posted
"that person could cripple the entire world's computer systems"
We've had, what, five great virus epidemics the past three years, haven't we?
People, as a whole, prefer to be comfortable. If there is a web browser that can do pretty much the same stuff other browsers can, but is preinstalled and doesn't need to be downloaded for hours (think 25 megabytes of browser on a 2400 or 14400 Modem 4-5 years ago) they take the free stuff and put it out of their minds to get to the surfing.
Nowadays the overall performance of society's computers and uplinks (coupled with all the software you can get for free when buying a computer magazine) make it far more easier to enjoy the selection. But that doesn't matter, because most people made up their minds about which browser is the favourite five years ago, in the first browser battles, and most will stick with what they've got.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
quote: Just because it's their product does not mean they can also dictate which third-party programs I may and may not use.
Does this mean you'll be suing Sega because you can't play Nintendo games on Genesis?
Or the NBA because they won't let you play basketball with tennis rackets?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
"We've had, what, five great virus epidemics the past three years, haven't we?"
No. We've had five situations where we were told there was going to be a great big virus outbreak that would cripple the worlds computers. And nothing happened.
"As in nature, there is strength in diversity, and I don't think Microsoft is fostering an environment for diversity."
On the other hand, if I write something in word, and want to use it on another computer, I can be almost completely sure that the other computer will be able to display the file.
Diversity is good. Standardisation is good. Do you remember the nightmare of trying to play games under DOS? Programs having to cope with a million different sound cards? Trying to get the game to accept your crap sound card? Now people bitch and complain about DirectX, but it works, and games are a lot easier to get working now. When did you last look at your autoexec.bat?
For some reason, part of my computer course at uni teaches us about Motorola processors, specifially the 68xxx range. Now, is everyone thinking "wow. They're trying to give us a broad range of computer knowledge, and not limit us to learning about the WinTel monopoly"? No. Everyone's thinking "This is a huge waste of time."
-------------------- 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.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Sony, Nintendo et all use different systems for their games. It's their way of ensuring that customers stick to one brand and not bother with the others. I believe that's called - surprise! - 'fair competition'.
But why does this example not apply to MS? Because it's physically impossible to insert a Nintendo cartridge into a Playstation CD-ROM based console. If, however, the two systems were in fact interchangable - as is the case with Windows and 3d-party software - and Sony would then state "you may not play Nintendo games on our machines", the company wouldn't have any legal basis to stand on. It would be a loophole that Sony itself created by making the consoles compatible with Nintendo games.
So, if MS wants to deny me the right to run program XXX, the only way they could legally do so would be by altering the source code, not by inserting a few heavy lines into their disclaimers. Find me a law that states otherwise.
Let me put it another way: once I buy a product, it's mine for all intents and purposes. I own it, and I am then free to do with it as I please. In the case of software, I may even reverse engineer/decompile it, as long as I don't do anything with my findings (eg, make modifications to the source, or redistribute it, or whatever). I can&may plough my car into a concrete wall if I want to, and there is nothing that the manufacturer can do to deny me this basic right.
Oh, and basketball is a sport, not a product. The rules on how to play that particular sport - in an official NBA competition, and NOWHERE else - are clearly defined. You're comparing apples to pears.
Note: I prefer IE to NS
[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
posted
So wait... Microsoft is BAD because you CAN use 'alternative' programs with Windows... (I notice today that most CD-ROM manufactures make their games compatible with Both WIN and mAC)
But Nintendo (or Sega) is GOOD because they make it IMPOSSIBLE (or at least, extraordinarily difficult) for you to use 'alternative' programs in their systems?
So if Company 'A' made a Music CD/Tape player, and sold a Music CD with it, but not a tape, even though it could play both, and made it difficult to remove the CD player if you only wanted to listen to tapes (although you don't HAVE to remove the CD player to listen to tapes)this is bad because it encourages you to buy CD's and not tapes?
I'm sorry for that example, but this makes very very little sense to me.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Don't worry, Rob. It doesn't make any sense at all.
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?
I believe that's called "tyrrany of the majority", no? If we could make the inherant rights of any one person or group subserviant to the whims of a simple majority of the people, then everything would fall apart quite quickly. That's why we have a Constitution to enshrine basic rights like property, and why it requires uber-majorities to change.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
I believe you don't OWN any Microsoft product even if you bought it.
Read the license agreement carefully, then you'll find out that you're actually "borrowing" rather then "ownning" the product, and Microsoft reserve the right to take your "borrowing" privilege away if the situation deem necessary.
-------------------- "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.
If Nintendo and Sega (et al.) all manufactured items which could be used with each other (that is, a Nintendo game could be played on a Sega system or whatnot), and then said "you can only use our game with one of our controllers" they would be practicing unfair business practices.
When Microsoft insists that their web-browser and no others be installed on any computer using Windows, that's unfair business practice. What right does Microsoft have to tell Gateway or Dell, "hey, when you put Windows on one of your computers that you're going to sell, you can't install any other internet browser except for Microsofts'."
Sorry. That's a bit, IMHO, unfair. If Dell, HP, Compaq or Gateway want to put one or fifty web-browsers on the PCs that they're selling, its their business and no-one elses. As for the arguement that all you have to do is DL another browser ...
Hey, look, as should be fairly fuckin' obvious (and I freely admit), I'm not very computer literate. Ask Charles how much I bugged him about getting Counter-Strike to work. I'm not going to waste time DLing another browser if I already have one, and I'm not going to waste money buying another browser if, again, I already have one.
Microsoft has no right to tell computer corporations who sell computer "bundles" what software they can and/or cannot put on those computers. Doing so creates unfair business practice, and inhibits the market.
posted
"When Microsoft insists that their web-browser and no others be installed on any computer using Windows, that's unfair business practice."
*screams* THEY DO NO SUCH THING!
"I'm not going to waste time DLing another browser if I already have one, and I'm not going to waste money buying another browser if, again, I already have one."
Yes! THAT's the complaint Jeff. That no-one will bother downloading another browser if they've already got one. NOT that you can't.
"I believe you don't OWN any Microsoft product even if you bought it."
Correct. You have a licence to use it. A small but significant difference.
"I notice today that most CD-ROM manufactures make their games compatible with Both WIN and MAC)"
Er, where? I've seen games available for both Windows and Mac, but I've never seen a commercial game where the same program was compatible on both.
"Microsoft has no right to tell computer corporations who sell computer "bundles" what software they can and/or cannot put on those computers. Doing so creates unfair business practice, and inhibits the market."
Right. Again, they aren't. They are simply including IE with Windows. If Dell wants to stick Netscape on their PCs, they can (and I think a few companies do).
This is like complaining that all PCs come equipped with Notepad. Computer makers should have the choice of what text editor they want to put on their PCs.
-------------------- 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.
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
if microsoft forced people to use IE with windows, then it would put them at a disadvantage, since consumers would not buy windows if they prefered netscape. the market is based on a consumers wants. for example, one third of the worlds consumers prefer IE with windows, another third prefere netscape with Linux (or whatever), and the last third prefere netscape with windows. If microsoft forces people to use IE with windows. then the last third of consumers may switch to Linux so that they can use thier favorite browser (netscape in this case) then microsoft would lose a large quantity of windows users. and that would be bad for microsoft. Am I making any sense here? or am i rambling on like a crazy old nutcase?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Er...one third? I may be pulling this number out of somewhere unpleasent, but I think something like 90% of the world's computers are running Windows with Internet Explorer.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:"Microsoft has no right to tell computer corporations who sell computer "bundles" what software they can and/or cannot put on those computers. Doing so creates unfair business practice, and inhibits the market."
quote:Right.
Why is it, that when I am trying to get that exact point across by stating "Just because it's their product does not mean they can also dictate which third-party programs I may and may not use." and "To ensure fair marketing, and to respect the fundamental rights of customers.", I end up crucified? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites...
And yes, I KNOW MS isn't directly doing this. The issue I was addressing was:
quote:...the inherant rights of any one person or group subserviant to the whims of a simple majority of the people...
The majority in this case being MS. Simple, non? Why should they have that right?
posted
Yo, man, I think we're getting confused here...
There is no such thing as MS telling you that IE is the only way to go, and Netscape or whatever is not allow.
The situation is that when you buy Window, IE is included inside this Window package.
- Microsoft did not sabatoge Window to crash when you install other web brower other then IE!
- Microsoft did not sabatoge Window to crash when you DE-INSTALLED IE! And it is possible to de-installed IE!
- Microsoft did not make manufacturers sign anything to forbid them to install other browers with Windows!
The fact is simple people. Does IE comes with Window? Yes! But does MS in anyway forbids a user to install any browers or de-intalled IE? NO!
[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
