>
> And were later forced to rescind.
False. When the Bush administration took over from Clinton, they didn't
follow through with punishing Microsoft for, e.g. perjury, but they didn't
"rescind" the judgement.
> The judge who wrote that opinion is well
> known for his anti-Microsoft activism.
Well, that sure answered my previous question.
Remember, Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal practices in *many*
civil suits, and settled out of court many more, plus TWO American DoJ
investigations by two different judges, plus Japan, the EU, and a number
of individual European nations.
--
Steven.
Fredrik Lundh
> Microsoft has never made a computer in its existence. Not one.
http://www.microsoft.com/xbox/
</F>
Michael Heiming
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:49:58 +0200, Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>> My point is that Microsoft made computers that were more than glorified
>> gaming consoles affordable for the common man.
> Microsoft has never made a computer in its existence. Not one. They are a
One should be lucky.
> software company. The only hardware they sell are keyboards and mice.
>> They are the ones who lowered the price of shrinkwrapped software for home
>> and office application from thousands or tens of thousands to hundreds of
>> dollars.
> Yeah, if you ignore Apple, Wordperfect, Adobe, Aldus, Wordstar, and dozens
> of other software suppliers.
> Is it possible for you to get your arguments even more wrong? What's next?
> Microsoft invented the transistor?
Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!
Honestly, for anyone serious, there are "The Halloween
Documents", which should give enough information about FUD...
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
At least, a nice troll bait the OP launched, even if obvious
enough, extensive cross-posting and "Microsoft" right in the
subject. ;-)
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 390: Increased sunspot activity.
Steven D'Aprano
Does Microsoft actually make the Xbox or just sub-contract it out?
Either way, your point is taken. But since the OP did explicitly contrast
the supposed Microsoft PC revolution with games machines, I think my
insignificant error is forgivable and understandable. The Xbox is not a
general purpose computer, it has limited software other than games, and
Microsoft gets really, really REALLY upset if you try to install another
operating system on it.
--
Steven.
Peter T. Breuer
> "Peter T. Breuer" <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> news:t3k623-...@news.it.uc3m.es...
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl>
>> wrote:
>>> Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more
>>> powerful
>>> than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>>> mainframe terminals.
>>
>> Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
>> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
>> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
>>
> And how many people who now have $500 PCs ($200 of which is the cost of the
> OS) would have been able to afford those?
Well, I almost bought my Sun workstation after three years, as it had
depreciated to nearly nothing in value! As I recall, it would have been
about 2000 pounds then if I had decided to buy it. That was a bit more than
the price of a new 286 at that point. But it had scsi disks! And 8M of
ram instead of just 640KB! And a huge monitor (what were those sun
monitor sizes?) instead of a tichy 640x480 PC screen.
If I recall right, the first computer I bought (after the Sun)
was an 8088 "portable". I sold it off almost at once in favour of a
386sx20 portable with 1MB of ram and 20MB of disk which cost more than
1000 pounds sterling. I was able to run linux on that machine, after
upping its memory to 3MB.
Peter
Tim Tyler
> Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
> at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
> running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.
>
> And a mean game of tetris it played too. Chess wasn't worth the
> humiliation at level 5.
>
> I believe every researcher in britain got one as a matter of course, but
> they only replaced the perq machines that everyone had had to put up
> with before then. The vaxen running hpux or so were plentiful too, and
> had fine monitors, tending more to the PC shape. We'd made our own word
> processor machines and spreadsheet automatons before that. It didn't
> take that many components, just a good engineer and a room full of
> lackeys with soddering irons. The BBC were selling kits too (what were
> they? Ataris?), not that I ever fell for that.
Acorn computers. Manufacturers of the best computer I ever owned.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Rhino
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4mi4f.28813$Ge5....@fe10.lga...
> Rhino wrote:
> > Everyone
> > else was still using typewriters - which was IBM's bread and butter in
those
> > days - for their business needs.
>
> Oh dear, no. Not quite. There were, going back decades, machines that
> used punched cards, relays, stepper wheels, and punched cards. It was
> /that/ that was the foundation of IBM's business, and IBM had an
> effective monopoly. This was not altogether due to evil; their one
> competitor, Remington Rand, made machines that were slightly better, but
> had to be factory-programmed, whereas IBM's machines used panels full of
> jumper wires, and the panels themselves could be swapped, so that you
> could have a "program library" of prewired panels. Which would /you/ buy?
>
> Remington Rand made a similar mistake with computers. They wouldn't give
> you a programming manual until you contracted to buy the bloody thing.
> IBM pulled ahead of them during the year when Univac computers were real
> and IBM computers weren't, and they never looked back.
>
Sorry, my mistake. I knew that IBM had collators and such things back in
those days but I didn't know what percentage of their business they
comprised. I used to work with a long-time IBMer who had started out in
marketing in the 60s or so and I got the impression from him that
typewriters were still the bulk of IBM's business. Perhaps he was just in
that division and didn't know the "big picture".
My apologies for inadvertently misleading anyone. These events took place
before my time so I probably should have researched more before making those
remarks.
Rhino
John Bokma
> John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
>
>> No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else.
>
> It is a de facto standard instead of a de jure standard.
Yup, a recommendation.
Tim Tyler
> I'm aware of talk that Dell is selling Linux PCs at Walmart for less than
> the same hardware plus Windows. Talk is cheap -- I'm not aware of anyone
> who has actually seen these Linux PCs. I'd love to know either way.
See:
``Dell's Open PC Costs More Than Windows Box''
- http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/08/034211&tid=190&tid=137
John Bokma
>
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96F0C9445F...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
>> based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
>> matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
>> OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
>> reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it really
>> doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
>> application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
>> browser, and a certain OS, just because.
>
> You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux
> distribution and
> still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft
> *doesn't* want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft OSes.
> For then to do this, applications have to be as tied to the OS as
> possible. The browser as a target platform threatened this Microsoft
> vision, so Microsoft reacted by trying to corner the browser market
> and balkanize Java.
And when are we going to see this browser as a target platform?
> You can agree or disagree with the rationale and by sympathetic
> with or
> antagonistic to Microsoft's motive. But these are historical facts.
No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet. That
you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be running NS
Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.
MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then state
it's not significant, and next they are an important player. This is not
limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They don't miss
anything, they just don't jump on every hype.
John Bokma
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:26:51 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:47:09 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
>>>> based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
>>>> matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
>>>> OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
>>>> reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it
>>>> really doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
>>>> application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
>>>> browser, and a certain OS, just because.
>>>
>>> Dude, do you think that Microsoft gives a rat's tail[1] for what a
>>> handful of computer enthusiasts and geek programmers pick?
>>
>> So you missed the point again.
>
> "Again"?
>
> What exactly *is* your point? You seem to be oscillating from
> "Microsoft doesn't care what browser people use"
I didn't write that.
> to "Microsoft cares
> deeply what browser people use". I don't understand what you are
> trying to say.
Neither that. I wrote: People *care* what OS they are using. Hence, even
if there is a standard web platform for applications, and it doesn't
matter what you use, people still will prefer MS over others. Even if
they can't see any difference. I already wrote: look at CDs. There are
several factories producing CDs. There are labels put on the same batch
of CDs. So one can buy brand X, and brand Y, but basically you buy CDs
made by factory Z, batch W. And yet people make a great deal about how
much better X is compared to Y for burning CDs.
So even if the OS doesn't matter from a technical viewpoint (which I
don't see happen soon), people are able to attach matters to their
choice. It's like those cookies that every year get more tastier,
better, etc.
>> So basically you're saying that even if web based applications become
>> the shit, everybody keeps running Microsoft? So I am right :-)
>
> No. My point is, IF web-based apps become popular, and back in the
> 1990s people thought that they would,
Some did, some didn't. I didn't. I always said the Notworking computer
was just that: not working.
> and they would run on any
> browser, then you could run your browser on any operating system on
> any hardware. That's what Microsoft wanted to stop, by gluing the
> browser to the OS.
And how exactly was that going to work?
>> Ah, sure, you really think that a business is going to run office
>> applications on a web server? Are they already moving to Linux with
>> OpenOffice (free as in speech?).
>
> As I said, back in the 90s that's what people thought, including
> Microsoft.
So, you have contacts in high places, or you make it up? *I* didn't
think that back in the 90s, and I remember quite a lot of people didn't
think it either. The diskless Networking computer had quickly a harddisc
added, and I, and many others said: what's the difference? How much does
a harddisc save and how much costs does it add not having it? The
picture was clear to me, and others back then: thin clients are not
happening. The whole PC idea is that you can shop your hardware, put it
in a computer, and have your own *Personal* computer.
> As for OpenOffice, yes, there is a slow migration away from MS Office.
Yup, like the slow migration away from MS as an OS.
> If you are in the US, the UK or Australia, you probably won't have
> noticed it,
I am in Mexico, am Dutch, and have been living in NZ for 2 years. The
only companies who say that it's going to happen are the ones that do
Linux support (go figure).
> since it is a tiny trickle in those countries. But in the
> emerging IT markets of Asia (especially China), Europe and South
> America, that trickle has become a steady stream.
I am in Latin America, and it's not happening here as far as I know.
> Especially now that Gartner has claimed that migrating from current
> versions of Office to Office 12 will cost ten times more for training
> alone than migrating to OpenOffice, I think we can expect to see that
> trickle start gushing in the next twelve months or so.
LOL, well, I am not going to hold my breath.
>>> That is why MS
>>> decided to bundle IE with Windows and (try to) kill off Netscape as
>>> a competitor.
>>
>> So and when exactly do we see the web based office?
>
> Rumour has it that Google is preparing to do exactly that.
Yeah, rumours.
> Personally, I don't see the point. I would never use a web-based
> office suite, but then I don't even like web mail.
Yes, I agree with you. But, like I explained in a related thread
somewhere else some time ago, a web based office will get users. As I
said, I live in Mexico. Most people here don't have money for a PC (and
no, they are not going to buy those miracle machines like AMD is
promising), so they go to Internet cafes when they need one. Students I
know already rely a lot on Hotmail, Gmail, etc, to store and exchange
their homework. They edit it in an Internet cafe, email it, etc. So I am
sure that in Mexico, people might going to switch to web based office.
> What's more important these days from Microsoft's strategic planning
> is multimedia.
And advertising, which is quite related of course.
> Yes, they want -- need -- to keep control of the office
> suite, Office gives them something like 1/2 their revenue. But for the
> long-term, they want to lock folks into their proprietary
> Internet-based multimedia systems (e.g. streaming wmv over mms)
> because they think that this will give them control of a very
> lucrative business. I can't really disagree with them.
Yup, I don't see MS disappear very soon now, nor do I see major shifts
(like desktop to network) happening very soon.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> web based applications that work with any browser make OS irrelevant
>> -> not true, since for OpenOffice it doesn't matter which Linux
>> distribution one runs (or even if it's Linux), yet people seem to
>> make a point of which distribution they use.
>
> You make the point yourself now: if web based applications work with
> any browser, people can freely choose their distribution based on
> their own preferences.
Yup, and what will they pick?
> - An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx, Links,
> Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS
I think that we both understand that one browser will be more compatible
then an other. It will only happen if all use exactly the same render
engine, or all web recommendations are frozen. And if that happens,
people selling stuff will find ways to make their version just a little
better.
Look at processors: which one would you buy at the moment? AMD? Intel?
and if you pick a brand, which type? As soon as products can't evolve
much more, the producers will find ways to make them even better
compared to last week.
> - An application only works in IE -> users are forced to use Windows
> (or one of the other few OS's that IE exists on)
Or wait until there comes a solution from a 3rd party. Force doesn't
exists with software unless you can manipulate the law to enforce it.
And I don't believe that everybody at Microsoft was/is that stupid to
think they can make that something they don't controll only works with
their software. Sure they can make it harder, like I said, you can
always add things, especially if you are the major player, but Firefox
is a nice proof that there is no such force, and I doubt that there are
people working at Microsoft in major positions who didn't see this
coming.
j...@invalid.address
> j...@invalid.address wrote:
>
> > John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
> >
> >> j...@invalid.address wrote:
> >>
> >> > John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:a103l1tkejrc99s03...@4ax.com...
> >> web based applications that work with any browser make OS
> >> irrelevant -> not true, since for OpenOffice it doesn't matter
> >> which Linux distribution one runs (or even if it's Linux), yet
> >> people seem to make a point of which distribution they use.
> >
> > A linux distribution isn't an OS, it's a distribution, so I'm not sure
> > what your point here is.
>
> Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
> based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
> matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
> OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
> reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it
> really doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
> application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
> browser, and a certain OS, just because.
Thanks for spelling it out for me. Now could you spell out what this
has to do with Microsoft's intentions?
On second thought, don't bother, I think you're talking about
something else, and I'm not sure what that is.
Joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Mike Schilling
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Which standards? W3C doesn't make standards (they talk about working
>>> drafts and recommendations), so nothing to warp there for MS.
>>
>> Umm, a recommendation *is* a standard.
>
> No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they would
> call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it recommendations? Because
> it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML standard though, but when people
> babble about HTML standards they talk about W3C *recommendations*.
In that sense there are no standards in software. The ISO C++ "standard"
and the XML "recommendation" have the same amount of force behind them.
Roedy Green
or quoted :
>
>>Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
>>than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
>>mainframe terminals.
>
>Utter hogwash. Computer hardware would still have followed the path it
>did. I suspect we'd all be using WordPerfect or AbiWord on some kind of
>Unix clone, and I also suspect application integration wouldn't be as
>commonplace as it now is, but it's silly to credit Microsoft with the
>ubiquity of powerful computers.
Granted MS did figure out all kinds of ways to waste RAM and CPU power
thus forcing people to upgrade to more powerful computers. What might
have happened with someone else leading the charge it we would be
using less powerful computers but getting more spritely response.
That is like saying you credit SUV owners for any advances in
alternative energy because they helped burn up the oil faster.
MS has held BACK computer evolution by tying their OS so heavily to
the Pentium architecture. The chip architecture has nowhere near
enough registers. MS refused to believe the Internet was more than a
passing fad. They are still frantically patching security holes in
their OS over a decade later.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Roedy Green
or quoted :
>Opera seems to be making money with it. Also, Firefox gets money from
>Google kickback. Maybe MS had a similar idea in mind, but it failed
>(remember how they wanted to add ads to keywords in webpages?)
There also had that Passport thing. They probably figured they would
take over Internet commerce and get rich off the user fees.
Roedy Green
or quoted :
>Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web based,
>and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions matter?
The point is you make your choice based on quality of the OS and
distribution, not whether it can run a given piece of software.
Web apps, Java and other multiplatform tools force OSes to compete on
quality, not on proprietary lockin.
Roedy Green
or quoted :
>No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they would
>call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it recommendations? Because
>it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML standard though, but when people
>babble about HTML standards they talk about W3C *recommendations*.
What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs. That stands for
"Request For Comment". It is an in-sort of Internet humour to name
standards that way.
Roedy Green
<dav...@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
> Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car
>without an engine.
Given that that the OS and the hardware come from completely different
companies, I think that a specious analogy.
Roedy Green
<dav...@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
> I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want an
>engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They
>just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.
I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick to
compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must buy
a copy of our OS for EVERY machine you sell. The alternative is to
pay full retail for the OSes.
That meant a customer who wanted OS/2 had to effectively also buy an
unwanted copy of Windows. How could OS/2 compete?
Roedy Green
hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote or quoted :
>They are the ones who lowered the price of shrinkwrapped software for home
>and office application from thousands or tens of thousands to hundreds of
>dollars.
Come now. While software generally has reduced in price, MS software
has increased.
Richard Gration
> Acorn computers. Manufacturers of the best computer I ever owned.
I'm willing to bet that was an Arc ... ? I never used one but everyone
I've ever talked to who used one said it was fantastic. Myself I was
pretty impressed with the BBC B ...