Microsoft

[Menchise]

[Kenada]

APPLES STOLE THE IDEA ABOUT GUIs and the mouse FROM...UUUMM... Oh YAH! X E R O X !!!!!

[Menchise]

Say what?

[aramike]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Let's examine those choices more carefully. You can buy a computer that has Windows or DOS in it, or you can not buy a computer at all. Some choice.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the choices were offered and taken decades ago (sorry if you all missed out on voicing your opinion when it mattered). The marketplace settled on its OS; trying to introduce a new one now is an exercise in futility. Therefore, decrying the lack of choices now is not a fault of Microsoft being a monopoly, its the reason that Microsoft became a monopoly. Their product won the consumer base, and Microsoft was rewarded with the business. It's called success, and most entrepeneurs strive for it. It's a shame that we feel compelled to tear people down once they "make it."

quote:

---

Go to Add/Remove programs in the control panel. Click on the Windows Setup tab. There's your list. If you double click on the Accessories option with the check mark you can pull out Word Pad and Paint along with a host of other programs.

---

Also, check your filetype associations. This is where you indicate what program is launched when you click on a filetype. If you don't want Wordpad or Notepad to launch on .txt files, then change the association for .txt files to something else.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[aramike]

It's a shame that we feel compelled to tear people down once they "make it."[/quot]eNo doubt. Simple human jealousy between the "haves" and the "have nots", really, with an attempt to justify that jealousy on an intellectual basis. It's still nothing more than jealousy.

The problem is that some people who are "haves" feel guilty because of the jealous manipulation of the "have nots". Fortunately more people simply work harder to become "haves".

Maybe it's also an adolescent "buck the system" idea. I have a feeling that even if the most perfect world system was created, the same people would look for flaws (often times creating them in the process). Just like your '60s activists. They were just ITCHING for something to speak out against.

[me]

quote:

---

quote:

What? I have IE4 in Win98 and it doesn't let me remove it.

You just don't know how. Doesn't mean you can't. I've tried uninstalling THIRD party programs and have ran into problems similar to yours. Those things just happen. There's a little thing on your PC called a System Registry. Start learning how to use that.

Just because YOU can't do something doesn't mean it cannot be done.

---

Aramike: Microsoft Testified in court that IE could NOT be removed from Win98. You CAN remove the Icon from the Desktop, but the IE code will still be there.

quote:

---

Now I know you don't know what you're talking about. A DVD drive doesn't USE drivers, just like a floppy drive, a normal CD drive, etc.

Now, what you need is a controller on the PC, which requires drivers. That isn't difficult to obtain and can simply be compiled in Linux format. The same thing goes into the home DVD players.

---

You are also slightly mistaken on this one Aramike, a CD drive DOES use a device driver. Microsoft simply incorperated it's own CD-rom driver into the OS. This does not mean a Driver is not present.

[Kenada]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

Say what?

---

Yah! Steve Jobs and his buddies back in day, stole the Idea about a GUI and a "mouse" from Xerox. The poeple at Xerox who came up with the idea were laught at by their execs. Apple kinda rub it in their face when they made it a reality, not to mention a fortune. Bill Gates and his buddy boutght the original DOS os for like a few hundred bucks... After they had sold IBM a disk os they didnt even have at the time. I must be a "geek" if i know this stuff! LOL

[aramike]

quote:

---

Aramike: Microsoft Testified in court that IE could NOT be removed from Win98. You CAN remove the Icon from the Desktop, but the IE code will still be there.

---

Maybe that's the problem. I use NT/2K machines for work.

quote:

---

You are also slightly mistaken on this one Aramike, a CD drive DOES use a device driver. Microsoft simply incorperated it's own CD-rom driver into the OS. This does not mean a Driver is not present.

---

Uhm, NO! Ever hear of this thing called BIOS?

[me]

Sure, Basic Input Output System.

HOWEVER, that being the case, why will a CD-rom drive still not work in DOS(REAL Mode)Without a SEPERATE cd-rom Driver, AND MSCDEX.exe(takes the driver and assigns a Driver letter.)

For Example take a 486DX2(Or early Pentium), NO Bios support for IDE CD-ROMS install win95, win95 Will NOT require a driver for the CD, DOS still does, Hence, the Driver is incorperated into the OS, if the BIOS support were all that were required the computer would view the drive similar to an IDE HDD, No driver.

[Kenada]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melcar:

Sure, Basic Input Output System.

HOWEVER, that being the case, why will a CD-rom drive still not work in DOS(REAL Mode)Without a SEPERATE cd-rom Driver, AND MSCDEX.exe(takes the driver and assigns a Driver letter.)

For Example take a 486DX2(Or early Pentium), NO Bios support for IDE CD-ROMS install win95, win95 Will NOT require a driver for the CD, DOS still does, Hence, the Driver is incorperated into the OS, if the BIOS support were all that were required the computer would view the drive similar to an IDE HDD, No driver.

---

It is ATAPI (forgot what it means), a universal driver that works with Zips Drives, super disk and ect.

[me]

ATAPI - Advanced Technology Attachment Packet Interface.

[Kenada]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melcar:

ATAPI - Advanced Technology Attachment Packet Interface.

---

Thanks!

[Menchise]

[Charles Lindsey]

Ok guys. Go rent the DVD "Antitrust" this weekend and tell me what you think.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

As I recall, monopolies stifle innovation. That's why they're frowned upon. Yes, Microsoft invented the Word format. Yes, they have proprietary rights to it. The problem is that the Word format has become a de facto standard on the Windows platform. I'll explain why that's a legal issue in the next paragraph.

---

I must have missed the explanation. What paragraph are you refering to?

Word becoming a de facto standard is not a problem to me. It is the market choosing. I remember when WordPerfect was a dominant word processor. They couldn't sustain the market because the GUI wasn't there or they couldn't get it there fast enough. How well did WordPerfect integrate with Lotus 1-2-3 (wasn't that the spreadsheet)?

quote:

---

Does Microsoft's anti-competition practices constitute antitrust due to its monopoly?

---

That is the heart of the question.

If a company makes a suite of products, is it within its rights to make those products as compatible with each other as possible? If I buy Word, Excel, Access, and Powerpoint, don't I want to be able to share content with each tool as easily as possible? Do I have an obligation or legal requirement to make the content shareable with Lotus Notes too? Why would I want to do anything to make a competitor's product more desirable than my own?

There is a difference between unfair business practices and good business. If I make a computer that runs some software better than other software, then some people might buy that computer and some may not. If I make a computer that runs all software equally well, then chances are that the market will decide that that computer is a better deal than one with performance limitations.

If I write software that works better with other software of mine, and if people want that softare and don't need other competitive software, is that my fault or is that good business?

Now, if I collude or coerce manufactures to put barriers in place to prevent fair competition, that is not good, and is illegal. But if I don't do that, if I simply make a product that more people want than the competitors do, then that's tough luck on the competitors. How come you don't see many buggy whip manufacturers anymore? Because people don't want the product anymore. Is that the fault of the automotive industry? Was Ford's monopoly the reason that buggy whip manufacturers went out of business?

quote:

---

That's because Microsoft designed Explorer as the default file management app for the Windows desktop environment. The desktop environment has been integrated with the kernel, thus ensuring that any competing desktop environment is incompatible with software written for the OS (Norton Navigator doesn't count because it's just an extension of the Windows desktop). There's nothing wrong with providing a desktop environment for convenience, but when it's coded specifically to prevent other desktop software from working by a monopolistic developer, it becomes a probable antitrust practice.

---

I don't agree with this either. It's just building a better product. Now, if Microsoft colluded with Intel and AMD to make an instruction set that only ran Microsoft software, then you'd be onto something. But just making better software because you've been at it longer and built up a better library of routines, well, call it better planning, better design, better management of your long-range business plan, but don't call it anti-trust.

No one has a "right" to a market. Successful companies have gone out of business when the landscape changed from under them. Look at the railroads. Look at the post office. The only thing that companies have a right to expect is fair business practices, meaning that companies follow the accepted accounting protocals, that companies do not engage in predatory pricing, that companies do not undermine other companies' business relationships, etc. But this does not include companies making a better product or making a product that more people want or perceive to be better, or at least perceive to be better for them.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[aramike]

[Charles Lindsey]

I think I'm ready to go a round with Aramike again.

Try this article on predatory pricing. It reads like an editorial but I think you'll like it Aramike. It sort of supports you.

Then this one that sort of supports me.

"Hardly. There is *NO* law that requires a product/invention to be SOLD. "

I agreed not to argue this point any more but you might find those articles interesting.

"Seriously, in a way, we're both right and wrong. My point is that the end-user is the final judge from a marketing standpoint, which is the standpoint that is looked at legally. But yes, we'd simply go around in circles. "

Well, thank you again. And I certainly hope you don't see this as sarcasm. If you can give me a point or two then say "But I still think you're wrong" I can live with that. OK, done with browsers.

"The primary purpose of ANY product that ANY manufacturer builds is to SELL and make money."

Of Course.

"As such, the basic function of those products is to serve the needs of the end-user."

Of course.

"As such, the end-user decides the function."

Nope. Would you buy a lawnmower to trim hedges? Ridiculous I know but serves the point nonetheless. A web server serves web pages. That is the manufacturer's intended function and the consumer had well be smart enough to see that.

"Now are you following me? "

Not quite.

"All the analogies were perfect parallels. "

No sir, they were not. You spoke of Dodge then a couple others and they were as poor as all mine were. Sure a Dodge has proprietary parts. Dodge made it. But you could buy a Ford or a Chevy(which also have proprietary parts). Sure Dell has Proprietary parts. So do IBM and Gateway. Those are perfect parallels. Windows has no parallel.

Maybe that will help. Differentiating between MS and the Windows OS itself.

Just for the record I agree with a lot of the points here.

Microsoft is a monopoly.

Windows did win the market. But I think there were several dirty tricks along the way. Guess what? Read the two articles above and one mentions Netscape did the same damme thing. Heh.

It's just a browser. True. You can get any one you want nowadays.

Did MS practice predatory pricing? Not before Netscape it seems.

The "Standards" argument. Tough one. No one yet has agreed on what the standard for Microsoft/Windows is except Microsoft. And the argument will get even tougher. There are standards everywhere. From the fuses that protect your appliances to the bulbs that keep you safe on the road at night there are standards. From the TV signals that you can see via an antenna set to the CD-ROMS you rent there are standards.

Standards are essential. Standards allow each vendor an oppurtunity to manufacture to that standard so consumers have a choice in purchasing.

As far as Operating Systems go Windows is the only one for all intents and purposes and is therefore the standard.

So, even though I slightly agree with Tac, any OS to come out must be compatible with all current programs. No doube about it or they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hades.

I'm not an MS basher. Just like to talk about them.

Then again I have read there is a big shift in the server market to Linux. Wish I could find those two articles in Business week. They were linked from Yahoo.

[Menchise]

[Guest]

All this legaleze and monopoly stuff and the OS having this or having that etc.

SO WHAT!!!

This had a chance of being taken care of with Windows 3.1, well, WINDOWS WON!! It is the MOST popular OS, and Microsoft is doing everything in it's power to make sure that it's OS and suite of tools is all that you will ever need for any application. AGAIN, SO WHAT!!

Microsoft is successful and their competitors are running to mama government crying about how unfair it is. Well, if the little babies had competed 10 years ago, Microsoft would not be in the position it is now.

THEY HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES!!!

So quit crying, go make a better moustrap and try to market it in such a way that it competes with Microsoft. Sounds pretty simple to me!!

But quit using my tax money to try and destroy your biggest competitor.

Oh and just in case you were wondering, Netscape, Sun Microsystems and others, payed up the kazoo into Clintons reelection campaign accounts, and when Clinton approached Bill Gates to Pony up, he said no. 3 Months later, the justice department came after him. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Criminal on the part of Clinton and the Justice Dept, damn straight!! It was and is political, why do you think the Bush Justice Dept is backing off a bit and accepting a deal?

This has/had nothing to do with monopoly power or the abuse thereof, it had everything to do with Clinton campaign contributors getting political payback from the Clinton Justice Department.

And the states turning around and joining the suit as well, well, just like the tobacco settlements, they see extra free green with no political ramifications, (no tax Hike, so they won't get voted out of office) and the chance to help their special interest groups with all the free cash. You bet they are gonna jump on board!!

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

All this legaleze and monopoly stuff and the OS having this or having that etc.

SO WHAT!!!

This had a chance of being taken care of with Windows 3.1, well, WINDOWS WON!! It is the MOST popular OS, and Microsoft is doing everything in it's power to make sure that it's OS and suite of tools is all that you will ever need for any application. AGAIN, SO WHAT!!

Microsoft is successful and their competitors are running to mama government crying about how unfair it is. Well, if the little babies had competed 10 years ago, Microsoft would not be in the position it is now.

THEY HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES!!!

---

Antitrust laws are not implemented to hand-hold crybaby businesses. These laws contribute to the protection of the unalienable right of every individual to equal liberty (remember the phrase 'equal liberty for all'?). That's one of the reasons why laws exist in today's society.

If monopolies like Microsoft are allowed to do whatever they please, even when it infringes on the liberty of others, they will become the feudal lords of their domain.

"I am the state" said Louis XIV.

"I am the computer" said Bill Gates.

Scenarios such as this are prevented by the enforcement of laws such as those regarding antitrust, which Microsoft has allegedly violated. This is a very serious situation that will not only impact on the future of the computing industry, but on the future of economic liberty as well, because decisions made in previous court cases tend to set a precedent for future cases.

quote:

---

So quit crying, go make a better moustrap and try to market it in such a way that it competes with Microsoft. Sounds pretty simple to me!!

---

When a competitor commits antitrust, it's not so simple.

quote:

---

Oh and just in case you were wondering, Netscape, Sun Microsystems and others, payed up the kazoo into Clintons reelection campaign accounts, and when Clinton approached Bill Gates to Pony up, he said no. 3 Months later, the justice department came after him. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Criminal on the part of Clinton and the Justice Dept, damn straight!! It was and is political, why do you think the Bush Justice Dept is backing off a bit and accepting a deal?

This has/had nothing to do with monopoly power or the abuse thereof, it had everything to do with Clinton campaign contributors getting political payback from the Clinton Justice Department.

---

Interesting theory, but it has a few very big holes in it.

If the antitrust suit was just an act of spite by the Clinton Administration, then why hasn't the case been thrown out of court now that Bush is in power and Ashcroft is the Attorney-General instead of Reno? It's because the Justice Department has a case!

Why is Microsoft attempting to push through a settlement instead of demanding a verdict and getting the case over and done with? It's because the Justice Department has a case!

The court has already ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly. If they were to rule that Microsoft had used that monopoly position illegally to prevent competition (especially now that Clinton and Reno are gone), Microsoft would be in a world of trouble. Why else would they be trying to settle out of court other than to cut their losses?

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with making a suite of applications that interact, but you don't need to go to the system level to do that. What's your point?

---

My point throughout my whole post is that Windows is just another program in Microsoft's suite, so what's wrong with having the inside track in building software that takes advantage of it? Others can still write software that runs in Windows, right?

Microsoft's monopoly didn't really become an issue until the PC became a commodity product. That wasn't the case when Windows 3.1 was out, but the PC revolution swept the world since then and Microsoft was best positioned to benefit from it.

quote:

---

In a monopoly situation, it's justifiable to call it antitrust if the software is designed to prevent competition, especially when that design actually degrades the quality of the product.

---

In the automotive industry, Toyota cars use "genuine Toyota parts." These parts are sized to fit into the nooks and crannies that Toyota designed into their engine compartments. Did Toyota use a "monopoly position" to force oil filter manufacturers or toolmakers out of the market? Does Toyota have the right to make products that fit together better than 3rd-party products? If so, then doesn't Microsoft have that same right?

quote:

---

Do consumers actually perceive Microsoft software to be better, or do they just buy it because the monopoly situation limits their choice?

---

I do believe that consumers perceive Microsoft software to be better, and they do have choices. Besides the Office suite, they have the Works suite to choose from (also Microsoft software). Then their is the Intuit suite vs the Borland suite of financial software, all sorts of home design software, virus software, fax software, game software, etc. If "better" operating systems such as OS/2 Warp, or Linux are having trouble getting a foothold it is because Microsoft already cornered the market, making them a monopoly along the way, not the other way around -- that they used their monopoly to corner the market.

Again (for the last time since I'm just repeating myself now), I don't believe that Microsoft's monopoly is stifling competition or harming consumers. I believe that consumers made a choice and they chose Microsoft.

quote:

---

If the antitrust suit was just an act of spite by the Clinton Administration, then why hasn't the case been thrown out of court now that Bush is in power and Ashcroft is the Attorney-General instead of Reno? It's because the Justice Department has a case!

---

It way more political than that. Along the same lines, why hasn't the Justice Dept. reopened any of the Clinton/Reno investigations? It's because Bush wants a "new tone" in Washington, and he's leavling all the Clinton crap alone to wither away. Also, the judge in the case was removed for bias, so any case that the government had is questionable now.

==================================

To take this discussion in another direction, I question the premise that Microsoft is a monopoly in the first place. Certainly when it comes to application software, there are other applications out there that are not from Microsoft. Even in the operating system realm, you have NT, OS/2 Warp, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, etc. Now, if your choice of OS is limited by your choice of hardware, isn't that a bit like saying that if I buy an Audi then I'm limited to diesel fuel?

Aren't we really saying that people become locked into a scope of software based on their choice of platform? Is that really the fault of a software manufacturer or is it just another informed consumer choice?

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[aramike]

[Menchise]

[aramike]