M$ users.......read on
I came across these links in another forum I find most interesting on M$: Well it seems these forums are censored! I'll let you fill in the **** in the first address. I'll give you 3 out of the four: f*ck.
I came across these links in another forum I find most interesting on M$:
http://www.****microsoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml
http://www.lamlaw.com/
http://www.attrition.org/gallery/ms/
Well it seems these forums are censored! I'll let you fill in the "****" in the first address. I'll give you 3 out of the four: f*ck
http://www.****microsoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml
http://www.lamlaw.com/
http://www.attrition.org/gallery/ms/
Well it seems these forums are censored! I'll let you fill in the "****" in the first address. I'll give you 3 out of the four: f*ck
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Quote:
Doesn't them refusing to do business with some OEMs if they [the OEMs] ship machines with Linux on them count as restricting supply?
BMW refused to ship the X5 SUV when it first came out to dealers (much to their dismay, and they even filed a lawsuit about it but I think the dealers lost) that didn't meet their revised standards for the showroom and service areas. Many companies refuse to send product to VARs and other distribution points, and you only hear about this because it's the "in" thing to do to bash on MS.
Doesn't them refusing to do business with some OEMs if they [the OEMs] ship machines with Linux on them count as restricting supply?
BMW refused to ship the X5 SUV when it first came out to dealers (much to their dismay, and they even filed a lawsuit about it but I think the dealers lost) that didn't meet their revised standards for the showroom and service areas. Many companies refuse to send product to VARs and other distribution points, and you only hear about this because it's the "in" thing to do to bash on MS.
1. It's great being back and seeing all my friends still about in this forum. It's been a trippy past year, moving to Alaska, etc, etc. Anyway...
2. Microsoft won OS War One by licensing DOS to IBM and retaining the rights to license it to other PC manufacturers. Apple helped them tremendously in a backhanded way, by keeping their computers' architecture proprietary, while IBM's was open for everyone to clone. Everyone did, and MS had customized versions of DOS for every one of them. A *customized* version was necessary to make them more closely *IBM-Compatible,* a phrase that has about disappeared.
3. MS won OS War Two by their dealings with OEM's. There were other operating systems around at the time, but Microsoft's was pretty much the cheapest and best choice for most users. They had the large end of the market share, but obviously Bill was no slouch. About the time Windows 3.1 had rapidly gained in popularity, and though OEM's were free to install and sell any OS, if they wanted this super-special-dirtcheap-price for Windows then they had to pay a licensing fee for EVERY PC they sold. IRREGARDLESS of what OS was loaded. Or even no OS. Smart-business, if you can get away with it, and MS did for many years.
4. Microsoft won OS War Three by being pretty decent software. Sure, some of it sucks. They all suck. So what? MS stuff seems to work the best for most folks, and hey! it's not badly priced, either.
My $0.02
DC
2. Microsoft won OS War One by licensing DOS to IBM and retaining the rights to license it to other PC manufacturers. Apple helped them tremendously in a backhanded way, by keeping their computers' architecture proprietary, while IBM's was open for everyone to clone. Everyone did, and MS had customized versions of DOS for every one of them. A *customized* version was necessary to make them more closely *IBM-Compatible,* a phrase that has about disappeared.
3. MS won OS War Two by their dealings with OEM's. There were other operating systems around at the time, but Microsoft's was pretty much the cheapest and best choice for most users. They had the large end of the market share, but obviously Bill was no slouch. About the time Windows 3.1 had rapidly gained in popularity, and though OEM's were free to install and sell any OS, if they wanted this super-special-dirtcheap-price for Windows then they had to pay a licensing fee for EVERY PC they sold. IRREGARDLESS of what OS was loaded. Or even no OS. Smart-business, if you can get away with it, and MS did for many years.
4. Microsoft won OS War Three by being pretty decent software. Sure, some of it sucks. They all suck. So what? MS stuff seems to work the best for most folks, and hey! it's not badly priced, either.
My $0.02
DC
Look what the cat drug in, heh:D Nice to see ya back, DC.
Quote:
I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.
Here is a good site that sheds some light on the case. Also, here under Article 1. Monopoly Power is where the courts ruled that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly:
"The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings ¶¶ 18-29. The Court has further found that no firm not currently marketing Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of such consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Id. ¶¶ 18, 30-32. From these facts, the Court has inferred that if a single firm or cartel controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market - and leave the price there for a significant period of time - without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Id. ¶ 18. This inference, in turn, has led the Court to find that the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide does in fact constitute the relevant market in the context of the plaintiffs' monopoly maintenance claim. Id. "
I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.
Here is a good site that sheds some light on the case. Also, here under Article 1. Monopoly Power is where the courts ruled that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly:
"The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings ¶¶ 18-29. The Court has further found that no firm not currently marketing Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of such consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Id. ¶¶ 18, 30-32. From these facts, the Court has inferred that if a single firm or cartel controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market - and leave the price there for a significant period of time - without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Id. ¶ 18. This inference, in turn, has led the Court to find that the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide does in fact constitute the relevant market in the context of the plaintiffs' monopoly maintenance claim. Id. "
Quote:
I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.
1. Their product prices actually go down, to be a monopoly prices have to continue to increase.
That is just junk. Do you understand the term 'reconstituted' ?
Just being able to ensure that NO OTHER COMPETITOR CAN COMPETE WOULD BE ENOUGH.
Quote:2. Microsoft do not restrict supply of their products, again to be in a monopoly position a company needs to be actively restrict supply.
Are you doing this deliberately ??
Quote:These two points alone mean that Microsoft cannot be legally classed as a monopoly.
A quote from PC Week about a year ago:
"A lot of companies are making a lot of money on the ubiquity of Windows, providing users with a lot of choice where they want it--on their desktops. That isn't the expected result of a monopoly."
Ah, quoting from a magazine. Therefore it must be true.......
To Three, don't bother, they earn their crust via M$, therefore 'they are alright Jack'.
;(
P.S. BladeRunner, how's that reply regarding Sun being bigger crooks coming along ?? You've had plenty of time to think up an answer !
I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.
1. Their product prices actually go down, to be a monopoly prices have to continue to increase.
That is just junk. Do you understand the term 'reconstituted' ?
Just being able to ensure that NO OTHER COMPETITOR CAN COMPETE WOULD BE ENOUGH.
Quote:2. Microsoft do not restrict supply of their products, again to be in a monopoly position a company needs to be actively restrict supply.
Are you doing this deliberately ??
Quote:These two points alone mean that Microsoft cannot be legally classed as a monopoly.
A quote from PC Week about a year ago:
"A lot of companies are making a lot of money on the ubiquity of Windows, providing users with a lot of choice where they want it--on their desktops. That isn't the expected result of a monopoly."
Ah, quoting from a magazine. Therefore it must be true.......
To Three, don't bother, they earn their crust via M$, therefore 'they are alright Jack'.
;(
P.S. BladeRunner, how's that reply regarding Sun being bigger crooks coming along ?? You've had plenty of time to think up an answer !
No competitor can compete because they haven't come up with really good alternatives. Star Office is nice and all, but it cannot beat my copy of Office 2000. If I had to use another office suite, it'd probably be Corel, since Word Perfect seems to be pretty decent, but that's about it there.
Also, companies don't seem to port Windows programs and games over to other platforms unless extremely popular or important. Same with drivers. I'd go Linux, but Windows is easier to use and I have no trouble getting drivers and separate software. The next best thing to Windows for me would be Mac OS X. xBSD? Nope, even more difficult than Linux. I'm not saying the alternatives to Windows necessarily suck, but they are much more of a hassle than anything else--especially the learning curve.
Also, companies don't seem to port Windows programs and games over to other platforms unless extremely popular or important. Same with drivers. I'd go Linux, but Windows is easier to use and I have no trouble getting drivers and separate software. The next best thing to Windows for me would be Mac OS X. xBSD? Nope, even more difficult than Linux. I'm not saying the alternatives to Windows necessarily suck, but they are much more of a hassle than anything else--especially the learning curve.
Lager-Brains
I am attempting to find the links from which I was refering.
Those links about how SUN are in fact constantly screwing their customers over licenses.
How those people using SUN are suddenly finding that every year there are massive hikes in the license costs and they have got no choice but to continue paying it.
Those were the issues to which I was refering, but as you are one of these people who will not believe anything unless links are posted (Doubt you would even if I posted some links) then that is what I was looking for.
My god man, anchoring on about the same point over and over again.
I suggest you go and read the "legal definition" of a monopoly.
I'm not on about what you think, I'm not on about what you've just made up or decided in your head what is right and what is wrong, I'm talking about the legal definition.
So I point out that MS fail to meet the criterior on two points that need to be met for a company to be classed as a monopoly.
Those being that MS's prices do not continue to rise every year, which is absolutley correct.
Then I point out the fact that MS do not restrict the supply of their own products.
To which you and your intelligence come up with the absoluelty amazing reply:
Are you doing this deliberately ??
Well hello, maybe you'd like to explain your answer to this one.
What exactly does this line mean?
Am I doing this deliberately?
Am I doing what deliberately?
If you are asking am I deliberately posting quotes and information to back up my support for MS rather than being on a one-man crusade then the answer is yes.
If you are asking if I deliberately restrict the supply of my own products then the answer would be no, when users and the network need my help then I just do it, part of my job.
You really are going to have to learn to phrase your questions better.
So lets see.
You will not accept person experience.
You will not accept the experience of others.
You will not accept articles posted in magazines
What exactly will you accept?
Signed testimony from god?
Oh and Larger_Brains I am still waiting to hear about your connection with the computer industry.
Where your experience fits in to all this, what area of the industry you are working in.
It's been a while, but doesn't Solaris ship with a built in web browser?
Humm, surely this is bad for everone concerned, maybe this should be removed too I feel.
I am attempting to find the links from which I was refering.
Those links about how SUN are in fact constantly screwing their customers over licenses.
How those people using SUN are suddenly finding that every year there are massive hikes in the license costs and they have got no choice but to continue paying it.
Those were the issues to which I was refering, but as you are one of these people who will not believe anything unless links are posted (Doubt you would even if I posted some links) then that is what I was looking for.
My god man, anchoring on about the same point over and over again.
I suggest you go and read the "legal definition" of a monopoly.
I'm not on about what you think, I'm not on about what you've just made up or decided in your head what is right and what is wrong, I'm talking about the legal definition.
So I point out that MS fail to meet the criterior on two points that need to be met for a company to be classed as a monopoly.
Those being that MS's prices do not continue to rise every year, which is absolutley correct.
Then I point out the fact that MS do not restrict the supply of their own products.
To which you and your intelligence come up with the absoluelty amazing reply:
Are you doing this deliberately ??
Well hello, maybe you'd like to explain your answer to this one.
What exactly does this line mean?
Am I doing this deliberately?
Am I doing what deliberately?
If you are asking am I deliberately posting quotes and information to back up my support for MS rather than being on a one-man crusade then the answer is yes.
If you are asking if I deliberately restrict the supply of my own products then the answer would be no, when users and the network need my help then I just do it, part of my job.
You really are going to have to learn to phrase your questions better.
So lets see.
You will not accept person experience.
You will not accept the experience of others.
You will not accept articles posted in magazines
What exactly will you accept?
Signed testimony from god?
Oh and Larger_Brains I am still waiting to hear about your connection with the computer industry.
Where your experience fits in to all this, what area of the industry you are working in.
It's been a while, but doesn't Solaris ship with a built in web browser?
Humm, surely this is bad for everone concerned, maybe this should be removed too I feel.
Quote:Check out OpenOffice. It's tempting me to replace my Office Xp installs at work....of course I "like" Office 2000 ebtter than Office XP so whatdoi know.
Sweet! Thnx for the suggestions.
Sweet! Thnx for the suggestions.
Gee...................What have I done?
I created a monster..............
I created a monster..............
Hey Bruce,your on a MS forum you know!!!!!
Hehe!
For myselfe,i resolve the problem.I have dual boot!! One with the best OS ever made by MS,WIN2K,and,as a new GNU user,i have the new Mandrake 8.2....... AND I LOVE BOTH!!!!!
Hummmm,could i do that with my wife???....
I love you all!!!
Mouahahahahahahahahah!
Hehe!
For myselfe,i resolve the problem.I have dual boot!! One with the best OS ever made by MS,WIN2K,and,as a new GNU user,i have the new Mandrake 8.2....... AND I LOVE BOTH!!!!!
Hummmm,could i do that with my wife???....
I love you all!!!
Mouahahahahahahahahah!
original
sapiens74
/* No one makes you Use IE, or Windows Media. */
Yes they do, MS even tried to make msn.com viewable ONLY by IE
untill they got their hand slapped.
If you tried to view the page with anything but IE you got a page
telling you to upgrade to IE.
Its also obvious MS see's linux as a viable threat. We all know Mac isnt (ONLY because of its hardware price) because MS makes IE and office for Mac. They dont for linux (an open source OS that they could make IE and office work flawless on because they have the core code) because they know Linux has a future chance of being their downfall. and they also know if they make office for linux they are going to lose a butt load of money from lower sales of their OS's.
Its already been shown in surveys that alot of companies would ditch ms OS if they could get office to run on another system (but again mac hardware is not cost effective unless you are into grafics.)
On the other hand, Linux isnt going uphill very fast because its not user friendly for joe blow who just wants to use email or surf the web, considering you do have to have a clue, so you can setup security
and add apps (average people are gona say tar what? rpm..huh?)
So here we have 2 ups and 2 downs.
Windows is easy, but not stable, user friendly but causes a good deal of agrivation.
Linux is stable, but not easy, not user friendly, causes a good deal of agrivation but for different reasons.
I personally think MS is best set for the desktop and Linux for servers. desktops need to be easy, and servers extremely stable.
There you have it.
I can dream enough to wish MS death, but smart enough to see they arent leaving the desktop for awhile atleast.
But the linux server arena does keep growing.
sapiens74
/* No one makes you Use IE, or Windows Media. */
Yes they do, MS even tried to make msn.com viewable ONLY by IE
untill they got their hand slapped.
If you tried to view the page with anything but IE you got a page
telling you to upgrade to IE.
Its also obvious MS see's linux as a viable threat. We all know Mac isnt (ONLY because of its hardware price) because MS makes IE and office for Mac. They dont for linux (an open source OS that they could make IE and office work flawless on because they have the core code) because they know Linux has a future chance of being their downfall. and they also know if they make office for linux they are going to lose a butt load of money from lower sales of their OS's.
Its already been shown in surveys that alot of companies would ditch ms OS if they could get office to run on another system (but again mac hardware is not cost effective unless you are into grafics.)
On the other hand, Linux isnt going uphill very fast because its not user friendly for joe blow who just wants to use email or surf the web, considering you do have to have a clue, so you can setup security
and add apps (average people are gona say tar what? rpm..huh?)
So here we have 2 ups and 2 downs.
Windows is easy, but not stable, user friendly but causes a good deal of agrivation.
Linux is stable, but not easy, not user friendly, causes a good deal of agrivation but for different reasons.
I personally think MS is best set for the desktop and Linux for servers. desktops need to be easy, and servers extremely stable.
There you have it.
I can dream enough to wish MS death, but smart enough to see they arent leaving the desktop for awhile atleast.
But the linux server arena does keep growing.
Wow, I don't recall MS coming in and forcing me to go their (crappy) website or use their browser. I have been fiddling with Mozilla, and while I find their implementation of CSS2 support to be better (you don't have to minimize and maximize a webpage to get list images to show, for example) it's still the old Nutscrape browser. I haven't had a chance to work with Opera yet, but I feel that I might. However, if someone wants to format their content to use a certain application, then it is their right. Ever see a flash animation? How about a Quicktime movie? Did either Macromedia or Apple force you to download those plugins to see the content, or was the content enough incentive to get the plugins?
Ever see a flash animation? How about a Quicktime movie? Did either Macromedia or Apple force you to download those plugins to see the content, or was the content enough incentive to get the plugins?
Ah, but they aren't Microsoft are they?
If Microsoft decide to write their web site so that it only displays correctly in their own product, IE they they are "Evil Spawn" & "A monopoly who must be crushed"
However go to a site that forces you to use Flash and they are just cool and using nice web features that all should use.
It's only a valid argument if MS are at fault, or so it would appear.
Ah, but they aren't Microsoft are they?
If Microsoft decide to write their web site so that it only displays correctly in their own product, IE they they are "Evil Spawn" & "A monopoly who must be crushed"
However go to a site that forces you to use Flash and they are just cool and using nice web features that all should use.
It's only a valid argument if MS are at fault, or so it would appear.
This turns out to be a religious decussion on the Great Satan (MSFT) VS. all of humanity.
For those of you who pray to your AMD running, Linux Loving, Netscape is better, "fight the machine" machine, then there is no greater evil then a company who wants to have thier capitalistic right to have 100% of the market.
For those of us who could care less about religion in computers, we simply use what we think is best at the time. RIght now that is MS. IT might not be tommorrow, but until it changes that will be what I use.
For those of you who pray to your AMD running, Linux Loving, Netscape is better, "fight the machine" machine, then there is no greater evil then a company who wants to have thier capitalistic right to have 100% of the market.
For those of us who could care less about religion in computers, we simply use what we think is best at the time. RIght now that is MS. IT might not be tommorrow, but until it changes that will be what I use.
thats what makes america great
Quote:
Ever see a flash animation? How about a Quicktime movie? Did either Macromedia or Apple force you to download those plugins to see the content, or was the content enough incentive to get the plugins?
Ah, but they aren't Microsoft are they?
If Microsoft decide to write their web site so that it only displays correctly in their own product, IE they they are "Evil Spawn" & "A monopoly who must be crushed"
However go to a site that forces you to use Flash and they are just cool and using nice web features that all should use.
It's only a valid argument if MS are at fault, or so it would appear.
Dear Lord, that's it! You nailed it bud, and all along I thought someone was searching for validity in these arguments, but now I know the truth. DAMN MS FOR MAKING THE PC PLATFORM SO POPULAR! DAMN THEM ALL!!!
;(
Ever see a flash animation? How about a Quicktime movie? Did either Macromedia or Apple force you to download those plugins to see the content, or was the content enough incentive to get the plugins?
Ah, but they aren't Microsoft are they?
If Microsoft decide to write their web site so that it only displays correctly in their own product, IE they they are "Evil Spawn" & "A monopoly who must be crushed"
However go to a site that forces you to use Flash and they are just cool and using nice web features that all should use.
It's only a valid argument if MS are at fault, or so it would appear.
Dear Lord, that's it! You nailed it bud, and all along I thought someone was searching for validity in these arguments, but now I know the truth. DAMN MS FOR MAKING THE PC PLATFORM SO POPULAR! DAMN THEM ALL!!!
;(
