-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
posted
Just to clarify, as a fair few people seem to have this wrong.
"(any computer that had Windows installed on it had to have Microsoft's web browser installed in place of any other browser, right?)"
No. IE comes preinstalled, but you can quite happily download Netscape and use it if you want. You do not have to destroy IE, or do any major surgery to Windows. You download it and then install it. The argument is that having IE preinstalled means people are less likely to use other browsers. Going by that logic, everyone who makes text editors and solitaire programs should also be sueing Micrsoft.
"Linux could be the proverbial David toppling Microsoft the Goliath."
Bwahahahaha.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Man, that's what I've been trying to say for all this time!!
IF window craps out when you installed Netscape, or try to kill IE, then maybe they're wrong. But the way that Psy suggested is quite legal and logical.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
You could do both. Then you'll be happy, and, hopefully unlike Siegfried, you won't be sexually frustrated.
But why should Microsoft have the power to require that any company which installs Microsoft on its computer also not install any competitor's browser? It doesn't make any sense, and is, IMHO, an overstepping of Microsoft's boundaries.
posted
But why should Microsoft have the power to require that any company which installs Microsoft on its computer also not install any competitor's browser?
Because the company who bought Windows signed a legally-binding contract to that effect when they did so. If they don't want to abide my Microsoft's terms, there's exactly one way around it: buy from someone else.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
That was not Jeff's question. He asked why MS should have the power to draw up these extremely restrictive contracts in the first place. A browser is not an integral part of an OS (although it has become exactly that - it has been so deeply integrated into the recent versions of Windows it's virtually impossible to remove the program), and if I want to install another, that is my decision to make.
Sure, MS is free to include IE in the package, but it is most definitely NOT free to decide what other software (in this case, a browser) should run under Windows. It's akin to Ford stating "we deny any and all garages/customers the right to replace the Goodyear tires on our motor vehicles with Firestone ones. If you still wish to do so, you are required to change the engine and drivetrain as well."
posted
Sure, MS is free to include IE in the package, but it is most definitely NOT free to decide what other software (in this case, a browser) should run under Windows.
They most certainly can. But under any circumstances, they're not doing that, so I don't see your problem. He asked why MS should have the power to draw up these extremely restrictive contracts in the first place.
Not "power". "Right". It's their product, and they'll do with it what they please. Why should the federal government have the power to tell them otherwise?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:But under any circumstances, they're not doing that, so I don't see your problem.
No, technically, they aren't. They simply make it extremely difficult to remove IE (it involves a lot more than removing the program folder, if that's what you're thinking), up to the point where it's almost impossible. Like I said earlier: if I want to use a different set of tires, I should not first have to tune the engine, replace the drivetrain, and stiffen the suspencion.
quote:Not "power". "Right". It's their product, and they'll do with it what they please. Why should the federal government have the power to tell them otherwise?
To ensure fair marketing, and to respect the fundamental rights of customers. Just because it's their product does not mean they can also dictate which third-party programs I may and may not use. Again, that is my decision to make. "They'll do with it what they please" only to a certain extent.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
posted
Well, gee, I don't think the government agree with you on that one, that's why they're not breaking Microsoft apart.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Well, gee, maybe that's 'cause the current puppet government places the value of the economy above all else, and MS makes 'm a lot of money each year?
I see a conflict of interest.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
They simply make it extremely difficult to remove IE, up to the point where it's almost impossible. Like I said earlier: if I want to use a different set of tires, I should not first have to tune the engine, replace the drivetrain, and stiffen the suspencion.
Totally unanalogous situation. This is NOT an either/or proposition, like tires are. I have BOTH browsers installed, and have no trouble whatsoever. And even if I did, Microsoft STILL has the right to design and sell their own product however they see fit.
To ensure fair marketing, and to respect the fundamental rights of customers.
What problems with fair marketing? What fundamental rights are being violated? Please, clarify. If you're capable, that is. I'm beginning to wonder if even you understand your own argument, TEL. Just because it's their product does not mean they can also dictate which third-party programs I may and may not use.
A) Yes, it does. If they want to make their program incompatable with another one, then that's their right, becuase it's THEIR PROGRAM.
B) This is irrelevant, because MS hasn't done anything like that since DOS 3.1.
Well, gee, maybe that's 'cause the current puppet government places the value of the economy above all else, and MS makes 'm a lot of money each year?
I see a conflict of interest.
Your post has no basis. Gates doesn't like Bush all that much, so that's not a factor. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Bush administration dropped the charges because EVERY court thus far had filed in Microsoft's favor, and all further appeals were sure to go the same way? These lawsuits were a waste of time and money. MY time and money. Thus, they needed to stop. Simple as that.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
"But why should Microsoft have the power to require that any company which installs Microsoft on its computer also not install any competitor's browser?"
For fucks sake Jeff, listen! Nowhere is it said that you can't install another browser. If you want to go and install Netscape, do it! The complaint is that Windows comes preinstalled with IE, not that you can't use another browser.#
Again, as I've said it twice, and people aren't getting it.
The complaint is that by packaging IE with Windows, it's making people less likely to look at the competition. An anaolgy: If Word came built into Windows, Lotus could complain that it's taking away sales from Wordpro. However, Microsoft (in this case), is not stopping you from installing Wordpro. It's simply supplying Word to you with the OS.
Again: There is nothing stopping you from installing another Web browser on your system.
And again: For fucks sake, go and install Netscape and stop bitching.
If IE didn't come free with Windows, you'd all be complaining about having to BUY your web-browser.
Tsk, can't please some people, can you?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Web browsers can't be sold. They're free now. That's not a path you can turn back on.
Of course, there are some operating systems that are either free or dirt cheap now too, and many are quite good. That no one really uses them suggests that the Operating System market is Complicated.
posted
I wonder whether Microsoft would allow a company like Netscape to pay some extraordinary fee to become the default web browser bundled with Windows 2004, say. It wouldn't really be in Microsoft's best interests, and I kind of doubt they would.
Perhaps Microsoft has the legal right to implement this kind of strategy, but laws are made to serve the will of the people and if there is anything the last hundred years have taught us, laws will change. The question becomes: 'Should a company like Microsoft have that kind of power?' Does it benefit the population at large to allow them to do this? How would the company suffer if the situation were different? How would the industry be different if this were to change?
As I explained before, I happen to think this sort of thing tends to stiffle innovation. I'm also concerned about susceptibility to viruses and hackers. If some diabolical genius bent on world domination (or more likely some bored kid grasping for anarchy) discovers some clever new way to attack computer systems by exploiting a tidbit of legacy code that's in every product MS puts out, that person could cripple the entire world's computer systems. As in nature, there is strength in diversity, and I don't think Microsoft is fostering an environment for diversity.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Printer-friendly view of this topic
