Quite frankly, I think it's a good decision, because in my opinion, Microsoft won their share of the market fair and square.
To break up Microsoft would portrait the government as the "pigs" in "Animal Farm" changing the rules everyday:
"A business should try its' best to beat all of its' competitor, therefore becoming a winner in the FREE ENTERPRISE ECONOMY. The invisible hands should be the only factor molding the trend of the market instead of the government"
and the next day, some addtional messages "magically" appeared ...
"P.S. Government reserve the right to bust your ass down! If a business is TOO successful by OUR judgement, even if the business achieve this mean by LEGAL PROCESS, we gonna come down our high chairs and kick your butt back to stone age regardless of the invisible hands!."
Businesses (Netscape, etc) that bitch for Microsoft's supposeingly "monopoly" are just a bunches of winny kids that lost a fair fight, and cried to get adult's attentions.
And what's with the "Window with IE included" fiasco? Man, people that bitch about this is like saying that Ford does not have the "right" in what brand of tires they can used for THEIR freakin' cars. Guess what, "Ford" did not sabatoge their car to "explode" if you use any other type of tires other then "Firestone", and, *gasp*, what's that you say??!! There are plenty of other tires to choose from!!?? And they're all FREE!!??
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Well, in general, I agree that Microsoft should not be broken up, but for different reasons. Had the legal proceedings for Microsoft's breakup happened several years before, I would have been more supporting. But with the advent of Linux, things may change. Linux now has a foothold on the market, and now it is time to see what happens after that.
Linux could be the proverbial David toppling Microsoft the Goliath.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
I'm sorry if you don't know what a monopoly is, or that a monopoly usually uses whatever they can to make sure they don't get competition.
As I recall, Netscape took their case to the government, along with a lot of other companies who were being fucked over, and the government realized that Microsoft was using an unfair advantage (any computer that had Windows installed on it had to have Microsoft's web browser installed in place of any other browser, right?)
IMHO, that is an abuse of power, and an unfair advantage over other companies. Why should, say, Gateway or Dell be forced to use Microsoft's browser instead of Netscape or something else? It makes no sense, and it's illegal, and Microsoft got what it deserved (what we all enjoyed when the bully at school got sent to detention), and it had better learn its lesson.
My .02 cents.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Like I said, Ford has the right to choose the tire for its' car.
Microsoft has the right to choose what components it deem fits for Window.
Don't like Firestone? Then don't buy Ford.
Don't like Window? Buy a Mac, or wipe your comp clean to get other OS.
Dell not liking it? Go with MacOS, Linux and what if and what not. Microsoft didn't shove IE down their throat. They simply said, "Window comes with IE because we see it as a 'improvement', and if you don't like it, don't use Window."
Netscape lost because they're stupid, they could've done the same deal with Mac, or other OS makers out there, beside, they were getting their ass kicked EVEN BEFORE the IE fiasco. By the way, go to the "Add/Remove Prorgram" option, IE is listed there, which mean it would be remove if you wish.
Microsoft is big today ultimately due to the consumers, not because of monopoly.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
quote:"Window comes with IE because we see it as a 'improvement', and if you don't like it, don't use Window."
Which is, er, illegal. I'm not very computer savy myself, but is there even another OS besides Windows?
As for Ford Firestone tires, if the corporation knowingly outfits its vehicles with unsafe tires, damn straight they gonna pay for it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
BE: "Window comes with IE because we see it as a 'improvement', and if you don't like it, don't use Window."
Jeff: Which is, er, illegal.
How do you figure? Microsoft owns the products it's selling, and it can sell those products in any way it pleases. It's called private property, and no government has the right to interfere.
Microsoft has done nothing that is illegal, and thus this decision is correct.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Yeah, Firestone is a poor example, from now on, it's Nissan with...Goodyear.
Anyway, Ford with Firestone is just an example to demonstrate that a Manufacture should have the right to put whatever they deem necessary for their product.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
And when what they deem neccessary gets people killed?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Here's the thing. Microsoft makes some of the most popular software in the world. I don't know the actual figure, but even us Mac-headz will tell you it's like 80% of the desktops in American (if not the World's) homes run some variation of Windows. That is a commanding portion of the market, and much as I'd love to trash them, they got there by shrewd business accumen(1), tremendous marketing, and producing good products(2). They worked hard and they have been rewarded. The lion's share of the home computers in the world are running Microsoft OS. I'm OK with this (3). My issues have to do with Microsoft now using this leverage to coerce people who use their OS to use their other products. Microsoft makes great products (4). They shouldn't have to resort to lead-pipe-to-knee tactics. I recognize that it's a fine line, but if you can't extract IE from Windows without crippling your web capabilities (even if you install Navigator or some other replacement browser) then I have a problem with that. If IE is truly the superior product and provided it's handled with the same aformentioned accumen, it will win out on a level playing field. That's how this market game is played, and that's what's at issue for me. How does the market benefit from Microsoft's exclusion of its competition? On a global scale, the US certainly benefits from this, but what about the advancement of computer applications development and operating systems?
If tomorrow night a guy living in his mom's basement in Witchita finishes writing his masterful open-source 'Hyperion-Tesseract Browser' which is cross-platform compatible, renders twenty-five times faster than anything out there, stable as a rock, and takes up only 808K, is his product going to stand a chance up against IE? Even with clever marketing, shrewd business leadership and a yummy candy colored interface, he's not going to be able to make his product integral to the functioning of the OS. Once MS catches wind of his new App, they will do one of three things: buy it and rebrand it into IE(5); buy it and sit on it; express concerns about its compatibility and drag their heels giving information to HTB developers who want to interface with the OS. Where is the reward for his innovation? How are the people served by this? Much as I hate to admit it, right now there is no one who can realistically compete with Microsoft in the OS business. That's not good for the market, and ultimately that's not even good for Microsoft. They are going to stay out front with innovation, and as long as they are in complete control of that pace, we the consumers are not going to be getting the best products. ____________________
1 They knew who to rip off and when...
2 god it hurts to say this
3 There's no accounting for personal taste after all, and if a huge chunk of the world's population wants to use a buggy unstable copycat OS from the totalitarians in Redmond, that's their problem. Mmmm Starbucks. (Feels so much better now)
4 I should say '...buys exceptionally terrific products, corrupts them with legacy code and releases good products.'
5 At which point it will become exclusively Win XP compatible, a tenth as fast, buggy as the everglades in August, and take up 1.3GB of drive space.
Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :
Not the issue, Jeff. Completely and totally not the issue. Start another thread if you want, but we're talking about whether Microsoft has the right to outfit their products with other products as they see fit.
They do.
::suddenly realizes he agreed with Omega and starts looking for a gun::
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
But they do NOT have the right to deny customers the option of refitting their product with different components. If I want to change the tires of my car, I shouldn't first have to root-canal it down to the last bolt in order to replace them.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Or to extend the metaphor to the point of ridiculousness, If Ford said you can put different tires on here, and you can drive around town just like normal, but should you decide that you want to take your new Explorer outside of the city limits with other people on board, well the car will need to have those original Goodyear tires back on.
MPDN makes a good point. Why do the tires need to be different from any other set of tires? I shouldn't need to pull the transmission to use a different set of tires.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
::suddenly realizes he agreed with Omega and starts looking for a gun::
Um... just whacha gonna do with that gun, Stingy?
they do NOT have the right to deny customers the option of refitting their product with different components
Yes, they do (minus contractual obligations, of course). It's their car, until you reach a mutually acceptable agreement with them to obtain it. If they don't want to put the tires you want on it, well, tough noogies. Either buy it and do it yourself, or buy another vehicle, but you can NOT force someone to change the tires on their own vehicle. The fact that something's for sale does not change its status as private property.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
When you install windows to your computer. it asks you what programs you'd like installed with it as well. i believe i saw IE in there along with Outlook Express, and a few others. i find that very convenient, and it shouldn't be illegal since consumers have a choice whether or not to use it. so it's a consumer preference.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
As of this moment, I'm using Netscape 4.7 running on Window 98 SE, I also have IE just as a bonus when Netscape crap out on me.
And yes, if I choose to, I have the option to kill IE.
So the "tire" example stands. Suppose that "Goodyear" (instead of Firestone) is the factory standard for all "Ford"'s car, but you don't want your "Ford" with "Goodyear" tires, you can:
1. Buy the car, change the tires to "Firestone", you also have the option to keep or throw away your "Goodyear".
2. Buy a "Chevy", "Nissan" or what if and what not.
And man, as I stated out earlier, Window does not "crap out" if you kill IE or have Netscape install on it.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
By the way, I agree that Firestone sucks.
Maybe the "Ford" metaphor sucks too...
Should we change "Ford" to "Acura" or something?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
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.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
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.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: I'm not very computer savy myself, but is there even another OS besides Windows?
Should I laugh or cry? I can't decide.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
quote:Should I laugh or cry? I can't decide.
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 by Omega (Member # 91) on :
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.
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
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 by Omega (Member # 91) on :
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?
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
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 by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Well, gee, I don't think the government agree with you on that one, that's why they're not breaking Microsoft apart.
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
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 ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
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.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"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?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
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 by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
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.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
"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.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"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."
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
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 by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
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.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
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.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Hmmmm.
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.
I hope that made sense to Rob & Omega.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"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.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
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?
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Yes to the last.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
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.
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
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 by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You can not dictate to Microsoft how to design their program. It's as simple as that.
"Just because it's their product does not mean they can also dictate which third-party programs I may and may not use."
Read this very carefully, TEL.
THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT!
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
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 ]
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
Read this very carefully, Omega.
I ASKED WHY MS HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY CUSTOMERS THE OPTION OF RUNNING PROGRAM X! I DID NOT STATE ANYWHERE THAT MS ACTUALLY EXERTS THAT RIGHT!
[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, what in the world are you talking about??!!
If you agree that MS never "EXERTS" the right to forbids any users from using other programs on Window, then...
WHO THE HELL ARE YOU BITCHIN' AT!
MICROSOFT NEVER STATED IN PUBLIC THAT THEY WILL MAKE WINDOW INCOMPATIBALE WITH NETSCAPE AND OTHER WEB BROWERS.
AND IN PRACTICE, THEY'VE NEVER DONE SO EITHER.
SO WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL BITCHIN' ABOUT MICROSOFT NOT ALLOWING THEM TO USE OTHER WEB BROWERS!!!!!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I ASKED WHY MS HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY CUSTOMERS THE OPTION OF RUNNING PROGRAM X!
Well, considering no one ever said that they did, I'm forced to ask what in the name of Charles Babbage is your problem?
Under any circumstances, you don't HAVE a right to run a particular program, if running that program requires voluntary action on the part of a third party. That's like saying that because I was in an accident and can't speak without reconstructive surgery, I can force the doctor to perform that surgery because otherwise, I can't excersize my right to free speech. Totally stupid. But that's totally irrelevant, because we've established that it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. So... why bring it up at all?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"I ASKED WHY MS HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY CUSTOMERS THE OPTION OF RUNNING PROGRAM X!"
Now, as has been established, you don't actually own Windows, you just own a license to use it. So I suppose it would be possible for Microsoft to forbid you from running certain third-party programs if you want to.
This is irrelevent though, because they don't.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Thank you!
You took the word right out of my mouth!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Urgh. That's disgusting.
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
No matter where this argument goes, remember this:
You have the option to purchase any operating system you want.
You have the option in install anything you want on your computer.
If you do not like Microsoft Windows, then run a diffrent OS. There are plenty out there.
BOTTOM LIKE: If you dont like it, dont use it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And if that was the issue at hand, we'd have to appoint you to the Supreme Court.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Simon: Well, yes. The original issue was whether or not Microsoft should be broken up. But since several people here have the wrong idea about WHY they were originally told to break up, Wes' is slightly relevent.
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
[edit] i really dont remember making this post [/edit]
[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Wes1701E ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
We are so OT it hurts
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: "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.
Well certainly the world's computers didn't come screeching to a halt as the melodramatic media had feared(hoped?), but that's not to say that nothing happened. I personally had to fix three of my friends PCs after the 'I Love You' virus came via some other friend's MS Outlook. Vulnerability. Those people lost a lot of the information on their hard disks.
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: 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.
Say, didn't there used to be a program called Word Perfect? I seem to remember a time when that was the standard. Then there were some compatibility problems with Windows 3.1; nasty luck, that. I guess it's good that MS Word was there to take up the slack... No, but I hear you and I do use PDFs every day. It's the same idea, and it's a good thing to be able to share documents among your peers. To their credit, Microsoft even produced a free PowerPoint Viewer app. I just wish there could be a universal format we could all share that wasn't so proprietary and wasn't so quirky (cough, cough OpenDoc cough, cough).
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: 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?
Vividly. In fact, I would say it greatly contributed to my choice of OS. Direct X has made the gaming consumer's life much easier, but at what cost? For those of you who don't use Macs, you should know that of the very few titles released for Mac, simultaneous cross-platform release is virtually unheard of and a 6-12 month wait is generally the norm. It is the reality in the industry, and I do understand it. It isn't profitable to develop for Mac. In fact, I was a level designer at a video game company a few years back. Microsoft had us eating out of their hand to get the latest Direct X Dev kits, etc. Pretty much the idea was that if we developed using their controllers (game controllers, joysticks, etc.) and when the Virgin interactive VC people came around we used those controllers for demos we'd get the stuff we needed. It wasn't blackmail perse, but it was pathetic. We needed to make a profitable game, and that was the only way to do it. They were the only game in town. I was pretty green back then, but my co-workers made it pretty clear this was standard operating procedure. This was small time though, we were a group of maybe sixty artists, programers, producers and designers at a company of maybe a hundred people. Imagine the kind of leverage they could bring to bear on a larger company with an established product with even more at stake. I believe they wouldn't hesitate for a heartbeat to abuse that power.
For those truly interested in the commie-mac-user perspective on the Redland tyranny, please visit: http://netaction.org/msoft/world/
