Jump to content

Microsoft


Charles Lindsey
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

They probably don't know they have the choice. They do, they just probably don't know it.

And Microsoft capitalized on that by requiring IE be on the desktop and disallowing competitors from being there. If I'm remembering right.

Good post though.

quote:

$ilk's post

Now that's just plain funny.

Steve: I see what you are saying. I still disagree. Good discussion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My turn!

As most of you know, I am anti-Microsoft. That's why I'm learning Linux and boycotting XP (I've had enough bad Microsoft eXPeriences, thank you very much ). I also believe that Microsoft should be broken up. More on that later.

First, the OS definition issue.

A real Operating System does two things: it bridges the hardware level to the software level, and builds a data system (or file system) through which applications can function. A real Operating System may or may not have a simple kernel-based glass teletype interface (one is usually provided for convenience) since it doesn't really need one to function, let alone a fancy GUI. Everything else runs as an application above the system level except for applications that configure the OS.

A real Operating System has significant advantages over bloatware. The biggest advantage is stability. Remember when DOS didn't crash (much) under Windows 3.1? What's the big difference between 3.1 and 4.x (Windows 95/98/ME)? Win3.1 is a desktop environment running on top of the DOS kernel with many apps running above the system level. Win4.x is a desktop environment that's been fully integrated with the DOS 7 kernel. Any bugs that exist in an integrated desktop environment can and do affect the kernel as well, leading to a more unstable system. That's the same reason why, unlike Netscape, when IE crashes on a Windows machine, the whole system goes down with it.

Therefore, Microsoft's vision of an "evolutionary" or "innovative" Operating System is actually a big step backwards for OS architects.

Second, the browser competition issue.

This is the most visible of the issues that surround the anti-trust ruling against Microsoft. It's also a highly debated issue.

Kush wrote what many others (not necessarily on this forum) have written about the browser issue:

quote:

There is nothing stopping anyone from having two or three browsers at the same time on their computer. (Like me) What's dumb is the average consumer who will just click on any old icon that connects them to the internet. They probably don't know they have the choice. They do, they just probably don't know it. What's dumber is spending millions of dollars arguing whether a browser should be bundled with an operating system. IT'S JUST A FREAKING BROWSER! You want to make a better browser, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Not even Microsoft.

Actually, Microsoft is stopping you in the way that only it knows how. There are two reasons why Microsoft decided to fully integrate Internet Explorer with Windows:

1. To make it hard as hell to remove.

2. To make it faster than other web browsers.

Unless you have full access to the Windows source code, you're going to have a very hard time developing a web browser for Windows that can outpace IE while still retaining the same quantity of features.

Consumers notice the speed difference and extensive feature set, which is why many pick IE.

Finally, why Microsoft should be broken up.

The answer is very simple. They abused their power through criminal acts, so they should lose their power. Ever wondered why murderers are sent to prison? To make sure that they can't kill anyone out on the streets again. Ever wondered why Microsoft's monopoly should be split up? To make sure that they can't bully the industry again.

It worked with AT&T/Bell Laboratories, so why not Microsoft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What do you think will happen if say, a small company from Alabama made an OS that is vastly better than Windows, managing memory and all pc stuff 5X better than windows, doesnt crash, super secure vs hackers,stable, etc.... but it is not compatible with windows and windows-based programs (drivers, games, app. software, etc)?

Probably the same thing that happened to OS/2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is WAH!!!

Windows is better then the rest, if you can make a better browser, do it, the market will decide.

Make a better OS, let the market decide.

Microsoft has done a BRILLIANT job of marketing, and making windows as integrated and easy to use as possible. Good for Bill Gates, good for his shareholders, good for Microsoft.

If there is a better OS out there, let it show itself and let the market decide.

That si what free enterprise and capitalism is all about, if you can't compete against the big boys, then you will get buried, end of story!!

But now, due to socialist and liberal policies, the competition is crying to mama government about how unfair it is. Well quit your baby whining and Market the product!!

LET THE MARKET DECIDE!!!

The government has no place in it!! PERIOD!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you want to split Microsoft up. One company that makes operating systems, and another company that makes software.

Hello, McFly, an operating system IS software.

If you want to pass a law that says Microsoft is no longer allowed to make both, then you have to draft a law that says NO ONE is allowed to make both. Including Apple. Passing a law that restricts only one company is a little too much, even for me.

THE problem (Jaguar, I love your sentiment, but I gotta take you to task on this one ) has nothing to do with software. It has to do with forcing manufacturers to load certain software onto your computer when it's sold. Period. Lets say I all of a sudden want to start making and selling computers. Microsoft will want me to sign a deal that forces me to use their software only, exactly the way THEY want me to use it. That's wrong. It's highly anti-competative.

If I sell computers, and, hey, I decide I want my customers to use Netscape instead, I should be free to do so. If I decide that I want to sell computers with Win XP, and computers with Linux, right next to each other, I should be allowed to do so. Let the market decide which computer is sold more.

Like I said, I think the outcome of the case is what the American govt should have been going after all along. Don't punish Microsoft for finally getting it's act together and making a better browser, or bundling it with it's OS. Punish them for how they handle people who build and sell computers.

(Oh and Menchise, don't feel too sorry for poor old OS/2. Guess which company developed and built OS/2 even though it competed directly with their own product. Begins with M, ends with T, you got one guess. Go for it. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Okay, you want to split Microsoft up. One company that makes operating systems, and another company that makes software.

Hello, McFly, an operating system IS software.

It wouldn't have to be split along such rigid lines, but it would need to be broken up for starters to make sure that it doesn't have the power to coerce anyone into purchasing their products. However, breaking it up is only a short term solution. In order to ensure that the computing industry is not dominated by MS again, it must also start documenting its formats and opening its de facto standards.

On another note (read: off-topic), repealing the DMCA wouldn't be a bad idea either.

quote:

If you want to pass a law that says Microsoft is no longer allowed to make both, then you have to draft a law that says NO ONE is allowed to make both. Including Apple. Passing a law that restricts only one company is a little too much, even for me.

Apple does not coerce anyone into buying its products. In fact, by developing MacOS X on the FreeBSD kernel, Apple has created an environment that makes porting software between MacOS users and PowerPC Linux users much simpler, unlike Microsoft, which is determined to make Windows as incompatible as possible.

quote:

THE problem (Jaguar, I love your sentiment, but I gotta take you to task on this one ) has nothing to do with software. It has to do with forcing manufacturers to load certain software onto your computer when it's sold. Period. Lets say I all of a sudden want to start making and selling computers. Microsoft will want me to sign a deal that forces me to use their software only, exactly the way THEY want me to use it. That's wrong. It's highly anti-competative.

It's one of many problems that have arisen from Microsoft's strong arm tactics.

Another thing they've been doing recently is extorting universities into changing the teaching resources of their own courses. At the moment, many universities with Computer Science degrees use Linux to teach students who are studying courses in Operating Systems. This is how a majority of people become Linux developers, which is why Microsoft is trying to stop it. They're threatening to cease their funding and/or rescind NT server licenses (most of which were pushed into unis in the first place) if the unis don't withdraw Linux from the courses.

Like I said, they're economic feudalists.

quote:

Like I said, I think the outcome of the case is what the American govt should have been going after all along. Don't punish Microsoft for finally getting it's act together and making a better browser, or bundling it with it's OS. Punish them for how they handle people who build and sell computers.

I think the browser issue is dominating the case because that is the reason why the plaintiffs are suing (I think), but I agree that it's not the only issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Oh and Menchise, don't feel too sorry for poor old OS/2. Guess which company developed and built OS/2 even though it competed directly with their own product. Begins with M, ends with T, you got one guess. Go for it.

Hehe, I know about Microsoft's involvement, although I think IBM had a lot to do with it as well. After all, it was their idea.

I only referred to OS/2 because it was technologically ahead of Windows. Actually, it was years ahead of Windows (it probably still is ). I don't feel sorry for its demise. It was one of two parts of IBM's doomed strategy to become a monopoly again (the other part was PS/2). It was also unfriendly to home users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$iLk, transformed by the radiation from his windows xp computer starts breathing fire

Must... defend... Billy Boy!

Actually I'm quite happy that Microsoft handles everything the way they do. Except for the computer builder issue.

$iLk's head jerks to the side and he starts twitching

No ... stratch that... Microsoft is king!

$iLk stops twitching and begins bathing in more xp radiation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Hardly. If I want to give coffee mugs away when other companies are selling them, does that make my "pricing" predatory? No.

Yes it does. If you and only a couple of other people are making coffee mugs I think it does.

Air analogy. You can get air anywhere. You can also by a cigarette lighter compressor and carry it with you.

"No, the basis of the lawsuit was that Microsoft was forcing PC manufacturers to load its products tied in with the OS rather than other products being present in the original configuration. "

That too. Yes.

"Yes they are. The function of the truck is to tow. "

No they aren't. A truck hauls. Towing is an option. Then you can prepare the truck for towing however you see fit.

"If I buy a Web server, is the hardware that allows it to connect to the Internet necessary to the function of the server? Yes, as its function is to serve pages over the net. "

I agree with that because that is its primary function.

"Gee, I forgot -- YOU are the authority on what is essentially to a product's operation, not the end-user. "

Dirty tactic. But anyway, no I don't think I am. And we'll just go around in circles on this one. How did this little side debate get started anyway? Oh I remember. Steve was arguing that the internet is now a peripheral of the computer and a browser should be part of the OS.

" No dice. If I buy a computer for the purpose of accessing the Web, than said access is ESSENTIAL to the operation and functionality of MY PURPOSE."

There you go, your purpose. If you want a computer that can connect to the internet you go make that purchase with that in mind. All of them can so that's kind of moot anyway. But it's not essential to the operation of the computer. A truck doesn't have to tow. A TV doesn't have to have a remote etc. Just because you deem it necessary doesn't mean iit is essential.

But I think I'm done with this one. We'll just keep going in circles. No wait, I see something else.

"If *I* buy a computer for Internet access and it cannot do so, sure, the computer can still be used."

Thank you, that's all I wanted. Now for your point.

"HOWEVER, it is USELESS to *ME*, the END-USER. "

...because you want it to connect to the internet. OK I got that. Now we've come full circle back to the browser.

Skips a bunch of bad analogies to the same argument.

"Now THAT is the issue, Charles. Not whether or not the browser was there at all, but the exposure of it. Was MS wrong to do that? I dunno -- are the wrong to have the Start button on the desktop when there exists other OS management software? "

Thank you again. Were they wrong to have a browser? No. Were they wrong to tie it to the OS? No. Were they wrong to place it on the desktop? No. Were they wrong to give it away? I distinctly remember when I first got online everyone bragging on netscape. I went to the site and it was $29.99. I went with IE for free.

Sure there is no law about pricing. But combine Microsoft's monopoloy power, placement, pricing, and policy on other desktop software and I think those are the reasons for this lawsuit. Correct? Giving your product away for free is wrong if you are trying to run the other guy out of business. (Coffee mug analogy)

Menchise:"The answer is very simple. They abused their power through criminal acts, so they should lose their power."

Aramike:"That's absurd. Criminal activities have not be PROVEN in a court of law. Should we just start sentencing suspects now?"

Menchise has a point but it must be proven. That's the basis of the suit. I agree with Mike.

I like this discussion. Thanks for some good points Mike even though it's obvious I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is Microsoft's controlling of proprietary property any different from drug companies protecting the patents on their formulas?

If MS wrote its software (or acquired it through buyouts/mergers), then why shouldn't they be entitled to recoup the R&D costs by not allowing competitors to copy the code and make knock-off software (like generic drugs)?

Microsoft, in my opinion, is a legal monopoly due to the fact that the market gave them the monopoly through their purchases. Yes, Microsoft was strong-arming manufacturers to bundle their browsers for a while, but they're past that. If that is their only "crime," then breaking them up is a punishment that does not fit the crime. Make them pay a fine if we must, but breaking them up is revenge, not punishment.

If they are so hated, then why do people line up at midnight to buy their latest software? It has to be more than advertising hype (unless the fact that they're lining up at midnight is the hype).

Also, where's the harm? The government tried to make the argument that innovation was being stifled because of Microsoft's monopoly, but wasn't Microsoft still being innovative? How do you explain the PC revolution without the fact that Microsoft had an operating system that was sufficient for most consumers? We can argue theoretical innovations that didn't take place due to Microsoft, but we could also argue innovations that did happen. Who's to say that one actual innovation was or wasn't worth the innovations that never happened? Who's to say that theoritcal innovations that didn't happen, didn't happen because the other startups were mismanaged, or didn't have the capital to see the venture through?

I don't think the consumers were harmed by Microsoft being a monopoly. I think it's just the opposite -- consumers have been served.

I also remember the government trying to make a case around the fact that they were being charged something like $85/copy for Windows when Microsoft said the production cost was something like $45. The government felt that they should have only been charged the $45, therfore Microsoft was "gouging" them (the government loves that word).

I'm rambling now, since these thoughts are coming at me in random order. I'll stop now.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though MS is a evil company that charges lots money for a product that has 6.8trillion bugs (exaggerating ) when its first release, there is one thing i do thank them for. They have the industry bent one OS is which kinda good thing. That means, that software companies dont have to worry about porting every piece of software they make to 10 or more different platforms. Standards! Thats truly about the good thing I see out of MS. Same with hard were corps. THANKS MS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

There is a big difference between a patent and a de facto standard. Imagine if a drug company imposed aspirin as the proprietary de facto standard for relieving headaches. That company could then coerce pharmacists into selling aspirin as the exclusive headache reliever. The result is that competitors who produce more effective drugs like paracetamol can't sell it. Consumers who go into those pharmacies will see that only aspirin is available, thus it is the only choice.

Well, first off, aspirin is not the de facto standard for headaches (dare I say acetaminophen, ibuprofen?). We can imagine all sorts of horrors and then put preventative measures in place to stop them before they happen.

Secondly, nobody is proposing any de facto standard when it comes to biologicals. I'm talking about computer software. The coercion aspect seems less diabolical when we're discussing personal computers rather than than personal medication. I don't believe that corporate boards think in such ways when they develop their business plans.

quote:

When you have a majority of games that use Direct3D as the exclusive API for 3D acceleration, you have a large number of consumers that are not being served because they use competing OSes.

How can you have a majority of games on the market, and at the same time have a large number of consumers who are not being served? Are we talking 51%-49%?

quote:

It's like having a television that only receives 1 out of 4 networks because it's not a specific brand.

Do you have one of those?

You're arguing a theoretical extreme that hasn't happened yet. On the one hand, we can accept the scenario as one in a realm of possibilites and therefore put protective measures in place, or we can wait for it to happen and then put punitive measures in place.

quote:

The solution would be to engineer an equivalent DX API for the other OSes, but Microsoft not only refuses to do it, it also prevents others from doing it because it would threaten the monopoly.

Who is engineering it? There are billions of people on this planet. Who else is doing this? How is Microsoft stopping this from happening?

This sounds like trying to build a better mousetrap.

quote:

No. The monopoly was given to Microsoft by IBM and other PC manufacturers when those companies collaborated to push DOS as the de facto standard OS by bundling it in its OEMs.

Who is IBM? My name is Steve Schacher. How did IBM give them the monopoly when I chose whether or not to purchase the product? Sure, you can argue that my choices were limited, but one choice was to walk away and not buy at all. Therefore, I must have perceived some value to me in the exchange.

--------------------------

I must be in one of my moods tonight, because I was going to go through this and dissect it line by line, word by word. But as I was going through it, I was growing more and more weary. I decided to stop, and try again tomorrow after reading the whole thing in its entire context -- you lose the holistic message when you parse it into its smallest parts.

But then I said to myself, Myself, I wrote some damn good stuff! And I don't want to just delete it! So I'm posting what I wrote to this point. Don't flame me for it. I'm tired and I'm going to go to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I nominate Charles and Aramike for the Longest Post & Very Groovy Arguer award..with diamond sleeves

To those saying that "capitalism" is good and that this encourages competitors to make a better product I say: You CANT get into the OS market vs microsoft. Nearly 90% of the WORLDS computers use their OS, and an incredible majority of the applications out there are written FOR windows. The industry would not get your product just because you are too small, there is not enough flexibility (read: apps written for your OS), no support (comparable to MS's), and the biggest of them, it would cost a BOATLOAD of money to move to your better OS (because that means they would have to buy ALL their app. packages for your OS once they come..IF...again!).

You are very likely to get bought out by uncle Gates before you approach a publisher anyway.

Big Brother owns your market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Menchise is right in that it's wrong to force manufacturers to not put software on a computer I'm selling. MS has no business telling me what software I place on the computer before I sell it. That's not a free market. That's not competition.

But the TV analogy doesn't quite work the way he wants it to.

There ARE different standards for TV. There's the European standard (I can't remember the names this second) and there's the North American standard. If I want to watch a video made in England, I'll need to have it translated into my standard.

Television is INCREDIBLY proprietary. I won't even go into the different plugs and electrical outlet standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...