Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico Drops out of Microsoft Case
Hiawatha writes: "Looks like
Microsoft has peeled off one of the states." The article is kinda interesting, it talks about how New Mexico's attorney general is all on Microsoft's side now against the remaining states. It's amazing that after years of abusing its power, Microsoft is just gonna walk over this. *sigh*.
I'll know I will be moderated down for this, but I'm willing to take the karma hit in order to enlighten some of you ignorant ungrateful fucks.
MS rule your pimply asses. Frankly, I'm amazed Bill Gates hasn't squashed you like the vermin you are; clearly he does not consider your treachery and corruption worthy of the microsecond it would take to erase you. You don't deserve to witness the beauty of a clear blue sky or experience the awesome majesty of a raging storm on this blessed planet. Ah, scratch that - you basement dwellers haven't been outside in years. I'll try again.
Puny earthlings! Gates could buy you, and he could buy your planet. What would you do then?
Where is your 'Neo' now?
In conclusion: Your time is done, primate.
except for the fact that they have their best product line up in years, are well diversified in different markets, and have a nice stash of cash for the rainy days. It's actually what you call a very well run company.
Now, go play with your little linux box, pussy boy.
He doesn't understand what evil is, but he does genuinely believe what he says.
It scares me sometimes, just how out of touch some geeks seem to be. Slashdot doesn't help, it is a near non-stop groupthink brainwashing session.
Such afflicted (for it is a mental disease) g33ks seem to equate MS with the 3rd Reich; for all the flaws of MS that sort of thinking is rediculous to anyone with a basic grounding in reality.
Yet they manage to ignore companies like Nestle that do truly awful things in the 3rd world, the sort of gross 'all-for-profits' activities that MS aren't even capable of dreaming about.
If they turned their energy to things that really needed to be fixed they could change the world. Instead they choose to rant and rave at one of the more human mega-corporations (not that MS are angels by any stretch of the imagination, but they are better than most).
Ahhh Microsoft and their share dealing activities.
Their earnings include profits from investment, they've been selling shares the past few quarters to cover the poor performance.
But that leads to a problem, you end up selling all your profitable shares and are left with a portfolio of shares selling all below the price you paid.
This quarter, after frantic anti-piracy efforts they had a good quarter and so it was time to take the hit.
They took the hit this quarter. They dumped their shares selling below purchase price and took the hit all in one go.
They sold as much as they could without taking their earnings negative, hence earnings estimated at 1 cent!
So a bit or careful share dealing, investment bulletin boards stuffed with Microsoft people ready to spin it heavily and presto... you survive another quarter.
Now they have a lot of shares reset to their low value and they can use those in future quarters to pump earnings.
That's exactly what everyone says everytime MS puts lots of money into something. Remember how Win2k was going to destory Microsoft? Hm.. Lets see... Win2k sales have been growing every month since it's release. Same with Office 2k which was another doomsday device for Microsoft.
Just get over it, they're better than 99% of other companies out there. You have to either deal with it or shut up.
Yes, the condom provides a possible solution the social problem of unwanted pregnancy. And yet, unwanted pregnancy happens a lot still. Why? Because the technological solution isn't used. Technology provides the tools to solve problems, but not the motivation for using them. The sociological solution of teaching people about the implications of sex and their options for preventing its unwanted side-effects (and convincing them to believe you) will solve the problem. The existence of the condom does nothing unless the social issues surrounding its use are dealt with.
As a (transplanted) New Mexican, I can only say that I'm saddened but not surprised. This state has a long history of completely rolling over for Corporate America. Our PRC (Public Regulatory Committee) has pretty much been completely bought by USWest/QWest which does whatever it wants, including stealing $50million in illegal profits and stifling competition in DSL and phone services, much to the detriment of consumers. The Intel plant here uses more water than half the city of Albuquerque every single day, and we're a bigtime desert community. Basically, this sell-out is nothing new and it's a shame that one of the poorest states in the nation is saddled with various levels of government that are so eager to ditch the interests of the populace in favor of whichever corporate entity with a big checkbook that happens to come along.
Microsoft is going to be _thwacked_ in some sort of way. Dunno just how, but count how many times 'everyone said' they were going to be let off, and then got totally screwed. It's not over. Suppose they get caught for threatening the New Mexico AG? "Do what we say, 'Patsy', and nobody gets hurt".
Microsoft are going to be _hosed_ with due process of law. Call that 'winning'? Cos I don't.
Right now it's as if people are patenting English words on the grounds that most people are illiterate and can't write... this is unclearness on the concept.
Besides, Microsoft's practices of dumping software products and bolting stuff to the OS, even if it will eventually become meaningless in an expanding 'free software' world, did AT THE TIME illustrate just the same pattern that the armtwisting of OEMs illustrated. Even if proprietary software is destined to become a historical curiosity (i.e. 'even if the future is like an RMS wet dream), at the time of the behavior, proprietary software was thought to be a market, and Microsoft's INTENT was not to deprecate the role of proprietary software, but to use their monopoly power to seize the market. The fact that their software highlights the failings of proprietary software (see the recent MSN Messenger outage! And they mean to use this stuff for .NET?) is not their intent, and you can't take that as an excuse to let them off. Just because they're digging their own grave doesn't mean you throw up your hands and let them off the hook. (*g* wonder how many more metaphors I can inflict on them in a single sentence?)
Unix will take the server market. Microsoft will hold the desktop. Which is more valuable is arguable. Nothing else to say, really.
This is not based speculation from their actions. It is based on direct evidence of MS executives' intentions.
Did it help you, the consumer, when Microsoft used it's discriminatory pricing to punish vendors who marketed competing products? Did it save you from the confusing situation where multiple products competed for your affection?
I must admit, the whole IE bundling thing is dumb. I think MS was actually making the right decision to include a browser with the OS. But there are other issues that have nothing to do with MS's "freedom to innovate". There's nothing innovative about using your monopoly to stifle competition. That's what this lawsuit is about.
Punishing MS for business tactics that harm consumers and the free market system is not contrary to OSS, America, or anything else other than unbridled capitalism. The US did unbridled capitalism for a while, and it didn't work well. That's why anti-trust laws exist.
Hell, you could have 100% of all market share and that still doesn't make you a monopoly.
Yes it would, actually. However, it wouldn't necessarily mean you've done anything illegal. There is no law against being a monopoly.
a. the ability to control prices in market
As the court found, Microsoft has increased their prices significantly over the years. They can do this due to network effects which create a high barrier to entry in the OS market. In other words, there is a point at which it becomes financially cheaper to switch to an alternative, however, that point is quite high due to all the infrastructure investments companies have made. Microsoft is taking full advantage of that fact by continually raising their prices, but keeping them below that point. They are reaping monopoly profits.
b. the unresponsives to customer needs
The only thing Microsoft has really had to fear is that someone else could get a stranglehold on part of the industry that would put them in a position to dictate terms to Microsoft. This is the only thing that has kept them "innovating." In this case I have to define "innovating" as buying up competitors or simply duplicating their products and distributing them with the monopoly OS to drive the company out of the market. As far as OSes alone are concerned, Microsoft only really competes with its own products (i.e. Win2k vs. Win98/ME).
c. the lack of serious competition or the threat of serious competiton.
As I've stated already, there is no serious competition in the desktop OS market right now. The barriers to entry are too high.
But just because the competition fails it doesn't mean that MS is a monopoly.
No, just because the competition fails, it doesn't mean MS is a monopoly. However, when you look at WHY they failed, then you see that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, and not only that, they abuse their monopoly position quite regularly. The internal MS email that was revealed during the course of the trial illustrated quite nicely that MS understands their position very well and fully intended to take advantage of it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
How long would Apple remain a competitor without MS Office and IE available on that platform? Apple competes at Microsoft's discretion. Hell, Microsoft invests in Apple! Do you really think they consider them to be real competition?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm talking about competition between platforms.
Platforms aren't viable without applications.
From a user point of view, we have choices. We can choose to use: Windows, MacOS 9, Mac OSX, Linux, Unix, BeOS, etc etc etc.
Not if we want to run standard applications. That's the whole point. Microsoft IS the standard today. If Microsoft wants to make Apple irrelevant they simply have to stop porting Office, IE, and a few other apps and Apple will be relegated to being just another niche OS. They won't do this right now because Apple is convenient to point to when they need to claim they have competition.
However, the courts decides that they are only concerned with the x86 processor family, and only non niche OSes, (which is how they eliminated all the other OSes for x86).
Look at what you're talking about. The other OSes ARE niche OSes. Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS market, x86 or otherwise. Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the vast majority of people simply because Microsoft doesn't sell a version of Office for it and it doesn't have a big enough marketshare for developers to create top-teir apps and games for it. This is why barriers to entry are so important in determining what constitutes a monopoly. If an OS doesn't have enough marketshare, then nobody develops for it. If nobody develops for it, it won't gain marketshare.
Microsoft knows how expensive it is for businesses to switch OSes. That's why they can get away with their onerous EULAs and high prices. Companies have to think of the bottom line. They have already invested heavily in Microsoft products. They can't just switch to something else unless they can show that it will cost them less over the next couple of quarters. So Microsoft prices their products as high as they can without crossing the line that would cause companies to abandon them in favor of another OS. So really there is no competition to make an impact on Microsoft's prices. The only thing that affects them are the barriers to entry of the OS market. That's why they tried to destroy Java. It threatened to lower the barrier. Same with Netscape. Browsers had the potential to become platforms themselves. They wouldn't allow that.
The only thing that even resembles competition for Microsoft is Open Source software. And that is only because it doesn't play the same game as Microsoft so MS hasn't been able to beat it yet. It is an anomoly though. It's not a commercial interest for the most part. Most attempts to make a profit from it have failed. I'm not sure it should even be considered part of the market by the court. It's really a strange animal. More of a backlash against the screwed up IP laws in this country than an attempt to compete with commercial software. It is, however, good to know that all the software know-how and code is not locked up by corporations yet.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Breaking up microsoft goes against this idea. Microsoft became popular because EVERYONE used their software, not because they bought out all their competing OS's.
Two things. First, they originally got their market position because IBM made DOS the default OS to ship on all their PCs. Second, they don't have to buy out other OSes. Network effects are quite real and quite powerful. Since IBM made Microsoft the standard, it created a powerful incentive for everyone to use it, even if something better came along. Unless you can get everyone else to switch en masse along with you, you can't really move to a non-standard OS without alienating yourself from your customers, business partners, etc.
The people that want MS broken up are competition
Of course they are! They are the victims of Microsoft's illegal tactics! They want something done about it. I can't blame them for that. Even the appeals court didn't overturn the facts of the case which state that Microsoft DID abuse its monopoly. It did commit a crime!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Just 5 years ago, I remember shopping for a car with my GF, and a V6 accord could be had for $16,000.00
Of course in the last 5 years the Accord has been upscaled quite a bit with the Civic taking over the lower end and another (i forgot the name now) taking over the "itty bitty" category from the civic. I don't think you can compare the two now.
How much is matinee now? $5.75 How about just 3 years ago? $3.00 Now I know inflation isn't that high.... That's what a monopoly does to you, since over here, Regal Cinemas is the only theatre chain in town... Don't want to pay $7.75? Then you're SOL, don't watch a movie than....
Was this meant to support your point? If so, you lost me.
As for the insurance companies, I have to chalk it up to corruption. The government mandates that we have insurance on our vehicles, but they don't do nearly enough to make sure the insurance companies don't screw people over. The insurance industry is huge and has great lobbying power. That's why you get screwed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
By this statement alone, it's obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. People like you love to throw out this nifty-sounding bullshit and hope that other ignoramouses will buy into it. If you knew a thing about markets, you'd know that you don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly. You'd also know that having a monopoly is not illegal in itself. You'd understand that it comes down to how whether or not they use that monopoly in ways that gives their products a marked advantage over other products which has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on. That's why the government is supposed to step in and right things. In Microsoft's case the government completely screwed its first attempt by believing Microsoft would abide by the spirit of their agreement rather than jumping straight through the first loophole they found. Now they're back for another try and I, for one, will be extremely pissed off if they screw this one up too. I'm sick of seeing Microsoft use their OS monopoly to beat OEMs and competitors into submission. Nor do I want to see them get away with the profit of their actions. Of course the fucked up IP laws in this country only make it easier for them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'd even be happy to see Macintosh release MacOs for the PC.
I always laugh when I hear this mentioned. Apple is not a software company - they're a _hardware_ company that provides software that is germane to their platform, to make it complete. They don't want a MacOS (or now OS X - why would they port their old OS, with all the cruft and assembly?) port to another platform. That'd basically kill their hardware biz, which is their mainstay.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Uh. NT 4.0 was not Chicago - Windows 95 was Chicago. (Look at the strings in many of the INFs in C:\windows\inf, and you'll see.) I do not recall the codename of NT 4, but it wasn't Chicago.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
There's quite a large number of plaintiffs involved, and they're all seeking different things. Maybe it's better if they do file individual suits against Microsoft. Too many chefs spoil the soup anyhow.
...and sometimes there's one guy that walks away with the whole pot. That was, and apparently continues to be, Bill Gates.
But still I think their greed with the licensing fees wil eventually drive people to open alternatives.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
"Does this mean that if a serial killer walks into court showered, shaved, and in a clean suit he gets a lighter sentence?"
Well, often, yes.... :-(
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
http://gabrielcain.com/
I was going to say...
There is no difference between what MS does, or Sun or IBM or GE.
Actually a far worse company than Microsoft is Oracle, but they never get any attention placed on them. There is also no CEO more driven, aggressive, mean-spirited or down right evil than Larry Ellison.
Well maybe Steve Jobs, but he's only dangerous to himself.
Wow are you ever out of touch with reality.
you might want to cut back on that Guinness.
Do you seriously think the Add/Remove program list will actually remove the core IE functionality?
Get real. IE functionality is embedded all throughout Windows XP, Office, Money, numerous third party apps, etc.
Think customers are going to be happy when Active Directory doesn't work? Nope...
All they'll be doing is removing iexplore.exe and the icon, the core of IE which is essentially the HTML rendering engine will still exist on the machine in the form of COM objects.
I don't see how you can possibly call the software produced by Oracle to be "great", and the software produced by Microsoft to be "mediocre."
You've severely mischaracterized both individuals. The only explanation I can think of is that you do not use either companies products.
No...
Linus Torvalds didn't create Linux because of Microsoft.
He created Linux because he wanted something better than Minix, but couldn't afford to go out and buy any of the Commercial Unices of the time.
I can't remember what all was around back then. I recall SCO Unix and there were several SVR4 releases. I don't recall when Unixware and BSDi entered the market...
But in '92 if you wanted Unix on your desktop that mean paying at least $600, but more often close to $3,000 or so if you wanted a C compiler, etc.
This anti-Microsoft thing didn't start happening until much much later, and it wasn't Mr. Torvalds driving it.
There's few of us around who remember this, it seems.
No, that's not how it goes.
If you're not part of the solution, your're part of the precipitate.
It's not the 12 year old that picking the fights. This analogy started with a good one: Microsoft is an essentially invinsible bully roaming the playground beating up on the kids. The kids have no choice whether or not to fight him. That's not called competition. Situations such as this necessitate the intervention of somebody who can enforce some kind of order over the group and stop the bully from causing trouble.
BTW. Even if MS got broken up, linux sure as hell wouldn't take it's place.
Where in this thread has anybody claimed that it would? You're just trolling at this point. There have been several very technically advanced and well engineered operating systems that have failed miserably due to Microsoft's overwhelming control over the market. BeOS, for example, would have been one exciting system to work in, but nobody bought it. The hardware vendors wouldn't write drivers for it because nobody used it (so, therefore, nobody uses it). Nobody wrote commercial apps for it, since nobody used it, meaning that nobody would use it since they couldn't get commercial apps for it.
Microsoft, as the maker of the most popular browser and productivity suite, has the power to dictate what operating systems will succeed in the commercial market today. By keeping Office's file formats propriatary, they are able to ensure that the only people that can reliably read or write Office documents are people using an officially sanctioned MS operating system.
noah
A few things you have wrong:
1) Windows is _not_ easy enough for any given Grandma to use. Maybe yours, but definitely not mine. My Dad (who has been using computers for a long time, and has a masters in engineering) has trouble figuring out how Windows works all the time. The only thing that makes it "easy" is that its used everywhere.
2) Macintoshes have always been easier to use. Macintoshes have brought more to the usability of computing than _anything_ else. Personally, I don't like the company Apple either. However, they have at least brought something to computing.
I always tell people - if you want something that's easy to use, run Mac OS. If you want something that's technically excellent, run UNIX. If you don't want either of those, stick with Windows.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Anybody see last Thursday's Cringely? (They're dated on Thursdays but usually don't get posted 'til almost Friday) He offers the opinion that if the cost of settlement goes as high as 2 Billion Dollars that MS will just use the money to buy an island somewhere and move offshore instead. He's not joking. "I have no idea where Microsoft would move, but I know they are considering it. Let me repeat that: I KNOW THEY ARE CONSIDERING IT."
As he further says "As a diplomat, Gates couldn't even be arrested for speeding on visits back to Redmond..."
It's worth a read.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
When I said buy I meant as in make the necessary investments in the right local politicians and the choicer real estate, however, BG could probably afford to pick up a few nukes and the odd missle or two on the black market should he need to encourage other countries not to mess with them.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Say that five times fast. You did that on purpose right?
New Mexico!
=p
All I can say is they suck just like life in space. All they are interested in is profit and not consumers. Like McDonalds, they serve up crap food from underpaid, overworked young adults and leave behind a trail of cardboard and wax covered cups all around their stores. No consideration for the future and only looking at the past. Like their last profits...
Rant rant rant....
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
This idea of Microsoft's buying a country is so idiotic it's breathtaking. An independent nation under Microsoft would have no protection either from invasion or from trade barriers. The company would have to spend an incredible amount each year just to have some sort of national defense establishment, and even Microsoft's money can't purchase that many state-of-the-art fighter planes. And what leverage would Microsoft the company/country have in trade negotiations with say Europe or Asia? Furthermore what exactly would it mean for Microsoft to purchase a country? Sure they might hold all of the property and be able to ship in tens of thousands of programmers, but would this mean that Bill Gates gets instantly appointed dictator for life? Even with tens of thousands of programmers, far more people than that will be living in whatever country would be purchased. Let's see, richer mostly white minority tries to rule over a probably darker skin much more populous majority--wait a minute, that's what South Africa tried! And at least the South African whites had the motivation that they were fighting for their home country, which would not be the case for Microsoft's employees. That type of social situation is going to go over real well with the talent Microsoft must keep attracting, let alone world opinion. To buy off the population Microsoft would again be faced with ruinous expenditures on social programs--health care, education, care of the elderly. And what exactly does moving to another country do for Microsoft now that its main worries are lawsuits for damages in the US, not a break-up? Microsoft still has the bulk of its business in the US.
You think you're kidding? I live here I don't. That's the policy maker's way.
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's been decided by a federal court and upheld unanimously by the court of appeals. You're barking up the wrong tree.
a. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control prices of desktop operating systems or application level software.
You're living on another planet. Over the years the price of Microsoft's consumer OS has climbed steadily. It now costs more than a year's income for some people.
Feh.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
"Evil will always triumph of good because good is stupid..."
Or something like that. Actually I believe it really comes to: Money will always win because everything else can be bought.
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
I agree. A couple years ago Microsoft settled a lawsuit with the state of California over the old MS Office boxes that clearly showed "Microsoft Mail" to be part of the package (but it turned out that you couldn't actually use the Mail software without an additional client licence). The result was tens of millions of dollars worth of free Office licences for CA schools, which cost Microsoft absolutely nothing of course, except lost revenue.
New Mexico went cheap.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
OK, I'm "dumb", but someone over at Microsoft makes a marketing decision to take an existing product and sell it to home users and you are falling all over yourself to call it "monumental".
Better to be dumb than a wet pantied fanboy.
Sorry, if you want monumental, try NT 3.1. If you want monopolistic marketing strategies try what's happened to NT since then. If you want to be interesting try explaining to me and the rest of Slashdot why "NT Home" was cancelled in the mid 90s, and why "2000 Home" was cancelled last year, and why XP Home is interesting to anyone who isn't ignorant.
(By support gravytrain, I am certainly not talking about PSS -- I'm talking about solving people's support issues by upselling them to a new OS and or computer. And PSS hasn't be free since the dark ages.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
How the fuck is XP "innovation" at all? Let's take the 10 year old NT kernel, bolt on Plug-n-Play (5 years too late), and bolt on a really retarded MS Bob-like inteface. XP is the cheapest new OS in years, excluding marketing costs.
More interesting is that Microsoft used their monopoly to essentially segement the market by downplaying NT for the last 8 years and foisting what was supposed to be a compatibility solution (Win9x) but turned out to be an unreliable pre-modern piece of shit onto 90% of the computing public's desktops.
My guess is that they've realized that the support gravytrain and the upgrade cycle is over. Expect Win XP to hang around for a long time.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
In that he thought that a PC was too much of a bitty box to be worth anything with. PC's were mostly no good because DOS blew chunks, and didn't come close to taking advantage of the hardware.
When he broke down and bought a PC, he got Minix because DOS blew. Linux was written because he felt he could right something decent. Later, as linux matured (approched v1.0), the goal (of Torvalds and the community) did become to write a PC OS to kick all of the others' collective asses. I suppose there were no explicit anti-MS sentiment, in that the MS offerings were so bad that they weren't worth making a comparison to. No hate of MS, but plenty of disdain. Truckloads of disdain.
It came on my computer, i had to buy it
Well, now, that is a legitimate excuse. The MS oS was fairly popular for a long time because it was the only commercial choice. However, when other OS's for the PC became available, MS launched a campaign to prevent vendors from selling computers without a MS OS.
OEM's were given sweetheart deals on MS OSes, but usually on the conditiont that there was to be no other. They even kept OEM's from selling "naked" boxes by offering licences that were per PC shipped, regardless of whether or not it had an OS.
Now, I have a friend who bought a PC from one of the rare vendors who would sell it naked. He bought his own copy of Win95 (of his own free will, yes, and concious choice), and installed it himself. The hardware, however, was fairly defective. The vendor had a no-lemon policy, and so the third time the machine had to be sent in, they bought the machine back from him at the original price. This was a year and a half after he bought the machine, and he could now get a much nicer PC for the same money. So, he was now in the market for a new PC. At this point, though, it was impossible to find a vendow that didn't package Windows on the box. So my friend was forced to by an additional copy of an OS that he didn't need. He had his copy of '95 retail. Not even a EULA of dubious legality was keeping him from using it again. No copyright violation at all (the old machine had it's drives wiped). But he still had to buy Windows again
Now, you might counter with "well, why didn't he just get parts," or "this vendor this vendor and this vendor would be happy to sell naked PC". Well, parts wasn't an option. While he ws fairly software savvy, he needed the hardware support that you can only get from a big vendor (especially after the horror of hardware problems he'd had before). But all of the big vendors were coerced into signing exclusive agreements with MS.
So, while I suppose he doesn't use Windows against his will, he did have to buy it once against his will, and that, sir, is harmful to a consumer/consumers.
Apparently you're fairly new here. If you weren't, you'd know that it is next to impossible to get a refund for Windows. MS says it's the vendor's problem, but the vendors are prohibited from releasing what they were charged for Windows, and they therefore can't give a refund either.
What MS did wrong was imposing such rules on the hardware vendors. If they wanted to sell machines with Windows on them at all, they could only sell machines with Windows on them. Well, yes, they could get retail copies, but the price difference is so unreasonable that nobody could make a profit selling that way. MS effectively prohibited anybody from selling PC's without including a MS OS.
Price discrimination, which is what MS was practicing with their agreements, is illegal in many countries, and in the US, if you are a monopoly, it is very suspicious and indicative of possible monopolistic abuse (aka, also illegal).
As for buying parts and assembling them, that is not always a valid option. What percentage of the general population is hardware savvy enough to do that? Hell, what percentage of slashdot readers are using a wholly custom box? Hmmm? I doubt that even here on /. it is over 40%.
Why don't you grow an opinion of your own. Astroturf is pretty damn ugly.
That doesn't make a difference to Microsoft. Washington State isn't sueing them either.
I hate to burst your bubble, but according to the article, NM still gets a portion of any ultimate settlement reached by the states and the DOJ. So it's "money for nothing" in NM.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Although I don't share quite the same quantity of unabashed Linux boosterism as the above poster, I thought I would point out:
That's an organizational problem, though - the company could lock that down easily (moreso than customizing Windows since they've got the source code). A major organization could put together their own customized Linux desktop, deploy it worldwide, and support it much more cheaply than an equivalent install of Windows. "Users changing their themes" on Linux is exactly as much of a problem as "Users installing non-approved screensavers" on Windows - no problem at all with appropriate organizational planning ahead of time and appropriate IT controls on desktop customization.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The reason that XP is better is precisely because there is competition (of a sort) from Linux and Mac OS X. This is more pronounced in the server arena, though - from all reports W2K is a big improvement over NT4 for server use, precisely because Linux is a very credible threat in the server arena. Also, Microsoft has some impetus to turn out new (not necessarily better) software frequently in order to keep customers on the upgrade trail and ensure consistent cash flow to meet Microsoft's business needs.
True, Microsoft has innovated at times, mostly as a direct result of being spurred by competition. But their usual practice is to innovate a little and then market a lot in order to bury the most recent threat (lately it's Real, leading to Windows Media Player). Once Microsoft switches to its new subscription pricing model, they will have no reason to innovate at all without competition (because they don't have to force an upgrade every few years), and I think you'll see innovation stop in those markets where they have no competition.
If you can't get your really cool software onto new PCs because Microsoft has used its OS monopoly to push MS-apps, then it doesn't matter how hard you've tried. If you've written the most innovative code anywhere, but Microsoft can use its ill-gotten gains to clone your project from scratch faster than you can lock in market share, it doesn't matter how much work you've put into things. For very basic reasons ingrained in our capitalistic system, as well as network effects dictated by the nature of software in general, it's very tough to unseat a reigning monopoly, especially one which has shown itself to be as unprincipled as Microsoft.
You only have to read a quote from a venture capitalist saying that they won't fund businesses that would go up against Microsoft to see how strong and resilient the monopoly really is. VCs understand innovation - they're not afraid of funding projects that are often too innovative and ahead of their time. But they know markets too, and the truth is that in some markets it has been and will continue to be almost impossible to compete with Microsoft on the basis of innovative products or competitive (but profitable) pricing.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I read that comment as "We know that no one can control Microsoft, so at least we'll get on their good side while they're relatively weakened". What a huge loss for the forces of law and order.
I'm amazed that anyone would consider lightening up on Microsoft just because they're trying (not very convincingly) to clean up their act now. Present good deeds don't make up for past misconduct in any other court in the land. The attitude is "Well, they've changed their ways, and it would be too hard to prosecute them any further, so...". Where's the famous American thirst for vengeance that gets fired up whenever some lunatic blows up a building? :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Fortunately, the impact of this decision will be relatively minimal. The general public won't pay much attention to this, because very few people actually realize that New Mexico is part of the United States. So you see, we actually have very little to worry about.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Joe Average can't figure out Windows either. If you have ever used Windows, you'll know the user-friendliness isn't a factor in Windows' dominance at all.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It probably has a hell of a lot more to do with the fact that New Mexico just about does anything to keep Intel happy. And without Microsoft, the market for x86 chips (which are only cheap due to the size of the Wintel base) would plummet.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
They can run, but they can't hide.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I get a choice between CDE and olwm. Evil cruel Sun!
I can't stand either, dunno about you. Why not install KDE, Gnome or your favourite X Window environment of choice ?
I believe it's possible to compile KDE for a Solaris target, and you can even install it with just user privelages if you don't have root access. I'm sure the same must apply to other GUIs and Window Managers.
Personally, I'd like this year to be the year I become a Microsoft free zone, apart from perhaps a dual boot system to run games on. Up to now I have legally paid for (most of) the own MS software and contributed to their enormous revenues, but as Microsoft appears to becoming increasingly unfriendly to people like me who build my PCs up from components and change systems regularly. I started to change from MS to Linux about 3-4 years ago when I had the choice between paying a lot of money for NT Server or a free Linux installation. I am spending more and more time running Linux at both server asnd desktop as the quality of the desktop software improves. I'd say my major breakpoint will come when I can import, view/edit and export MSOffice files to KOffice [ I know StarOffice does this, but I don't like the package].
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Try scrolling down. The article is longer than a couple of paragraphs.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
From the first draft of the CNET article,
"Originally planned for last week, the announcement was delayed when Madrid and the Microsoft lawyers could not use MSN IM to finalise the sell-out."
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Did you read the comment that you responded to?
Would you buy Windows Me if it was the same as Windows 3.1? No, you would just keep using 3.1. Then, once every single person has a Microsoft OS, how are they going to keep up their cash flow? If they "innovate" and come out with a "new" and "better" OS every 2 years, they can get a hundred bucks from every single person every 2 years.
Just watch, once everybody has to subscribe to Microsoft product licenses, innovation will slow way down.
Why are do you guys hate Microsoft so much? Serious answers, please.
Proprietary software. Then why don't you hatee BeOS, Apple, or Sun even one percent as much. Why did RMS flip off the Microsoft building at Stanford a few years back, but didn't flip off the Sun or HP buildings just down the street? It can't be because Microsoft sells proprietary software, because when you guys aren't bashing Microsoft, you're defending proprietary Napster.
Monopoly. Okay, sure, by some definitions of the word, they are indeed a monopoly. Do you hate your local telco and cable provider just as much? What about the USPS?
Rich bastards. Okay, they have tons of money. But what they have is peanuts compared to some other corporations. Why don't you similarly hate IBM? Why don't you hate Cisco, Philips, or ADM every bit as much as you hate Microsoft?
Microsoft tax. I've owned three PCs in my life, and am ready to purchase my fourth next week. None of them came with any Microsoft products. The one I'm purchasing next week won't either. I don't the salesman I didn't want Windows, so he scratched it off the manifest and subtracted the full retail price off the total.
Shoddy products. Lots of companies, particularly in the software field, ship shoddy shit. Are Microsoft's products so much worse than all the other crap on the store shelves?
From what I can see, the vast majority of you guys aren't even using any Microsoft products. You've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt tht Microsoft has absolutely no say in what software you use. One could almost get the impression is that the ONLY reason you use Linux is because it ain't Windows.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes, Microsoft has more money than all 19 states put together.
Does anyone have any facts to back this up? I really find it hard to believe. Of course, Microsoft has more money in all their departments put together than the individual states do in merely their AG departments, but that's comparing apples to oranges. But it's a big stretch to say that Microsoft has more money that all these states put together.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
In case anybody missed it, when the appeals court decision was announced, Scott McNeally was positively crowing. Not only was the remedy (the breakup) vacated and remanded rather than reversed (translation: the lower court, less Penfield Jackson, can do anything from smack Bill on the wrist with a wet noodle, to shredding Microsoft and serving it to Linus Torvalds au brochette... but I digress), but the monopoly judgement was affirmed.
Microsoft is a monopoly; it is so written in the law now.
This means that Sun's (and AOL's and Compaq's) lawyers are working feverishly to come up with the best way to use that legal ammunition to hang it in to the Evil Empire. (I don't know what Oracle thinks of this, or whether they would even have standing, but gods help us all if Ellison decides it's worth it and goes after Bill.... the scene of legal carnage would be unimaginable.) New Mexico can get stuffed. The corporations have not yet begun to fight.
Taking on Microsoft on their own turf would be suicide. The only reason Linux is succeeding (at least in the server area) is because it is *not* taking on Microsoft head-on (proprietary OS promoted by a single company). Microsoft hasn't known how to fight Linux because Linux is not just one company that can be attacked. They are just finally learning what to attack (the process, the GPL), but it is an uphill battle for them.
Heck, even Microsoft realizes that there some markets where even *they* have trouble competing head-on with the market leaders.
At this point, Microsoft has such a lock on the intel desktop that it would be nearly impossible for a single commercial company to compete head-on (remember OS/2, BeOS, etc.). At this point in time, virtually the only hope for reducing their monopoly lies with open source software because it's a diffuse enough target that Microsoft is having trouble attacking it. Even so, it will be difficult unless Microsoft makes a HUGE mistake at some point in the future.
No actually their idea of cost cutting is giving out more stock options as opposed to pay. Remove that, MS doesn't make much money.
Well they have an unstable monopoly yes, which could be overturned if they didn't "innovate" but the big deal to me is not that they have a monopoly, (Remember its not illigal to have a monopoly) its what they are doing with the monopoly they have. XP in my opinion is very innovative, but it is also an attempt at monopolising almost every other type of internet buisness. They are going after licensing fees from photo making, (ok not a monopoly but definatly an abuse of their desktop monopoly). They are trying to monopolise Instant Messaging. And most importantly they are trying to become the single point of personal information sharing, for billing of internet purchases, once they get that they could become their own credit card company. Ok, so they now control the money flow of the internet, and your ability to buy anything from it. Once people get used to that, the amount of leverage they will have over our economy will be so huge its sickening.
It is a bit sketchy, but seriously I could definatly imaging that MS's legal department has more money than most states have for fighting legal battles, 19 of them put together I don't know. But they definatly have alot more than NM and NM isn't THAT poor. Did a quick bit of reasearch the Federal Government has a total budget for 2001 of about 20 billion for litegation/judicial of course probably less than 100 million was spent on MS, but the states themselves probably could only afford to spend probably a couple million at MOST. What state in their right mind would throw their whole budget at MS, while MS can throw a good percent of their money at the problem if they can show the investors that it will help.
A quick refutation of your points:
a) If your biggest competitor is another wing of your company (ie Win2k vs Win9x), it is a fairly safe bet that you are a monopoly. If despite that, you decide to retire past versions so as not to compete you are not serving customers, rather than yourself.
b) MSN started off as a proprietry system, then it adopted open standards and then when MS saw that they were losing to the competition they started tying everything down. How long before the only way to access all MSN content is by using MS products. It is starting with audio/video. Most third party broadcasters of a choice between real and MS, guess who doesn't?
c) The court case defined the market as Intel based PCs, and MS does have a monopoly. MS has decided to withdraw support from ALL alternative architectures, because they do not need to support anything else to maintain their Monopoly.
Another thing, the anti-trust case does not hinge on MS being a monopoly, which is not in itself illegal, but instead of abuse of said monopoly which is, and which has been proven.
Now my closing point to MS junkies: How good do you think your beloved Win2K/XP would be if Linux et al wasn't breathing down its neck? and how willing would you be to swap architecture/OS if it hadn't improved?
You argue your case well, so I'm going to keep at it a while longer.
a) Microsoft wants to destroy the competition. The competition wants to sell product. Sun sell (mostly) non Intel hardware. MS make (again mostly) OSs for Intel hardware. As long as there is a market for non-Intel machines, Sun is happy, but if MS use their monopoly on the client side to devalue the market of non-Intel servers, then Sun is right to complain. But thats more for point (c). MS _need_ to force users to upgrade, because there is noone left who wants to buy MS for the first time. They enforce this need by contrived obsolescence, version incompatibilites, not patching old versions etc. They can do this because they have a monopoly. And it doesn't do any good for the customers.
b) Remember, having a monopoly isn't wrong. Abusing it is. If they exploit the fact that they have a monopoly in one field (eg, Desktop OSs) to destroy a competitor in another ("internet" provision) then they have behaved illegally. Once that competitor is silenced, and no other rival can thrive in the same market, then they now have two monopolies.
c) Part of what I was talking about in (a) explains why the focus of the court was correct. MS doesn't need to have a monopoly of _all_ IT, but by having a monopoly in one area and using that to force out competitors in another is illegal, and MS done exactly that.
You need to make the distinction between BEing a monopoly, and HAVing a monopoly. When you understand that you can understand why the courts behaved as they did.
My closing point was aimed at the Windows rulez, Linsux blowz school of thought. I would like them to remember that their cool winxp owes a lot to the threat from linux.
What my closing point shows anyone over the age of 15 is that the barriers to entry of another OS are immense: it has to be given away for free, and it has to count on thousands of developpers in order to meet expectations. MS know that while they have the mindshare of developpers, there is no threat to their monopoly, but if new software gets written first for Linux, and it gets a library of all the hundreds of small applications (ie my fathers collection of WWII cdroms) then it has lost. I believe MS is more afraid of losing dev mindshare than it is of seeing Linux in the enterprise. That explains why you the companies being audited by the BSA are not the developpers, but the end users.
And the threat of Linux? Remember how massively delayed the convergence of 16bit and NT was. It won't be completed until the release of XP, but was originally scheduled for, what, 1998?. How could they get away with that? Easy. They knew they had a captive market and no matter how dissatisfied customers were, they could not easily switch platform. Of course, Win98, and ME didn't hurt the bottom line at all.
Too bad they can't see where they put the cash, what with running out of electricity and all.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
OSDN has no more responsibility to be journalistic than MSDN, NARAL, or the NRA. It's a developer network for people who share a political perspective.
Uhh... there's less developer in OSDN than there is coffee in Java.
MSDN, by the way, is a developer resource site - including tutorials, examples, documentation, et al. It hasn't got anything to do with politics.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Reminds me of a movie I once saw... And Justice For All$$$$$$$$$
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Of the states involved in the suit, New Mexico is by far the poorest. If any state was a candidate for a "buyout", NM was.
(They're also the state whose withdrawal is least likely to affect the eventual outcome.)
The New Mexico AG simply doesn't want to have a say in further proceedings. If she can get M$ to pay the State's costs so far and retain the right to share in any eventual settlement extracted by the DoJ and the rest of the States, then it's just a management decision about where to allocate her staff, no matter how she or M$ might spin this. It won't have any affect on the rest of this case.
Remember the important things:
* The Appeals Court found Microsoft in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This won't just go away, no matter what Gates does.
* One of the reasons for vacating the breakup was uncertainty it would be an effective remedy to prevent future Microsoft misdeeds.
* Another Judge could impose a breakup into _more_ pieces (OS Client, OS Server, Browser, Office, and Media); it could happen.
* Conduct remedies could be imposed, with or without breakup; this would burden Microsoft greatly with DoJ oversight procedures.
* The DoJ has to satisfy 18 States, some of which are still "very troubled" (read, pissed off) at Microsoft's recent actions and plans.
* If not finally reversed, the Court's decision will fuel a storm of civil suits in the US alone. AOL Netscape has a solid foundation.
* Europe's antitrust commission hasn't even _started_ in on Microsoft yet, and the US guilty verdict may influence their thinking.
Microsoft is dead, everybody knows this... except them.
Microsoft once again revised profit expectations downwards after announcing a one of charge for the aquisition of the State of New Mexico.
Ananlysts predicted a wave of similar purchases by Microsoft, with up to 18 other states potential targets for buyout.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
If microsoft really was as evil as a monopoly as you say they are, then why do they continue to innovate?
Except that they don't "innovate", so much as change things for the sake of change and rip off other people's idea. (The former is also a rip off off of an idea General Motors came up with, the "annual model change".
He offers the opinion that if the cost of settlement goes as high as 2 Billion Dollars that MS will just use the money to buy an island somewhere and move offshore instead. He's not joking. "I have no idea where Microsoft would move, but I know they are considering it. Let me repeat that: I KNOW THEY ARE CONSIDERING IT."
I doubt it since they wouldn't last too long if they did. Bill might be rich but you can't buy an army off the shelf. Not that that would do any good if someone "acidentally" fires off an SLBM.
This idea of Microsoft's buying a country is so idiotic it's breathtaking. An independent nation under Microsoft would have no protection either from invasion or from trade barriers. The company would have to spend an incredible amount each year just to have some sort of national defense establishment, and even Microsoft's money can't purchase that many state-of-the-art fighter planes.
Are there any "state-of-the-art fighter planes" which have anti submarine capability. Let alone the ability to shoot down sub launched missiles?
When I said buy I meant as in make the necessary investments in the right local politicians and the choicer real estate, however, BG could probably afford to pick up a few nukes and the odd missle or two on the black market should he need to encourage other countries not to mess with them.
In which case he may as well move to Iraq...
May be more a matter of $10-million * 19 Attorneys General == very good deal for Microsoft.
Federal antitrust law and the ruling of an appeals court both say you're wrong.
The trolls and MS fans keep writing and talking as though antitrust law were wishful thinking on the part of the U.S. Justice Department and people who hate Microsoft. It's not. It's real legislation with specific definitions and penalties.
Whine all you want. Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly and been found guilty of abusing that monpoly.
Although the price trend of off the shelf commodities has been going up the last five years the price of hardware and software have been trending down. The price of just about every piece of software has gone down over the last five years except MS products where MS has a monopoly. The price of Windows and office have gone up while the price of ms money and ms works has gone down. Monopoly = ability to jack up prices.
War is necrophilia.
A federal judge has ruled that MS is a monopoly. An Appeals court has upheld that ruling. They also both have ruled that MS has abused that monopoly to the detriment of consumers. They have only disagreed on what the punishment should be.
I think it's time you accepted the fact that MS is a monopoly and that they have harmed the consumers.
War is necrophilia.
Your analogy is very apt. MS is the bully in the schoolyard. There are two possible responses to a bully. One report the bully to the authorities two gang up and beat the bully to a pulp. In this case the second option is out of the question. Mainly because the bully is a 30 year old karate expert and the kids are all 12 year olds. No matter how they gang up they will not be able to beat up the bully.
Also bullying is itself illegal. Hitting the bully back is illegal, just like the bully is committing assault by hitting the 12 year olds.
It remains to be seen wheather the authorities will make the bully stop committing assault or not (I doubt it very much).
What I would like to see is for someone to hold Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and the rest of the mafioso to be held personally responsible for their acts.
This will probably mean a well placed explosive but I digress (and besides I would never reccomend that someone actually kill these bastards or cause them great bodily harm there are other ways to hold evil people personally responsible for their actions).
War is necrophilia.
I see now. A thirty year old bully who is a karate expert should be able to beat up on any 12 year he sees because he has gained his expertise through many battles.
Yes by golly that sure seems right.
War is necrophilia.
Well, I'm calling you on that. Here's an Outpost link that lists an iceBook (G3 500MHz / 256MB / 10GB / 4.9 lbs / 5 hrs battery) for $1795.00 (and no tax or shipping). Show me a comparable laptop at a comparable price, and then tell me how Apple has "priced itself out of the market"...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
New Mexico throwing in the towel is really nothing different than from what all the states do in the face of Central State Power all the time: sell out.
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
It is obvious Microsoft will continue to resist attempts to require this remedy. It is time to settle this case and move forward.
Yeah, and most murderers resist attempts to require the death penalty. Must be nice to have the prosecutors give up just because you resist their penalties....
Well not really, as the mere existance of condoms doesn't eliminate the problems of unwanted pregnancies or STD's, people still have to use the damn things in order for them to be effective, which is of course a sociological issue. Actually your condom example is perfect for illustrating his point, condoms as a technological solution by themselves do nothing for the problems, however when used as part of a sociological solution (making the idea of safe sex a cultural norm) they are a very effective tool. So his law still stands, and always will up until the RIAA develops mind control technology and enslaves the population to curb piracy ;->
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Not what was displayed on my screen, it wasn't... Maybe the /. editors are in fact reading a different article than I was.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Um, lemme see. The single quote from the AG contains, "I am no longer persuaded a breakup remains appropriate or will ultimately be ordered by the courts. It is obvious Microsoft will continue to resist attempts to require this remedy." That doesn't come screaming out of the page at me as "being all on Microsoft's side."
That sounds more like, "they're not going to give up, and they have more money than all 19 states in the suit put together, so we would run out of money first. Let's go do something constructive instead."
Ah, but it's Slashdot. If you're not ranting against the evils of Microsoft, you're all on their side.
(Go ahead, smack me for wanting some journalistic integrity. I've got karma to blow.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
What really angers me about "die-hards" on slashdot ripping Microsoft a new asshole is that you still all use Windows, you still use office and you still play Diablo, Black&White and whatever "new" fangled game is out. You'll be talking about how cool the Xbox is yet everytime you talk about Microsoft you hate them. I've come to a conclusion.
You love to hate Microsoft because you hate to love them. It's that simple; so please stop your bitching a moaning. The Unix diehards have never had a problem with Microsoft except them breaking standards and then trying to bolster it as a "new" standard.
I'm sick of the hypocritical behavior and I'm sick of seeing Microsoft stories. I'm not fighting Microsoft by bitching and moaning and planning some jihad. I'm fighting Microsoft BY NOT fighting them and doing whatever it is I want with my code, operating system, hardware etc.
If you have a problem with Microsoft STOP USING THEIR SHIT and if you don't use their shit don't add to this nonsense by bitching and moaning. It doesn't help anything.
You sir are brainwashed.. I'm not going to get into a conversation, debate, argument or a lengthy reply.
All I have to say is that MS might of been your choice but it might not have been the choice for other people such as myself. However because of their business practices I and others have lost their free choice time and time again. So yes; may the best OS win, and may that OS win fairly based on technical merit.
bmajik said, "XP is monumental in that it brings SMP, JFS, firewalling, NAT, etc etc". Check your own stupid meter, bmajik. XP is doing NOTHING innovative. NT has had SMP support forever, BeOS, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX and others all have had JFS since you were drooling baby puke, and firewalling and NAT are common on *nix boxen. How exactly is all of this innovation? By simply shoving it into the same box as the OS? Microsoft has basically never created anything new, at least not anything I'm aware of.
Dive Gear
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Guess I forgot the < rhetorial question > tag :)
How many states are still involved in the suit?
The only real problem is that the case is going to drag on and on (much like IBM) so any "correctional damage" (aka Justice) might not be effective if everyone could just agree to what the sentence should be.
Does anyone know if the New Mexico State government recently recieved one of those threatening software audit letters from Microsoft? :-)
Maybe so, but in microsoft's case, "profit warning" means "we'll make 4 billion instead of 5."
---
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
You're right about what other companies do, it can be as bad or worse than Microsoft. The difference, I work in IT.
In my current job Microsoft is a Client OS, and ranks 3rd as an OS for the servers I administer. I get to use other OSes, that I feel are more suited and/or better than Microsofts (including some Linux). I really like this job. In previous jobs I have run into quirks with Microsoft tools and Operating systems that made me want to pull my hair out. Oh and don't even get me started on licensing.
What I'm saying is, I like my career and my current job using Unix and Linux. Don't get me wrong, I know plenty about all the flavors of Windows. I just prefer to work with flavors of Unix. From that perspective I am very concerned on a personal level about Microsoft's dominance in the PC industry and their bad practices. Frankly I much perfereed IBM's monopoly to Microsoft's.
It's mainly on a personal level that I want Microsoft reigned in and playing fair. To be honest though, the trend appears to be that all OSes are moving more toward the Unix/Linux paradigm (even windows 2000, it let me run a process as admin today ala suid, I couldn't believe it.) I hope linux keeps up the pressure.
I had to pay for Windows on my machine whether I wanted it or not
In my honest opinion this is either untrue, or the computer vendor's fault, not Microsoft's. Microsoft has had serious problems with vendors loading Windows on PCs and not paying Microsoft for all the licenses. In order to simplify the auditing process of these vendors Microsoft offers discounts on their OS to large vendors which pay for Windows licenses for all the systems made of a certain model. Auditing is simplified by counting up the number of systems of that model that were shipped, and making sure the licenses were paid for. The vendor can choose to offer models without Windows, but there just isn't a lot of demand for those models, so the expenses of having a seperate model line just aren't worth it. Therefore, the models you can buy all have Windows on them.
Now you as a consumer want to buy a computer. As a Linux user, you have no use for Windows. The vendor could offer you a computer that doesn't have Windows on it, but it doesn't make finacial sense for them to do so. This isn't just because MS offers them Windows discounts, but because offering a system in a different configuration simply costs them money, and there isn't that large of a demand for Linux systems from these vendors. You still have the option of trying to get the vendor to refund the price of Windows to you. Insert IANAL disclaimer here. Microsoft's EULA, which the vendors know about and have a responsability to conform with as OEMs of Microsoft's products, states that you can return the software if unused. The vendor will likely nog get reimbursed for the refund by Microsoft. The vendor has chosen to take the discount on the price of window, so returns are now their problem. That's the price they pay for the discounted price.
What this does is create a niche market for smaller vendors who aren't elligable for these large volume discount programs. They have to pay higher prices for each copy of Windows that they buy, but the aren't required to ship Windows on all the systems of a specific model. This also makes a market where companies like Penguin Computing can hopefully make money.
The big problem I heard about was getting laptops without Windows installed. It sounds like some vendors now have these available. If there's a profitable market, someone will sell it.
It's just my opinion, but the Windows Rebate Day thing was running high on a lot of I hate Microsoft FUD, rather than facts.
So, if I am a serial killer in New Mexico I will be released since I am no longer killing people?
---
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Did anyone else notice the name of the NM attorny?
No! Bad! 99% of the prosecuting states isn't good enough! I demand a full 100%!
Maybe we should see if we can get Judge Patel on this case. Her technical incompetance could be useful. Just call the Microsoft programmers "hackers" (Well, it's gotta be some really hacked up code...) and we've got it in the bag. But then again, she'd probably be happy with a nice big Microsoft "donation", right up next to her RIAA one.
I think this is a fairly common reaction. IMO, until people read more about this case and really look at the big picture, the typical reaction is "what's the big deal?".
A monopoly is not illegal. It's using that monopoly to further detriment your competitors that is illegal. Everyone says "gee, so they're successful, good for them". Do some research on WHY they are successful.
Coca-Cola owns the carbonated soft-drink business, but in the non-carbonated world of beverages, Pepsi is the leader. Besides, I don't think Coke is telling Safeway that if they don't move the Pepsi display out of the building then they won't get any Coca-Cola Classic.
What if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about?
-- Stephen Wright
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
And you nerds thought the right thing would be done. HA! Money is power baby, there is no tooth fairy. Your politicians, legal system and truth are for sale.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
M$ bashing only helps M$++ in the end.
You are dumb.
:)
:)
1) There isn't much of a support gravy train - PSS at microsoft has traditionally been a free resource.
2) XP is monumental in that it brings SMP, JFS, firewalling, NAT, etc etc and other modern OS features to a consumer OS. Only Mac OS X** has tried to bring any of those features to home users. Wether or not OSX will be the commercial success apple hopes it will be remains to be seen.
XP is finally going to unify the Win32 platform (sort of)
** OS/2 doesn't really count as a consumer OS anymore than AmigaDOS does
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Microsofts Market cap is hovering around 400billion.
They have 0 debt.
$0.
They have about 28billion in cash and equivalents.
Look, MS makes so much money off of loan interest (MS loans cash to banks and other financial institutions) that their company wide investment income is larger than some of their product groups.
Guess which tech company is _not_ doing layoffs, forced vacations, etc etc. No no. Instead of fucking its employees, Microsofts idea of "cost cutting" is "we'll hire less people for a while", and "from now on, we're going to look over expense reports when you turn them in"
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
what part of "consumer OS" did you miss ?
Does your grandma run IRIX ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
You need to re-examine your premises.
a. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control prices of desktop operating systems or application level software.A great proportion of the lucrative revenue stream for Microsoft comes about through enterprise licensing agreements. Large corporations (pick *any* one near you) have to standardize on their platforms to contain the costs of support. Guess which standard they "pick"? Believe me, if Microsoft raised the price of Office by 20%, we might not like it, but we'd pay. The alternatives are not considered worthy competitors, mainly because they are not considered "standard". Read any classified ads for receptionists, secretaries, bookkeepers and see how many of those advertisements demand skills of any software besides Microsoft's.
b. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control the course of the industry.It may be true that they haven't controlled every aspect of the IT business completely, but they have come closer than anyone since IBM of the 1960s.
Microsoft defines the standard for PC software. If you expect to develop anything in that environment, then you'd better damn well pay attention to the next release of Windows and keep your MSDN subscription payments up.
Dell, Compaq and Gateway have simply made a business decision that it is more profitable to accept terms from Redmond than to develop an OS and, through marketing, be able to displace the incredible installed base of Windows. Such a course of action would be a suicidal last resort.
As far as most people are concerned, "Windows came with My Computer" and any thought of replacing it falls into the same category as replacing the power supply. It's technically difficult and there's no reason to do so.
and I don't care how stable Linux is and if it's given away for free. If it doesn't run Office and won't run all the ShrinkWrap software I bought from Egghead over the past 10 years and if I have to do something technical to install it, then I, as an average consumer, am not interested in it. I'd rather continue bleeding money at a small rate to a monopoly than to undergo the transition from Windows.In summary, if you had spent the last 15 years in a PC software house developing an office productivity application, then I think you would have automatically acquired a genuine appreciation for the state of the competitive landscape with Microsoft.
I live in New Mexico, and I'm more ashamed than ever to have Patricia Madrid as my state Attorney General.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
You're right, people should take responsibility of their lives and DO something about it. However, that doesn't justify all the devious tactics Microsoft has been using. So both camps need to grow up, preferably learn to co-exist. At conclusion, people need to be able to say what they believe is wrong too, or else it will remain uncorrected.
:-)
So basically, everything is going okay.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Microsoft probably makes 100 times that amount off of sales to NM schools in a year. Talk about a good deal. For a measley $100k, they get to buy the first rock in the avalanche. Microsoft is going to walk away from this case with little or no impact to their business. Too bad.
I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Since Windows2000 is the next flavor of WindowsNT, one would hardly expect it to be priced along the same lines as Windows98/ME. Furthermore, there is no significant reason for those on WindowsNT to switch to 2000, as WindowsXP is nearing its release date. Why buy a piece of software which will shortly be obsolete?
Business ethics is exactly what anti-trust laws are about. Anti-trust laws exist to prevent businesses with large market shares from using their market position to unfairly control the market and eliminate, or greatly diminish, competition. From the CNET article, we find that these are the violations on which the anti-trust case against Microsoft hangs:
The courts have ruled. Microsoft has gone above and beyond violating anti-trust laws. The question is whether or not our government is willing to enforce these laws and bring an offender to justice. I hope so.
I think that is a great summary of where this case is going, not just on a state level but also on a national level.
The courts will not order a break-up, and Microsoft knows it. They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past. If anyone wants to get in a slap on the wrist before it's too late, this would be the time to give it to them.
Got Rhinos?
Headline: politician saves money for taxpayers!
Well, at least the NM AG ended up spending MS money for their legal costs instead of taxpayer money. I suppose that will look good to the voters if/when she decides to run for another public office. Big case, no result, etc.
Headline: microsoft wins case by dividing and conquering opponents!
Damn, that one almost sounds like their tactics used in acquiring the markets they control today. Almost too bad the other eighteen states and the feds won't let go so easily.
You're slipping, Taco. The headlines today could have been much more over-sensationalized. Use the overwrought nonsense you threw at us yesterday as a template, and try again.
--Recluse
Look ma, I'm a
I imagine this is due to the 'rush' to post before so many posts are up that yours won't be noticed. Any time something is made discrete and countable, folks shoot for the highest/lowest/best/worst score. Someone tell 'em karma will not add any size to your cup or your schlong.
/.... err it's all been done before), etc --> more 'chances' for positive mod points. Ignoring the fact that crap posts will supposedly get modded down. There needs to be 'Unread, -1', in addition to Redundant.
Fewer posts (early) or higher/easier to see in oldest first mode (late) (Poll thought: how do you read
Don't know why the Slashdot editors can't seem to read the articles for content (see MS, post title 'evil'), but hey, they can't write either, so no real suprise. I'm thinking the troubles VA Linux is having has trickled down here and they lost their copy editor -- but that's an argument for another story arc.
--Recluse (yes, I read the article. Before I posted no less, though the post is off-topic)
Look ma, I'm a
Err yeah, if MS was broken up (fat chance) the current user base would just up and disappear.
Uhh, can we say legacy systems?
Look ma, I'm a
I thought Sega gave up on the hardware market at least...
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
While I understand your point generally, and agree with it on occasion, I think it does not apply in this case.
Yes, Microsoft has more money than all 19 states put together. The only leverage the states have against Microsoft's prodigious financial resources is forcing Microsoft to fight 19 legal battles in 19 different states and courts of law simultaneously. The Court of Appeals did deliver a unanimous decision against Microsoft supporting the monopoly charge which gave the courts a comfortable legal position to hold. So New Mexico pulling out weakens that leverage by breaking down the solidarity. Without several states pushing Microsoft, there is no leverage.
Furthermore, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid also stated, according to the article, "...the decision to have New Mexico settle its case with Microsoft will help open the way for the remaining parties to pursue realistic settlement terms," which is rather suspect since its clearly pushing for the other states to drop the lawsuit and settle which is only in Microsoft's interest. New Mexico has nothing to gain by the other states dropping their lawsuits - afterall, they've got their settlement so why should they care one way or another. Unless perhaps part of their settlement deal with Microsoft was to encourage other states to settle as well?
Not saying that's the case but the potential is there.
- tokengeekgrrl
Lest we forget that South Carolina dropped out of the case way back in '99.
Dracos
Although, perhaps the sweetest irony of it all is that after Microsoft insisted time and time again that removing Internet Explorer from Windows would break Windows, Microsoft intends to offer just that in Windows XP, perhaps as nothing more than a peace offering to try and get the states and DoJ off their backs.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
No, I think the joke would work much better as Microsoft Marketing, and the rest of the company. All jokes aside, however, I think Microsoft would likely be benefited by splitting up rather than hurt by it. The end result would probably be that both divisions would try things they would have otherwise avoided in fear of competing against themselves, and most likely make even more money. Look at the "Baby Bells", and the effect of that split-up. If you want to see Microsoft hurt, asking them to be split up won't further your purpose. I don't think it's even a suitable remedy, since there's virtually no reason to believe that two Microsofts would stimulate more competition than just one Microsoft.
Remember that the aim of this lawsuit isn't to punish Microsoft but to remedy the anti-trust situation that Microsoft has created by their actions. I honestly think that points number 1 and 2 that GNU has proposed would do better than virtually any of the other recommendation that has been put forward. It would allow Microsoft to continue "innovating" and developing their products, however they would be required to document EVERYTHING, and would not be able to litigate against those who made compatible products unless they used Microsoft copyrighted code illegally. The end result would be that Microsoft developers would be happier, Microsoft's competitors would have better tools to compete with Microsoft on a level playing field, and it would negate the complaints of many competitors that Microsoft has an unfair advantage since they control both the OS and applications and can make whatever modification they need to either to make their own products work better (even if damages the performance of competitors products). I do not agree with point three, however, since this is a remedy for Microsoft's actions, not for hardware manufacturers.
The only body that I can think would be hurt by this would be Microsoft, in that they would have to invest in more employees to document the currently undocumented interfaces. The pain would only be temporary, as when the documentation on the currently undocumented interfaces is complete, only slightly more people would be needed to maintain documentation for new products and existing ones.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
My bad, was it Detroit?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
- To think that the console battle has even begun is a delusion! Now we have Sony, Nintendo, Sega and MS. MS will probably find that by the time the XBox is starting to have the sort of titles required to get taken seriously, Sony will have a PS^3 which runs Linux (hey maybe they'll change to Be or QNX or XP hehe) and still runs PS2 games (if not PS1). The Gamers market is going to be a LOT harder for them to get into, too many of it's market will be thinking "I'm not having my console BSOD".
- I remeber NT 3.5
.... it didn't get far! NT4 (Chicago) was meant to solve all this by bringing all the dos users up to the NT codebse... it failed and NT gained a server role for MS but not spectacular numbers (think NT V 9x boxes). Me ... I don't know a single person who runs it (though I know many who ditched it). Win 9x is everywhere ... the latest efforts are getting a very very slow rollout! Of and the 2000 you never montioned, it's struggling to replace NT on servers and is still being left on the shelf for the 9x (or maybe Me) line on the Desktop. MS are successful and sell a lot of products, but their performance is really becoming a lot less spectacular (hence subscriptions are coming).
Bottom line, MS are NOT what they were! They have fragmented their userbase (not fatally, but it is weakening their position). MS's business model is in ensuring that PCs come with Windows and that people buy the upgrades they release until they replace the PC with a new Windows PC. People are staying behind and not upgrading (ignoring the people who do upgrade...illegally). Add to this their attempts to take dangerous decisions (XBox, XP,Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Yes, the antitrust trial isn't the best way to deal with a corporation that frequenctly employs dirty business practices against their competitors. It is all so clear to me, yes yes.
You are right. Dozens of purchases of RedHat Linux think this way.
again, probably no connection, but draw whatever conclusions you like.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Talking about .sigs generally annoys me (yes, I KNOW some babies have to be taught to use a nipple. Brain deficiencies on the part of some newborns does not make it non-intuitve), but I was just struck with a counter-example: sex. STDs are spread and pregnancy is caused by sex, a social interaction. Yet condoms, a technological solution, cures this.
I suppose one could argue that this is actually a biological problem, not a sociological one, but since society as a whole is just a result of our biological urges for protection and procreation, the same could really be said for any sociological problem.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Basically, monopolies are owned for the most part by fairly meglomaniacal types, and so even when it would make economic sense to spin part of it off, they don't want to, or don't think about it, because they like owning an enormous, monopolistic company. The companies get so big that they repress their own industries, and end up not only preventing themselves from making a profit, but also stifle the growth of the industry, cutting into their own revenues too.
This is one of the reasons I was happy that the courts rejected the break up order. I'd rather see Microsoft get beaten down than have them be split into two smaller, more dynamic Baby-softs, that continue to dominate their markets (OS and Office software, respectively) for years to come.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Don't get ahead of yourself. MS's basic market is best described as "businesses with money". That's not you. Just because you don't know any NT users is meaningless. Vendors, "Solution Providers" (ha ha), OEMs, and VARs are selling NT in droves, for better or for worse.
FE, in the newspaper/publishing industry, almost every vendor production system runs on NT, followed distantly by Solaris, and then by the occasional AIX, VMS, BSD/OS, Linux, or Tru64 system. For the past several years our company has been replacing all of its old SunOS and VMS systems, and what we've found while shopping around is that the vast vast majority of system offerings are NT4 with MSSQL (6.5, 7, or 2000), with some Solaris options (but that's fading), and Windows 2000 systems just on the horizon. Sometimes you can get Sybase or Oracle, but the basic system recipe is NT + PostScript/PDF + SQL. If you want to buy a backend publishing system, you better like NT, because that's basically all that's for sale.
A good recent example is the Associated Press. You know who they are, right? All of their turnkey solutions they used to sell ran OS/2 for whatever reason. Now all AP products are W2K, across the board. Whether you want it or not, if you want AP gear, that's what's for sale.
The only Linux publishing vendors I've found are YARC (RIPs embedded on a PowerPC PCI card), Caldera, and I think SCS (could be wrong).
I'm not saying whether this is good or bad. NT gives the impression of being easier to learn, more integratable, faster, and cheaper than Sun or DEC gear... but most of those promises pretty much disintegrate in the details, especially when you start dealing with scalability, upgrades, or security. Linux or BSD products could make a killing in publishing, if anyone had the guts to actually sell them. NT's big advantage is its familiarity: the ease of getting employees who know it, the Windows 95 GUI, non-proprietary PC gear.
Anybody out their in the industry know otherwise? Are any newspapers using Linux- or BSD-based vendor systems?
Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
As for MS being over and done with, I just checked their annual report for 2000. They had revenue of $22.9 billion and cash/short-term investments of 23.7 billion. So even if nobody bought a single stinking MS product this year, you would have to put up with them for yet another year!
...if Microsoft hadn't made such a bad OS in the first place and charged an arm a leg for it then we wouldn't have Linux.
Now, enough with this whole bashing MS crap. Its starting to sound a lot like penis envy.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I'm just saying that as the lame Backstreet boys say Microsoft "is stronger than yesterday...."
I think you have confused the Backstreet Boys with Britney Spears. Easy way to distinguish them: one is a good example of how looks can land you a singing career; the other is an example of how adding a pair of breasts can land you a pepsi commercial as well.
Hehehe, most of us wouldnt *know* enough about the Backstreet Boys or Briteny Spears to know the lyrics to a song or tell the difference.
I have an hour-long drive to and from work, and I listen to the radio. 'Nuff said.
True. So, Problem, what good are you doing posting on Slashdot?
Works both ways. All of us sitting here is getting nothing done, but are we necessarily part of the problem? Not really.
I'm rather happy that at least someone in government knows when it's wise to stop spending tax money, though I wish he'd move to Texas where that kind of discretion might bring the education levels up out of the dirt.
Please supply some proof as to your statement of Microsoft paying off the state of New Mexico.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Why ?? Warren Buffet is a good socially conscious "New Deal" Democrat with a capital "D." For that matter so is Bill Gate's dad --it's little Billy who's flouting the law and fucking up software markets.
As to your larger point: you're living a dream world Sheepdot. This case has represented a "breather" for MS so far, and will be not much more than that if they can now get the other states to fold, too.
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
"pretty supportive" != "all on Microsoft's side now"
The NM AG is being pragmatic about their position,
(lawyers can do that on occasion). That is not the
same as implying that she will now be part of the
legal defense countering the other states in their
legal proceedings against MS.
They'll soon find out if they buy an Xbox...
Because the word used by both Microsoft and kz45 was "innovate". If you didn't do it first, you DIDN'T FUCKING INNOVATE.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I think Windows ME would have been a total failure except for the fact that most OEMs only offered a choice of WinME or Win2K and consumers were not ready for Win2K. Everybody I know who had upgraded from Win95 or Win98 and had upgraded to WinME has gone back and won't recommend WinME to anybody else.
I wonder if WinME was supposed to kill off the Win9X line intentionally, or just a crappy product introduced in a hurry to get some upgrade sales for Microsoft.
I think is going to have a tougher time with the suits now. What with the belt tigtening caused by the poor economy and the growing mindshare of Linux even the Corporate IS group where I work is finally blessing running Linux for non-buisness critical apps.
They are still sticking with Office97 as the official suite shame to say. They were sweating bullits when they heard that they were not going to get corporate pricing on Win98 and Office97 and be loose upgrade pricing from Office 97 to Office 2K & XP.
- subsolar
Way to look cool, jackass ;-)
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
"The Gamers market is going to be a LOT harder for them to get into, too many of it's market will be thinking "I'm not having my console BSOD"" There are MANY people who play consoles exclusively and down own a computer or have a computer that can play the latest games. They would know very little about Microsoft and therefore not have the bias that techies and the slashdot crowd does. I can think of quite a few console gaming friends who would not know what BSOD stands for. Even gamers that do use a computer are not necessarily going to be Microsoft haters. In my opinion the XBox will do quite well out of the gates in North America. The place where they would have problems gaining acceptance would be Japan and the Asian Market in general, if they are even targeting it off the bat.
-- Judas96
"...don't take a nerf bat to a knife fight." - Joe Rogan, said on News Radio
Did most people choose Internet Explorer because it was technically superior or because Microsoft made it integral to the OS and made the OS unstable for other browsers? (BTW, don't tell me about how much more wonderful IE is. Let's talk about its relative merit at the time they began bundling it. I used NS and IE at that time and they were comparable. I actually preferred NS. Lately Netscape/AOL has really dropped the ball, but that isn't strictly relevant.)
The drive behind the antitrust case is exactly that consumers were denied the ability to make choices based on merit. Just because Soviet candidates always received 100% of the vote doesn't mean people actually wanted them in office...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
So yeah, profits are down, but they're expected to grow. MS stock is going up right now.
(I listen to the news on my ride to work... not those crappy "music" stations that other people in this thread listen to :P (If you're going to flame me about music choices, you took it in the wrong way - lighten up :)))
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
The entire point of these lawsuits against Microsoft is not that their OS is better. It does not have much to do with consumers either. People want Microsoft trash. And it is microsoft who bullies the OEMs into using their OS because the People want it.
synd
This page left intentionally blank.
Steve isn't evil... mean spirited yes... occasionally...despite everything he actually believes in what he markets..."insanely great computers & software". Steve is more like... if you don't like my stuff fark you... but I'm selling it anyway...isn't it beautiful? It is in fact a successful proposition and has turned the company way around. Bill is far more evil since all he cares about is making insane returns on mediocre software and controlling every electronics related business in the future through .NET. His only appearance at HomeBrew the anti-piracy wiener thing is evidence enough of that.
Larry:... no comment... I think he's just jealous... but Oracle does make great software albeit insanely expensive.
First in USD the cheapest iMac is $799... convert that directly to Australian dollars please.
Apple hardware hasn't been overpriced for 3 years now. Considering the bang YOU DO get for the buck I'd say the machines are well worth it. They fix the price points and adjust to new technology around them. $3499 US buys their most expensive model with a display (FS 17") which includes combo DVD-R/CDRW and gigabit ethernet.
Why do people get hung up about who achieved some technology first. It has very little bearing on who did it *best*. I was reading a good article in the business special of the national post (a daily paper here) where they had done a study on the success rate of first-to-market companies. An astounding number of these companies were either out of business now or relegated to an insignificant market share (*cough* apple *cough*).
In most cases it was the second-to-market that ended up dominating that market sector since they were able to capitalize on the efforts (both the mistakes and the successes) of their forerunners.
Or for a completely different perspective lets compare this to martial arts. If you have ever seen any ultimate fighting championships you will know that all the "pure" (by the book, true to their specific style) fighters get their asses kicked. The ones who win incorporate the best of all other styles (brazilian jiu-jitsu anyone?). Did they invent their moves? Did they innovate in their field? It doesn't matter because they win. It's that simple.
So tell me again, WHO CARES who did it first. I want who does it best.
- Toby
If you can not buy a computer that has Windows and another operating system installed nothing has changed, and nothing CAN change. Currently manufacturers are prohibited by (illegal) contract from this. The court ruled it illegal, yet nothing has changed.
You also can not buy a computer that has Windows and any non-Microsoft productivity apps installed.
if you're living in one of the 19 states, write to your state represenatives and do the same.
why? well, the US govt is supposed to work this way. our wonderful politicians will listen to the largest voices, and voters have that. especially if we're clear and concise. and i think /. has enough voices, some of them even rather reasonable and eloquent.
The like, competition might dominate the market and like bankrupt MS. This is, like, umm, risky or something.
They, like shouldn't be sued now.
Oh. Shit. They already killed the competition.
Bad grammar aside, their "remove the IE icon" trick is typical of the shit they pull (i.e. conquer, kill all competition, then agree to tone down and watch as everyone comes back to them willingly.) "Please Sir, Can I have another?"
I have no idea what a few people in New Mexico are thinking. WTF? seems to be the most appropriate response. (although it's kind of cool that when the lawsuits are over, my state gets a bit more $ and New Mexico gets shit, except for the congressman / governor etc, who continues to get campaign contributions from MS)
God Bless america or some shit.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Already the authorities of the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia have approached Microsoft letting them know that they would never sue them for monopolistic practices.
But then all slashdotters would be singing "Blame Canada!"
------
C'mon, flame me!
No sig for the moment.
Soaring profit line? Haven't there been rumors of a potential profit warning from MS?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One interesting tidbit:
"Heroin Economics" - Common practice of drug dealers looking to establish a customer base by providing free samples to "hook" users, at which time the dealer raises his prices for his product. Since people are now dependent, they will naturally pay whatever is necessary to obtain the substance. In the software world, for years Microsoft tolerated software piracy (both casual and organized) as its user base expanded and the company became a monopoly on the desktop with millions of "hooked" users and organizations...at which time it raised its prices and plans to force users to pay annual tributes to feed their dependence on Microsoft products and services. (See "Product Activation Technology")
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Microsoft didnt get away scot free. The state settled with them on the condition that Microsoft would pay the legal expenses for the State of New Mexico.
In related news, Microsoft is pulling all copies of Win 98/ME/NT/2000 off the shelves in New Mexico and replacing them with Windows 3.1
Rapid Nirvana
microsoft probably agreed to ignore all license violations in the NM govenment offices.
... but how close do you think that, is to the truth? Besides Microsoft get's to write software piracy off as a loss don't they? (I don't see how they could, but can they?)
The worst vice is advice...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
Most people don't understand why Microsoft is any different than Sun or IBM or GE. Every business tries to do things to screw up their competitors. That's business. Sometimes that type of competition harms consumers, but nobody says anything against it because they're too sheepish and they think "That's just the way it is. There's nothing I can do about it..."
Discerning a difference between the behaviour of MS and the behaviour of AT&T or GE is 12th decimal place operation. Either we go after all the big guys or we go after none of them. Since we're too chicken to go after all of them (or the economic consequences would be too politically damaging), we may as well put Anti-trust laws out of their misery.
What all this has made clear to me is that IBM really blew it in 1978. Pansy ass IBM didn't even wait to be found in violation of the law, they just signed and implemented a consent decree that required them not to do the illegal bundling they knew they were guilty of. What's more, the idiots went on to actually obey the decree! Utter incompetents.
Microsoft, now, they understand that the DOJ and the states aren't really serious, and don't really have the staying power to go through with it. A strategy composed of equal parts of pleas of innocence, legal maneuvering, public whining and bold-faced contempt for the legal process are going to see Microsoft through the trouble and out the other side.
Laws? Pah! Those only apply to other companies.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Just so you know I got a Mac Cube for $1100. You seem to be inflating the price to make your point
Remember, Micro-Soft was started by Gates and Allen in Albuquerque, NM : the state *had* to pull off the suit to preserve historical decency.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
CmdrTaco, Repeat after me: "Their image is ruined. Their image is ruined."
It doesn't matter how the litigation ends, litigation itself *ruined* them. The fact that it existed has given them a no-win situation.
MS has invested too much in XP and the Xbox, at least one of which will be a total failure. It really *is* over, MS is no longer what it used to be, and it is downhill from here.
If you want to fight the next "rich capitalist bastard" (tm) you need to start going after Warren Buffett.
If it makes you feel any better, I've put together a Microsoft retrospective for y'all:
Yes, their products are pretty sometimes sukky and crash more often than they should, but EVERY program or OS crashes once in a while. Only because they aim at the biggest market possible they have to make concesions on a certain things. And again I cant really blame them for doing that (remember grandma)
Ah, yes, remember Grandma. And remember Mom. I certainly remember my Mom when she calls me to complain about how Windows is giving her more and more illegal operations, won't shut down properly anymore, and is in general getting worse and worse, and I have to tell her "Sorry mom, Windows just does that... you'll just have to wait until I visit so I can reinstall it for you, and hopefully it'll be okay longer next time."
User-friendly, my ass. Meanwhile, my Mom could probably be just as comfortable in KDE, and any problems she has in Linux could be solved by me ssh'ing in to her machine to set things right. It's little things like Greeting card programs, exe's sent from friends, and having to learn a few different programs, that would keep her from switching.
I agree. I mean, I'm not out to 'DESTROY MICROSOFT' or anything. I just want to make sure it's a fair market. It isn't right now. Open-Source and free software are an interesting alternative. But we need to have other big business alternatives besides Microsoft. Yes, I know it sounds kinda weird hearing an open-source guy talk about big busineses being a good thing in the industry. But with the whole microsoft thing some more big businesses may be necessary. Think about it, businesses have the advertising $$ to reach Joe Average.
I'm guessing that what I'd like to say is, yes, linux and all the other open-source projects are a great thing. But they don't have the advertising budget. I'd even be happy to see Macintosh release MacOs for the PC. Just something to chip away at some of Microsofts dominance in the desktop market. UNfortunately, at this time I'm not sure that Linux can do that, maybe in a few years. But not yet. I would like to see a large portion of Microsofts business taken away. I would like them to be forced to inovate, not just say they are. Perhaps finally have them have to go out and buildbetter products because they have to, not just because they want to.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Ok. I want to start this comment by saying that I LOVE Linux and open-source. I think they are really cool. I run linux myself.
Now I want everyone to go look at the receptionists desk where they work, their mothers computer, and some *random persons on the street*.
I can unfortunately be sure that out of those 3, at least two of them were windows based for most people weren't they? Here's the point I am trying to make. The government is slowly backing down out of this Microsoft case. Microsoft is winning. Joe Average can't figure out linux, and isn't probably able to get it on his new computer he just bought at CompUSA/BestBuy preinstalled.
Microsoft is winning on the legal front. Hey, I've even heard jokes that were when Microsoft got broken up the two companies were going to be, Legal, and everything else. Having states drop out is not a good thing on this case. But there needs to be more than just this case going on.
First off, let me reccomend that you send PHYSICAL letters to the representatives in the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT from your state and the states involved in the Anti-Trust suit. Send 2 letters a day if you have to. Make them bring in mailbags from the open-source and technology in general communities. Don't send 'I hate Micrsoft they are evil' type letters. Send letters voicing your concern and supporting the movement to break up Microsofr. Feel free to send email. But send PHYSICAL letters to. The representatives are more likely to see a few of the physical letters if they get enough relating to a subject. Also, send these letters to the Department of Justice. Make our voice heard! Digital communication like email is great, but in the end it tends to be pushed to the side in Washington. Send physical mail and faxes.
Secondly, I am all for free software and open-source, but what I would really like to see our a few private, closed-source, traditional companies making browsers (netscape is gone so part of that whole trial is a moot point), a competitive commercial operating system, etc. Perhaps even make some of your products open-source, but some of the closed source. Just take on Microsoft on their own front.
We have to chip away at Microsoft at all angles if we are going to beat them. We can use this by supporting private companies, the movement by the Government to break Microsoft up, and by buying competitive commercial products instead of Microsoft ones.
On a final note, you may be tempted to, but if you send a letter about Microsoft to the department of Justice or your state representative, do not include the whole napster/RIAA thing in the same letter. Make that be a different letter. That way they'll be treated as two seperate issues, and more headway will be made.
Thank you...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
They're just getting away with it, and they're going to keep getting away with it, and without government intervention there's absolutley no way to stop them. Now that they control both the desktop and the browser markets, they have more muscling power than ever. They've already intergated Windows Media Player into IE and Windows XP, and their new "Passport" is just around the corner.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
It has nothing todo with an OS or not, its has something do with someone misusing a monopoly.
Just wait until we drive MS cars use MS chairs and even your condoms are Microsoft fabrics and they will make you pay for it....and buy up any one doing the same thing...
What Microsoft is doing is more then just killing netscape and giving us propegande we all can look tru with a glimp of our eyes...
They are taking over the world just under our noses, they dont us humans serious, they disrespect privacy. When ever you download a new codec for your latest version of windows media player you upload you licence numbers, a index of your music libarie and all stuff like that to MS.
They are just plain Evil dont you see that!
I agree with you on some points in your words, but the OS isnt the point its the companie that is! and yes "we" created it and now its time to destroy it again.
i dont... =)
There is no fairness in our court system. Microsoft will skate.
Did anybody really expect that anything else would happen (especially with the outcome of the presidential "election")?
Free The Slaves!
Yeah, but I'm wiling to be that Microsoft is willing to spend a lot more money on Lawyers than the state of California is. Remember the OJ Simpson case? Public Prosecutor vs the Shapiro and Cochrane? I'd say more has probably been spent on the defense side of this than the prosecution.
Why?
Folks, New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the country. It is no wonder that it would walk away for the legal fees. Personally it smells badly that this happened following all of the Beast's PR blitzes and just when it is clear the Feds have them by the short and curlies. It was outrageous for the AG to even comment since it's clear they took compensation on condition of trying torpedo the case and get out of the way. McNealy and Ellison will be spitting fire....
Who is complaining when coca-cola buys another soft-drink brand ?? No one, but fact is that almost every thing you drink is owned by coca-cola and produced in country's where 14 year old kids are working in factory's and earn a wage of what you and I couldn't live half a day of. But do I hear complains about that ??
No, you don't. Because it's a blatant lie.
Granted, Coca-Cola is no saint (just check out the article entitled "Coca-Karma" on the GNN web site). But Coca Cola is produced and bottled locally. Most major cities have a Coca-Cola bottler that takes care of producing the product for their region. And most of the bottlers aren't even owned by Coca-Cola, they merely license the formula and packaging. Are there Coca-Cola bottling plants in 3rd-world countries that pay 14-year olds to bottle coke? Probably (though the lines are mostly automated so plentiful cheap labor isn't that much of an issue), but they are bottling their own Coke that will be sold in their own country at their own relative prices.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups.
and this one.....
"It is my hope that, along with the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion, the decision to have New Mexico settle its case with Microsoft will help open the way for the remaining parties to pursue realistic settlement terms," she said.
That, um, kinda sounds like support to me... (btw, she==Patsy Madrid, AG for New Mexico)
oh yeah, and don't forget this one:
"I am encouraged by the initial steps that Microsoft has taken to provide computer manufacturers with greater flexibility," Madrid said.
That sounds pretty supportive too. Say again, which article did you read?
Greg
Microsoft has enough money to push entire States around.
"I drank what?" - Socrates
I would be happy if there was a ruling or law or wathever stating that the OS and the computer must be sold separately. THEN people would think about which functionality they want and about the price and choose what is best for them.
Mark
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
That's becuase a total 180 wouldn't look good in the eyes of the voting public. And even then, "I'm not continuing because they won't accept the punishment" sounds like a cop-out to me.
"they have more money than all 19 states in the suit put together"
You'd be surprised, especially with New York thrown into the mix. Recent fed bugets have been around $2 trillion lately, and they don't even charge sales tax.
Anyone else find it telling that the NM attorney general's name is "Patsy"?
Go Lance Armstrong!
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
You're right. Punishing criminals just because they committed a crime is just plain wrong. Next you'll be telling us that the methods of organised crime are just aggressive business tactics and they shouldn't be punished because millions of people have chosen to pay the protection money.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Oh. So we should blame New Mexico for foisting Microsoft on the world. I wouldn't be proud of that.
Or the incredible rate of alcoholism(3 times the national average)...And who cares if you have nukes, if you are too much of a panty-waste to use them? (Except for testing on U.S. military personnel)
Pope John Paul II, "Don't you think that the irresponsible behavior of men is caused by women?". (Cairo Conference 1985)
Just as long as this "slap on the wrist" is hard enough to keep Micro$oft in line in the future.
Note to pessimists: I don't think there's a chance in hell of Micro$oft falling into line either, so don't reply to this effect.
___________________________
They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past.
Does this mean that if a serial killer walks into court showered, shaved, and in a clean suit he gets a lighter sentence?
Suing M$ for time lost and emotional stress resulting from system crashes,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
all Microsoft has done is satisfy a few lawyers. They're still the same company. The same company that embraces new technologies only to claim them as their own and customize them to their own likeing. They're still the same company that will make unnecessary dependencies between applications to force users into more of their products. They're still the same company that refuses to port major applications to non-Windows systems. All they've done is admit that they lied about the dependency of Windows 9x on Internet Explorer and given users/OEMs/etc the ability to remove IE from future versions of Windows.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Sure, they are an evil empire, I will not hesitate to agree on that, but look at the realistic facts here !
Who is complaining when coca-cola buys another soft-drink brand ?? No one, but fact is that almost every thing you drink is owned by coca-cola and produced in country's where 14 year old kids are working in factory's and earn a wage of what you and I couldn't live half a day of. But do I hear complains about that ?? That are things to worried about and should be protested against.! Same goes for Nike, MacDonalds, etc. etc.
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
any state government which uses MS software should also drop the case.
I'm not surprised--they bought Bush and Gore last year. It's hard to lose when you bet on every team.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
The market is not Desktop OS for x86 hardware. That is far too narrow. EXACTLY!!!!!!! This reasoning must be stopped. Dind't the courts already say that Apple is not a competitor because it runs on different hardware? Isn't that such BS? Thats like defining another market as being Processors that run with i815 chipset. Since only intel makes processors that run with the i815 chipset, they must have a monopoly... Bzzzt, doesn't work that way....
a. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control prices of desktop operating systems or application level software. You're living on another planet. Over the years the price of Microsoft's consumer OS has climbed steadily. It now costs more than a year's income for some people. As has everything else on this planet. How much does a movie cost at the local theatre here? $7.75 How much did it cost just 1 year ago? $7.00 How about just 2 years ago? $6.75. 5 years ago? $5.00
How much is matinee now? $5.75 How about just 3 years ago? $3.00 Now I know inflation isn't that high.... That's what a monopoly does to you, since over here, Regal Cinemas is the only theatre chain in town... Don't want to pay $7.75? Then you're SOL, don't watch a movie than....
So lets look at the price of cars, which shouldn't be a monopoly, because there are so many car manufacturers out there. Recently I was helping a friend shop for a car... A new Honda Accord V6 has an average price here of $27,000.00 Just 5 years ago, I remember shopping for a car with my GF, and a V6 accord could be had for $16,000.00 Kinda hard to believe that the cost of the car almost doubled in just 5 years. And before you tell me it costs more to build a car, you know and I know that is hogwash... The quality even appears to be falling compared to previous years...
Lets look at the insurance industry. That's probably the worst of em' all. That industry has the most BS and FUD up its pipes than any other. Trying to get something out of them requires arm twisting, and what you get from them is close to bending over and taking it from em'. Get into a fender bender, and try to get your car restored to pre-loss condition without paying extra. And then, go and do it again with an "older" car. They will declare the car totalled, and give you a fraction of what you paid for it and offer to sell it back to you. In the end, you have a fscked up car and enough money to fix maybe 50% of the damage. So you end up getting a cheaper car, or driving around with a car with different colored body panels, body filler everywhere, and primer everywhere.... Yeah, how's that for the insurance company making sure we are "covered".... Several years ago my wife's Public Storage locker got broken into. Someone made off with her satellite receiver so she can watch her foreign language soaps. She paid around $700.00 for it. PS's insurance company said because of depreciation they can only give us $200.00 What a joke. I told the guy, how about you just give us another satellite receiver. If you can get it for $200.00 than fine, if not, than shove it. They decided to be "nice" and give us $400.00 Of the $7,000.00 worth of stolen goods, we were compensated $2,500.00 even though we had receipts for about 2/3 of the stuff, which alone had value of around 6 grand. Imagine what the Health Insurance Industry would be like, if they copied the other Insurance Industries... Ooops, you need a new hip? Well, we'll fix part of the hip. We can't pay for a new hip, but we'll pay to have the partially broken hip from this here cadavre jury-rigged to work out, but we won't pay for the post-op surgery, so the hospital ends up using scotch-tape to seal up the surgery area.... You need a skin graft as part of the surgery and some blood. Since they won't pay for those, you end up getting a transfusion of the wrong blood type. You aren't even sure if it was human blood. And you got a skin graft from a person with skin tone being completely opposite of yours....
Now after all this, you tell me MS is the evil company/industry here....
How long would Apple remain a competitor without MS Office and IE available on that platform? Apple competes at Microsoft's discretion. Hell, Microsoft invests in Apple! Do you really think they consider them to be real competition?
Thats irrelevent. Office and IE are applications. I'm talking about competition between platforms. From a user point of view, we have choices. We can choose to use: Windows, MacOS 9, Mac OSX, Linux, Unix, BeOS, etc etc etc. However, the courts decides that they are only concerned with the x86 processor family, and only non niche OSes, (which is how they eliminated all the other OSes for x86). Defining the scope to be so narrow is stupid. They are defining the scope to be as narrow as neccessary to make MS a monopoly. Thats like taking a company that hires people from all walks of life, and then saying: "We looked at all the people that were born between Jan 15, 1962 and Jan 20, 1962 in your company, in the Assembly Division, that were from Madison Wisconsin, and determined that since they are both males, your company is descriminating against women.
Platforms aren't viable without applications.
That is nonsense. MS is not the sole developer of applications for the windows platform. And it is not MS's responsibility/duty to develop apps for other platforms. If the office suites for Apple suck, that is not MS's problem/fault. That is the problem/fault of the people who develop for it. The fact that MS makes office for the Mac platform is great. All the better. So what's the prob then?
Not if we want to run standard applications. That's the whole point. Microsoft IS the standard today. If Microsoft wants to make Apple irrelevant they simply have to stop porting Office, IE, and a few other apps and Apple will be relegated to being just another niche OS
And what "standard" are you talking about? Lets say you are in the Graphics Design industry. You'll use Adobe... Not a MS product. Lets say you are in the semi-conductor business. You'll be using Orcad/Cadence, Powerview ViewLogic etc etc. Again, not an MS product... The list goes on and on... Just because MS makes a great office suite does not mean they own the market. Also, if MS stops making Office for the Mac, doesn't mean other people won't try to replace it. Its not like MS has the only people in the world who know how to design an office suite. Right now, I'm sure people just don't want to bother with it, because there are better things to be working on. If Cadence stopped making simulation software, does that mean all the semi-conducter companies are going to up and die? No, it will get replaced.
The other OSes ARE niche OSes. Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS market, x86 or otherwise. Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the vast majority of people simply because Microsoft doesn't sell a version of Office for it and it doesn't have a big enough marketshare for developers to create top-teir apps and games for it. This is why barriers to entry are so important in determining what constitutes a monopoly. If an OS doesn't have enough marketshare, then nobody develops for it. If nobody develops for it, it won't gain marketshare.
Linux is not popular because many people don't want to deal with the relatively more difficult maintenence process for linux, and the fact that some distros required you to recompile the kernal when you install new drivers. Just becaues there is no office app for it doesn't make or break it. Over here, there is tons of development/support for linux, and probably not a single soul cares about the lack of "MS Word" for it. Also Barrier to Entry is BS in regards to Software. What, you think when windows first came out in like 1987 that it instantly had huge market share? No... You know how long it took for it to become mainstream? It did well, because contrary to popular belief, it is a good OS. Security holes aside, when something is that popular, its bound to be more scrutenized then others. I could code my own OS tonight, and since nobody in the world uses it, there is no security "hole" because nobody cares to exploit it. Nevermind the fact that root is the only logon priveledge for this. If somebody creates something better, people will buy it, if it is worth it to them. Don't you think maybe people bought it because they liked it??? General Motors and Ford used to own the US market. Did that mean they would forever hold their reign, like you seem to think MS will? No... If someone builds a better car that is worth it, people will buy it.
And to those who say that Microsoft is crumbling; it's image is ruined. Bull. That's not even close to true. Their stock is making an amazing come back after losing nearly two thirds of their stock value. Sales are better than ever; the advertising over their .NET and XP software is everywhere and they haven't even started their campaigns yet. Crumbling ususally isn't associated with a soaring profit line and stock price...
Not saying that this is good [lest I get the hurt of the -1 mod] but I'm just saying that as the lame Backstreet boys say Microsoft "is stronger than yesterday...."
-H. Simpson.
(I really think I just ruined my post by using a quote from a pop boy band)
...microsoft probably agreed to ignore all license violations in the NM govenment offices.
Iowa is very important to the Bush for the next election and he has already stated such. Tom Miller is very popular in the state and I've seen polls that most of the states population agree with the stances he has taken against companies in Iowa.
If things drag on, it will be interesting to see the White House's reaction to things if other states drop out or if Miller tries to increase pressure on Microsoft or Bush himself.
I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
Well it doesnt mean that you cant get one cheaper but then again where do you live - my point is valid for the Australian Market and the Mac Cube is now a discontinued model - the price here of a Imac has actually just gone down (i make a correction - the base is available in some areas for $1795 but thats a 400mhz base machine with very little included - the realistic figure on the market is around $3000 - i may have been a little off on price ) However i can buy an Athlon 900 with 128mb and a 20gb hdd, burner, 17 etc for $1200 today so i still think the point is somewhat valid, but you have a point guinsu i am a bit high on price of macs - apologies offered
I still think to compare (bad pun follows) apples with apples the standard home computer is a PC - the variety of software and games the home user wants are on PC - and sepcifically readily available on Win - i know you can download it all but bear in mind the average home user doesnt have the ability rto download a 650mb package (the majority of this country is in 56k dial up with often 5 hour connection limits (bigpond) - cable and ADSL has not made major inroads except in the capital cities and in limited areas of those (i know that if you shop around you can get unlimited dial up and other options BUT the majority of home users go for the major players as they dont know any better - Bigpond, OzEmail, OneNet (if still going) and AOL dominate this market) and cable and ADSL are expensive - i paid $200 install and get a cheap monthly rate as i have all of my services bunlded - my brother is on Telstra ADSL and paid $300 install and pays $80 month for a capped 512k account with a 3gb limit)
So for most users its what they use at work - Win and MS office with IE - but the younger users will move to linux and learn and grow - this is the beauty of the GPL and Free Software movement - it allows people access to these areas at a minial or no cost and encourages growth and thought - it should be congratulated and encouraged but trying to replaces MS (IMHO) will not work - they survive for a reason as does linux
Linux is the future but MS will always be here (and if not MS there will be someone else to take their place)
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I think that the focus on Microsoft may at times be detrimental to some of us.
The fact is MS is not finished, their image is not ruined, at least not outside the US. You cannot discount that for in the corporate desktop market and the home and small business market MS products present the best low cost/ effective options for the average user.
The average home user is not going to be interested in Linux for while to come, the distributions require too much work and knowledge for the average click and go home user who wants the easiest and simplest way to get online and get going.
The corporate marketplace wants an easy to standardise uniform desktop environment that is not support intensive and easy to manage - and with RIS and Win2k thats what they have got - they wont move to linux due to what is see, rightly or wrongly, as its larger overhead on desktop support and the fact that their staff know and understand MS products like Outlook and Word. (and this applies equally to support and users - it can be hard to find a skilled desktop support person with Linux skills - i have tried)
What that means is that linux remains the best choice system for the pros and for server and scaleable artchitecture, it is in my opinion the best server OS for web and security applications and if inifinetly stronger and preferable for coding.
I wonder sometimes if in trying to make it all things for all people we have lost sight of the true power of the OS - to encourage those who want to learn and give them the tools to do so.
The linux users of today will be the network desingers, coders and system managers of toomorrow, trained and grounded in an OS they can get inside of.
The linux desktop will likely never be the desktop of choice and wilst it may be hard to admit it we need Microsoft - how many kids started out and start out on Win and then move to linux when their appetite is whetted ? and dont forget that MS and Intel drove the development of most modern TEch and Software forward by helping make the PC ubiqitous.
(and no i didnt mention apple, i love macs but the cost of them is way too much for the bang you get - even the 'budget' imacs in Aust go for $4000 and a powerfull PC can be had for under $2000 - Apple have priced themselves out of the consumer and hobbyist market-a pity but the truth)
Discussion invited but no flames, lets have a rational conversation here
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Just a word of refutation about the analogy you've made. Sure, Coca Cola may own the soft drink market, and it doesn't bother us, but this is the result of two fundamental differences between Microsoft and Coca Cola.
1) Soft drinks are not computers. Our society isn't grounded in soft drinks. But more and more today, things are relying upon computers. If people were, for some reason, to come to hate Coca Cola, it would not be a great burden to boycott their products or otherwise avoid them. You can't do this with computers - and with the ubiquity of MS products, this means you can't avoid Microsoft. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally, you'll find this to be true.
2) Coca Cola doesn't suck. You don't find that ever fourth bottle is not worth drinking. There is still substantial quality in the soft drink market. One may assume that because Coca Cola still faces competition from Pepsi (they haven't bought Pepsi, right?), that they must provide a quality product. MS on the other hand faces no significant competition the "easy to use Operating System" category. Therefore, it can abuse this monopoly, which is not the result of a truly original idea, nor is it a "natural" monopoly (that is to say: the operating system market will always gravitate to a single provider of operating systems). I'm not saying that Windows is utterly useless. I am, myself, a Windows User, because I've not yet found the time to properly learn Linux (I'm getting there, though.) However, Windows does not meet my expectations by a consumer, even if it fulfills some of my computing needs. For example: I expect that if I pay $200 for a piece of software that it will function properly and with reasonable stability and consistency. Windows, for the most part, fails to meet these needs. Given the lack of good alternatives however, I'm stuck. If Coca Cola were to produce a bad product, I could drink Pepsi. Were it to be the only product on the market, and it were to suck, I'd complain about it just as vehemently (well, a little less, because I can live without soft drinks) as I do about Microsoft's monopoly.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea