West Virginia Joins Massachusetts in MS Appeal Bid

diwolf writes "West Virginia is seeking to join Massachusetts in appealing a U.S. District Court decision that rejected a tough antitrust remedy sought by nine states in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case. This is also being reported at CNN and ZDNet."

Comments

Alright!

[KristsInferno]

I was hoping someone else would have some balls. #3? Anyone?

Re:Alright!

[Helen O'Boyle]

Someone mod this guy back up to at least 1 if he's not back there already by the time I finish writing this....

If I had modpoints today, I'd undamage this one, currently at 0. Whether I agree with the comment or not, it's a valid sentiment for someone to express (that going against the flow, against both the government and a very successful corporation, takes guts) and didn't deserve to be modded down.

On another note, KI, last I heard all the other states had signed on... WV was the last of the "uncommitted" to be choosing a side. So I doubt there will be a "#3".
--
* Helen *

Re:Alright!

[smittyoneeach]

All your laws court are belong to us--BeelzeBill.

Hrm...

[flewp]

While I'm not that sure how much good it is going to do, it is good to see them at least continuing the fight. If more states continue to join in on the appeal, it may gain some weight.

West Virginia and the other non-settling states had argued that Microsoft should be required to sell versions of Windows without a Web browser, music player and other software to make room for competing products.

On the other hand though, how hard would it be for Microsoft to just give the option upon install of not installing these components? Would it be worth MS's time and money (in terms of legal costs, etc) to give this option? Though I'm sure they're more than willing to spend the money to keep their products on as many PC's as possible

Re:Hrm...

[Anonymous Coward]

You underestimate the testing cost of doing this. (Surprise, surprise) Microsoft has to test every configuration it supports before it can ship the product. Adding a series of options multiplies the test matrix several times.

Re:Hrm...

[flewp]

While that is true, my point was simply would it be cheaper overall to just implement these options than face the court and legal fees, or would they be willing to keep paying the legal fees (if it is more expensive) in order to keep the components in place.

Re:Hrm...

[handsomepete]

Except that it's more than likely that they have some number of lawyers on payroll as well as expected court costs, so it's an already budgeted cost, where as any unexpected testing and engineering is probably not. Not that I have any clue how it actually works in the real world... I've got 2 dollars and a coupon for applesauce in my wallet right now.

Re:Hrm...

[Zeinfeld]

On the other hand though, how hard would it be for Microsoft to just give the option upon install of not installing these components?

I suggested to Bill's people that they produce a version of Windows called Windows DS (Dissenting States) Edition. This would be exactly the same as normal XP except that the media player, browser etc shells would not be there (but the dlls they access would be since they are pretty fundamental).

My guess is that absolutely noone would buy it since the idea of getting half a loaf was never something the consumers were demanding, it was the software houses.

No response yet on that one, although Bill did tell me in an email that in a move to demonstrate his appretiation of the open source movement, Melinda is going to cook a penguin for Christmass dinner.

Re:Hrm...

[jhylkema]

You've totally missed the point. Have you forgotten the browser "war" of the late 1990s already?

M$ wanted to control the browser because it represented a competitive threat - a browser could render the underlying OS irrelevant. They spent years and tens of millions to kill off Netscape. And you think they're going to voluntarily give back all of this territory they've already conquered? Are we talking about the same Napoleon Gates, the one bent on world domination? The same one who talks of "knifing the baby" and "cutting off their air supply"? I think not.

The media player represents a new frontier similar to the browser "war." With it, M$ controls how the content on the Internet is delivered, especially when they implement their DRM OS, which they own a patent on.

Re:Hrm...

[Myco]

Windows DS

DS? Heh, for a second there I thought you were going to describe a version of Windows that berates its users and bludgeons them into submission.

Waitaminnit...

---

(For those not in the know, DS = D/s = Dominance & submission, a flavor of kink related but not identical to S&M.)

Re:Hrm...

[SpaceLifeForm]

So...
XP really does mean eXtra Pain.

Re:Hrm...

[RAMMS EIN]

`` You underestimate the testing cost of doing this. (Surprise, surprise) Microsoft has to test every configuration it supports before it can ship the product. Adding a series of options multiplies the test matrix several times.''
If this is true, M$ have themselves to blame for it. If they had designed and built their software cleanly, they could test everything seperataly and be done with it. If instead, the whole of Windows, Internet Explorer, and whatever else they ship on the CD is a big interdependence nightmare (which apparently it is), then, indeed, they have to test all possible combinations.

A well-designed and well-implemented operating system works with a web browser, without a web browser, and with a broken web browser. Similarly for any other application. Seperation of system and applications, people!

Re:Hrm...

[N3WBI3]

I am usually the last one to rush to MS defence, but the grandparent of this post is right. When you are selling a product you need to do as much testing as possible no matter how good you think it is.

While you are right about when you say "A well-designed and well-implemented operating system works with a web browser, without a web browser, and with a broken web browser. Similarly for any other application. Seperation of system and applications, people!" you would be lying if you told me you would package a Linux distro and not test the installiations of all the products you put in it.

If MS put together a OS "the right way" and did not test some options we would be complaining about their QA process...

I really hate doing this

[Frederique Coq-Bloqu]

And I know some people hate it when it happens, but I must point out the obvious spelling error in the title. It's one of the first things a reader sees and shouldn't be there. The word is correctly spelled 'Massachusetts'. Thanks timothy.

Its good to see

[jpt.d]

that Microsoft doesn't have them bought. The wheels of justice are too slow and corrupt. I have heard (no proof, just rumour - you guys might know where this was) that GWB specifically ordered the Justice Dept to not seek splitting the company up. If this is true it shows that GWB was bought (he is bad anyways) and that he has far too much power. A president should have nothing to do with the wheels of justice. Justice should also be a lot swifter than this. That Microsoft case should have been over in at least 6 months.

Re:Its good to see

[Planesdragon]

.A president should have nothing to do with the wheels of justice.

Wrong. Executives across the country are empowered with discharging mercy where due--a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation, and Bush would be in his right to give MS a pardon to avert their breakup if he felt it was good for the country. That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years.

Justice should also be a lot swifter than this. That Microsoft case should have been over in at least 6 months.

Yes, it should have. Jackson should have mentioned future versions in his original consent decree way back when, he should have kept his mouth shut so his original antitrust ruling could stand, and President Bush should have left the extant prosecution stay on to finish the re-trial.

Re:Its good to see

[hrieke]

No, a breakup is not the death sentence for a company, dissolventecy(sp?) is.
A break would be a good thing, if you think about it, it forces more competition, innovation, and everything else that is sorely needed in this industry.

Re:Its good to see

[jpt.d]

and I doubt that money would exist for Palladium

Re:Its good to see

[radicalsubversiv]

That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

The reality is that we're not going to get the option to elect a president who stands for rigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws, because such a candidate would have great difficulty raising money from business interests who aren't particularly fond of such laws.

Of course, probably the only reason we ever saw an anti-trust case brought against Microsoft to begin with was that Gates & co. hadn't wised up to the need to make generous campaign contributions. With $4.6 million in contributions in the 2000 cycle, I'd say they've now figured things out, and the DoJ's antitrust division can now go back to sleep.

Re:Its good to see

[parliboy]

Bush pardoning a death sentence? Well, that's something you don't see everyday.

Re:Its good to see

[El]

breakup is a death sentence for a corporation

Just look at how quickly AT&T went out of business after it was broken up...

Do you have any evidence to support this opinion? Certainly Micro$oft applications would be more successful if they weren't forbidden from supporting other platforms in order to prop up the Windows monopoly. In my opinion, a breakup would be good for for innovation, shareholders, for employees, and for customers. The only thing it would be bad for is Bill's ego. What proof can you show me that the combined revenues of the separate companies wouldn't be greater than Micro$oft's current revenues?

Re:Its good to see

[Waffle Iron]

Executives across the country are empowered with discharging mercy where due--a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation,

LOL. There's a couple of hundred guys down in Texas you can ask about W's sense of mercy when it comes to death sentences. Oh wait... you can't ask them any more.

Well, at least he's found it in his heart to spare poor Microsoft. All is forgiven. Go forth and sin no more.

Re:Its good to see

[SethJohnson]

...a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation

[COUGH]...[COUGH] AT&T [COUGH]

And how much are you paying for long distance these days?!

Re:Its good to see

[MacAndrew]

And how much are you paying for long distance these days?!

And how much are you paying for local service these days?! (We're seeing local competition, finally.)

I don't think I came out ahead, and now we have all these annoying ads for long-distance service and 1-800 alternatives. (On the bright side, Carrot Top has found gainful employment.)

But yeah, breaking up the Death Star was probably good for the economy. Yippee. ;-)

Re:Its good to see

[ryanvm]

What proof can you show me that the combined revenues of the separate companies wouldn't be greater than Micro$oft's current revenues?

Well, without a monopoly Windows would have to be priced competitively. So the O/S division's profits would definitely suffer from a breakup.

Re:Its good to see

[El]

So, if tomorrow morning, one could no longer buy their "office suite" of applications and their OS from the same single source, companies everywhere would immediately all switch to Linux and Star Office? Methinks not. Would Micro$oft then have to rely on providing value to the customer instead of tricks and linking to sell it's software? Certainly. Would Micro$oft lower it's prices, and thus it's revenues? More than likely. But then it might also stop using OS revenues to bankroll massive money losing ventures into things like console games (Xbox), PDA (WinCE), and ISPs (MSN), which might help it's bottom line quite a bit...

Re:Its good to see

[Zordak]

And I'm not even American

Then I suppose we can forgive you for being clueless about the Constitution of the United States of America, which states clearly in Article 2, Section 2 "[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment." In light of that, I would say that your Jefferson quote is somewhat out of context if you are trying to imply that he was opposed to the idea of presidential pardons. The power of the President to pardon has been one of the most closely guarded, and least dilluted by statute law, Constitutional priciples over the history of the U.S. In fact, even when Clinton went on a wholesale pardons-for-sale spree on his last day in office (if you are a liberal, feel free to substitute "even when Ford purchased the presidency with a promise of a presidential pardon"), the biggest roasting he received was from late night talk shows. Conservative politicians and scholars did not make as big a deal out of it as they would have liked to because nobody wanted to get within a mile of the pardon power.

As for executive powers in states granting pardons/clemency/stays/moratoriums/whatever, those are mandated by the individual states' constitutions, so it really has nothing to do with "separation of powers" on the national level.

Re:Its good to see

[Eric Damron]

"Wrong. Executives across the country are empowered with discharging mercy where due--a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation, and Bush would be in his right to give MS a pardon to avert their breakup if he felt it was good for the country. That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years."

A death sentence?? Really?? Gee I see that the Bell Telephone Co. seems to have survived a breakup. The fact is that for a company as big as Microsoft it is no "Death Sentance" at all. They should be busted up.

Re:Its good to see

[jhylkema]

Just look at how quickly AT&T went out of business after it was broken up...

It didn't , but AT&T is a shadow of its former self. The almighty Broadband unit, the one that was going to return the company to its old glory, is being spun off after hemmorhaging money for a long time - after the @Home debacle. The wireless unit likely will be sold to T-Mobile or Cingular. That leaves, what, long distance? Hah! There's a money-maker, what with long-distance rates a tenth or so of what they were "back in the day."

And why did all of this happen? Simple - AT&T had to compete when it wasn't "Ma Bell" anymore. It couldn't charge confiscatory rates for awful service (you think it's bad now? Imagine how it was when AT&T was the only game in town anywhere.) Hell, even the much-ballyhooed Lucent was still hawking copper switches as its main product as late as 2000!

I have no reason to believe that a broken-up M$ would not meet with the same fate. First off, the desktop OS unit is keeping it afloat. The server OS doesn't comparatively make them a whole lot, and they're bleeding money on the disaster that is the xBox. M$, like AT&T, had become used to competing on a field where its the only player. M$, like AT&T, is hardly a nimble startup. It is, and has been for a long time, a big company, with all its negative connotations. Just like IBM couldn't, M$ will not be able to turn its ship fast enough when the right competitor comes along. I believe that day to not be very far off.

Re:Its good to see

[frank_adrian314159]

Bush pardoning a death sentence? Well, that's something you don't see everyday.

Hey now! Be fair! He's pardoned two turkeys (one each Thanksgiving) since he's been in the White House.

But, then again, I guess that's not every day...

Re:Its good to see

[radicalsubversiv]

What you're really saying is, Microsoft failed to pay their blackmail^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contribution money to the democrat party during the 1990s. This is what happens when you cross the Clintonistas.

While I doubt the relationship was quite that direct, that is what I'm saying -- MS's competitors bought politicians (from both parties) while MS wasn't paying attention.

Make no mistake about it - the Green Party handed the election to Bush.

This beyond offtopic, but here goes:

It is a technical truth that if Ralph Nader were not on the ballot in Florida (or New Hampshire), Al Gore would've easily won the election. It is also true that Al Gore would've won the election if he hadn't run one of the worst campaigns in modern political history. It is even truer that he would've won the election if the Republicans didn't control the Florida Governor's Mansion and the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, this entire matter would not be an issue if we joined most of the world's democracies and stopped using first-past-the-post winner-take-all voting.

And don't forget, multi-millionaire Ralph Nader got rich by speculating in stocks of the very corporations he rails against.

Actually, he first came into money after writing Unsafe at Any Speed, when GM hired private detectives to spy on him and attempt a smear campaign. He sued them, won a lot of money, and used it to start Public Citizen. He does have money invested in the stock market, and uses the proceeds to fund his organizations. The man lives in a tiny apartment in Washington D.C. and doesn't even own a color television. Most of this is a matter of public record, and has been reported on frequently in the press.

Re:Its good to see

[CrazyDuke]

"That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years."

United States of America
Voting Form

Please vote for one of the following:
[ ] Big Industry Patsy (R)
[ ] Media Cartel Puppet (D)
[ ] Piss Away Vote (I)

In Addition, please select one of the following referendums:
[ ] Tax break for the rich, especially large corporations that mysterously both lose and make billions a year
[ ] Increase welfare to large corporations that magically both make and lose billions a year

Re:Its good to see

[N3WBI3]

Actually as an OS a breakup would provide more money from Palladium because MS could not take the money they do make on windows and put it tword Internet explorer, X-Box, MSN, ...

Bill makes money on his OS, he loses money just about everywhere else (except office)..

Re:Its good to see

[4of12]

Bill makes money on his OS, he loses money just about everywhere else (except office)..

I might be mistaken, but I think Office is at least as large a cash cow as Windows.

But you're right - everything else is heavily subsidized until MS gets it right and steamrolls the competition into the ground.

The other ventures are good long term business sense: they're looking for a new cash cow.

This strategy is technically termed "moo-ving over."

Re:Its good to see

[El]

Actually, the implied point was: the breakup of AT&T actually increased shareholder value. Those people holding AT&T stock were given shares in each of the baby bells, and their total value was soon greater than that of the AT&T stock.

Where's Virginia?

[swordboy]

You'd think that Virginia would want a piece of them too...

Re:Where's Virginia?

[idiotnot]

Virginia's Atty General is a screaming big business type. Furthermore, they weren't party to the original suit.

But the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the City of Virginia Beach's jank, anyway. The city is pretty much an independent government, as far as day-to-day (including computer) operations go.

Who benefits?

[targo]

I have to ask: who would actually be interested in pursuing this case?
It is quite clear that there will be no noteworthy changes to the original settlement, so any interested parties (mostly Microsoft's competitors) don't have anything to gain. It is also quite clear that the main loser is going to be the taxpayer. So who is the winner of this case (other than the army of lawyers)?
The answer is that a bunch of people (e.g. the attorney generals of these states) gain some free press and cheap popularity from the ongoing coverage of the case. The important thing to notice is that the case itself is absolutely irrelevant, these people would attach themselves to any other high-profile case just as quickly.
So don't ever think this is about "freedom" or any other nice ideas, it's only about buying votes and personal agendas.

Re:Who benefits?

[Planesdragon]

It is quite clear that there will be no noteworthy changes to the original settlement

No, it isn't. When both higher courts toss it out, THEN it'll be clear. Until then, its' worth pursuing.

It is also quite clear that the main loser is going to be the taxpayer.

The lawyers pursuing the case the government lawyers paid a salary, not hourly wages. The taxpayers don't pay much extra by pursuing this case... and since MS has to reimburse the legal expenses of the government at market rate, the taxpayers will, if anything, MAKE money.

Re:Who benefits?

[Lokist]

Yes but a fight is still a fight no matter the size. Remember what they say about business... 1 good thing may result in a couple people knowing... but 1 bad thing could result in 12 people knowing...Any kind of information about anti-trust that is brought to the press is a step in the right direction. We don't have to "win"... All we have to do is use the media to let the end users out there know what is going on... People (over all) are not stupid...They know when they are being scammed or not... If uncle Jim down the street keeps seeing news about Microsoft and security issues...or learns that Microsoft just changed some licence agreements around and he may have to pay an extra $100.00 (an example only) for his next upgrade...He will think twice... It all works in our (open source community) favor one way or another... I guess its just a matter of how you look at it...

Microsoft Nervous About Something

[Alien54]

As seen in this report on the Register, Microsoft Sales Reps have even gone so far as to offer FREE Windows server software licenses to companies considering the move to Open Source.

Of Course, they have confused Free (as is speech) Software with free (as in beer) software, and didn't always realise that Linux is not the only free software out there.

and note: they didn't save the sale for Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft Nervous About Something

[Alien54]

Great! The Register, that bastion of great journalism has now resorted to plagiarizing [slashdot.org] material from Slashdot, that other bastion of great journalism without even attributing the material.

Check the date time stamps next time
The Register article Posted: 02/12/2002 at 14:24 GMT
The Slash Dot Comment by Anonymous Coward on 12:51 PM (EST) -- Monday December 02 2002

The Slash comment was posted after the Reg Article.

how dare they plagarize a future article like that

Think about it.

Re:Microsoft Nervous About Something

[Daniel Phillips]

As seen in this report on the Register, Microsoft Sales Reps have even gone so far as to offer FREE Windows server software licenses to companies considering the move to Open Source.

It won't work. It just sends the message that, to get all your Windows software for free, you just have to install a few Linux boxes at your company, show some of your folks how to start OpenOffice, and invite the MS rep over to see your setup. Ahem, the fun is about to begin.

Re:Microsoft Nervous About Something

[Chris Johnson]

The question you need to ask is, what's the licensing look like, and do they get 'self-help' provisions?

Use all the free copies of Windows Everything that you want, and enjoy the VERBAL!! promises that you'll get it forever. Got it on paper?

A year from now, maybe, they throw a switch and you either pay up or you're hosed and they shut you down, remotely. Look at the power situation, not at what the upfront costs are. Do you have control? Maybe you think you do- got it in WRITING?

MS == Clones

[MisanthropicProggram]

I'm going to get moderated as a Troll for this, but what the hell!

Remember when a decent PC cost at least $4000 (US)? Then came the clones and we were able to get a PC for about $2000. After the clones came into their own, the prices just started free-falling. The reason was that IBM couldn't keep their own monopoly on PCs and charge whatever THEY wanted too - and you can bet that they wanted too! Look at Apple. They had control of everything to do with their machines and they insisted on gouging their customers. It wasn't until recently that they decided to price their machines in line with the rest of their (PC) market. Yes, they have a superior design, blah, blah, blah,... But when it comes down to it, their design wasn't worth the premium that they used to charge - sorry Mac folks.

MS turned the PC market into a commodity market. Since MS wanted to grow/keep their monopoly, they charged pretty damned cheap in my book.

What I'm trying to say is ... here it comes ... that if it weren't for MS, we would still be paying an arm and a leg for PCs.

For the record, I'm a Linux Luver

Re:MS == Clones

[Anonymous Coward]

When PC's cost $4000 Windows cost $100. Now that comodity PC costs ~$800 Windows still costs $100.
If there was competition in software as there is in hardware Microsoft would have had to bring their price down. If Microsoft gets their long-dreamed-of 100% market share and no piracy, do you really thnk that they'll keep their price at $100?

Not likely.

Re:MS == Clones

[Anonvmous Coward]

"So how did MS do this? What part of this new market do you see MS as responsible for, and how?
They were a part of it, there is no denying that... a HUGE part of it.. but to imply they are responsible for it is another matter entirely."

The right product at the right time. Windows 95 came out at the dawn of the internet explosion. The only comparable product out there was Macintosh, and people didn't want Macs.

No Windows 95 = much smaller PC explosion in the mid-90's.

Re:MS == Clones

[bkontr]

Wrong! The reason PCs are cheap today is because of IBM cloning and has nothing to do with Microsoft. In fact, computers would be cheaper if MS sold windows for reasonable profit instead of the highway robbery they do now. Software is MORE expensive today than it was in the past (of course it does more too), and high software expense is ultimately the reason PC industry will stagnate. IBM created some standards for the PC, which is the reason PCs today are more similiar than different; mass production is the real reason why computers became inexpensive.

Re:MS == Clones

[Zeinfeld]

When PC's cost $4000 Windows cost $100. Now that comodity PC costs ~$800 Windows still costs $100. If there was competition in software as there is in hardware Microsoft would have had to bring their price down.

Or add a lot more to the product which is exactly what they did, unless you have the quaint belief that there is absolutely no difference between MSDOS and Windows.

Measured by features Windows is pretty cheap. And expect the price of Windows to start to decline as PCs drop further in price. The OEM price of windows is much less than the retail box price already. Microsoft is already seeing erosion in its prices as good mainstream PCs are now available at the $750 mark and discount models are $500 or less.

Re:MS == Clones

[clontzman]

1. The costs involved in manufacturing hardware are very different from the costs in manufacturing software. Considering how much more complexity and how many more features operating systems have than they did in the past (browsers, media players, TCP/IP stacks, etc. all used to be separate purchases), current prices aren't especially high.

2. As long as OS X is selling, as an upgrade (there are, after all, no "full versions" of OS X because you have to have purchased it with hardware) at $129 and RedHat Professional is selling at $149, $99-$199 upgrades for Windows (which most end users don't actually near that much because they get OEM) will continue to be the norm.

3. Dell, Gateway, etc. don't pay nearly $100 for OEM copies of Windows. More like $40.

Re:MS == Clones

[Zeinfeld]

Wrong! The reason PCs are cheap today is because of IBM cloning and has nothing to do with Microsoft.

Cloning is only possible because IBM lost control over the software platform. If IBM had succeeded in foisting OS/2 and microchannel on the industry the clones would have been killed.

Of course nobody was going to let OS/2 win for exactly that reason. The industry choose Microsoft because IBM was a much bigger threat at the time.

If Lotus and Wordperfect had figured this out a few years before it happened rather than many years later they might have survived.

Re:MS == Clones

[2nd Post!]

1: You're right. It's much, much, cheaper to 'manufacture' software than it is to 'manufacture' hardware. The cost of design, development, and test are probably similar however.

2: Why do you believe OS X and Redhat are priced that way? Perhaps because Micrsoft, as a monopoly, has 'fixed' the price at which an OS sells for? Oh, btw, I bought a full version of OS X 10.0 and 10.2, and both worked fine on my PowerBook *and* my PowerMac; and yes, I actually own multiple copies, but I was lazy and didn't open the version that cam with my PowerMac, so there are indeed full versions of OS X.

3: I think $100 was chosen because it's even, it's round, and it's pretty. It's more likely consumers would pay $150 for a box of W2k or WXP, anyway, no? So it would be stupid for Dell, Gateway, et el to not charge close to market value and reap every percent of margin they could.

Re:MS == Clones

[vandelais]

"MS turned the PC market into a commodity market."

Bullshit. Pick up a book, troll.

Compaq and Netscape and AMD and Cyrix and USB (Apple) turned the PC market into a commodity market.

Re:MS == Clones

[clontzman]

1. The manufacture of software is much more than just pressing a CD. Programmers aren't cheap and, thanks to ongoing support and development, keeping a piece of software up-to-date remains expensive.

On the hardware side, once you've designed, say, a USB 2.0 chipset, you can license it and build millions of them at, incrementally, a very low cost, and the design might not change substantially for years. They're two separate businesses, and it's not really rational to say that, since hardware is getting cheaper, software should be too.

2. Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Maybe OS X and RedHat are priced that way because that's the price the market will bear for an OS. MS doesn't *make* anyone sell competing products for the same amount (or more).

My point about OS X was that there are no full *licenses*. What I'm getting at is that OS X only runs on Macs. If you've bought a Mac, you've bought a copy of OS 8/9/X. Therefore, the only thing you can install is an upgrade -- the only use for a so-called "full" version would be on a machine on which you don't already have a copy of OS 8/9/X which is, thanks to the Mac's closed architecture, not possible.

3. Not sure what you're getting at here. All I'm saying is that the cost of an OEM product is often substantially less than the cost of a retail product.

Re:MS == Clones

[Glonk]

When PC's cost $4000 Windows cost $100. Now that comodity PC costs ~$800 Windows still costs $100.

People are complaining that Windows costs have stayed the same over the years, despite inflation and a lot more features? :)

Re:MS == Clones

[Radical Rad]

You are absolutely right. The thing that you seem to 'get' about this discussion that some other posters apparently aren't old enough to know is that PC's beat Mac because of hardware. IBM virtually open sourced the PC. For a few hundred dollars anyone could buy a manual from them on how to build a PC. The only thing IBM wouldn't let you buy from overseas was the BIOS which they had copyrighted. That was their chokehold and it slipped from their grasp when Phoenix reverse engineered it. Since nobody could build a Mac but Apple but anyone could build an IBM compatible, competition by thousands of clone makers brought the price down. Microsoft had zilch to do with it, but they did ride the clonemakers coat tails since everyone needed their standardized middleware (DOS) to run those killer apps like Lotus 1-2-3.

Re:MS == Clones

[2nd Post!]

1: Programmers are no more cheap than any other employee in a design and engineering capacity.

You mention a USB chipset: that entails silicon, packaging, and fabbing (possibly), as well as integration and testing.

The end result is that all processes (software and hardware) have their costs. Hardware costs drop as hardware becomes commoditized, formalized, and common. Software prices may not *yet* be cheap because it is still an evolving art.

Programmers are not yet the equivalent of technicians: Give them a spec, a blueprint, and have them pop out a product. Eventually they will, when software creation == software engineering, but right now it is not.

2: The price the market will bear is dictated by Microsoft defining the market, I speculate. If not for Microsoft setting the price for XP and 2k at $150 for upgrades and $250 for full versions (or whatever the price really is), then Apple and RedHat would not price the way they do.

To use an example, Sony prices at $400 for a TV. JVC wants to sell a TV, but because it doesn't have the name Sony does, it has to price lower in order to make any sort of sale, for similar features. Analogy breaks because TVs are commodoties (and thus interchangeable) where PCs and Macs are not (yet).

There are Macs that don't come with OS X 10.2, 10.1, 10.0, or OS 9.

For those Macs you need to buy a boxed copy. Pretend that the microcosm of Mac hardware is similar to PC hardware, but instead of different manufacturers (Gateway, Compaq, HP, IBM, Dell, Sony), you've got different years, models, and makes. Apple 10 years ago was different than Apple 5 years ago than Apple today. Yet (I'm not joking), all of them can run OS X 10.2

If you bought a Mac 1 year ago, you get OS X 10.1
2 years ago 10.0
3 years ago 9.0
4 years ago 8.6
etc, etc, etc.

3: All I'm saying is that if I sold you a dollar bill for $0.40, you would be silly not to resell it for the full $1.00, and likewise if an OEM can get Windows for below market value, it is to their advantage to sell it as close to market value as they can and reap the profits.

Re:MS == Clones

[(H)elix1]

Measured by features Windows is pretty cheap. And expect the price of Windows to start to decline as PCs drop further in price.

I'm not saying they don't pack a lot into windows, but all of the OS's out there have heavily evolved over the past decade. Not only have most of the no-brainer apps, utilities, and features been folded into commercial distros like Solaris and the MacOS. Almost every Linux distro is bursting with extra features. Problem is, people expect it... but not for the cost of all the parts.

Now follow the price. A solid 'commodity' machine - 1.3ghz CPU, 128M RAM, 20G HDD - several magnitudes more powerful than the x86 box running oracle a few years back - can be had for about $200 new. (not server grade hardware or gaming, but for Mom...) Looking at generics with HomeXP, add $100 to the price. A third of the cost is licenses. Add in another $150-250 for an OEM version of office and the hardware starts to become a rounding error...

Retail version of windows is about $300 and office is like another $500. That is your $800 computer. Fortunately, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Linux are to the point where I can set my Mom up with a box to do 'surfing', 'e-mail', and letter writing... I got a strong feeling that as Microsoft succeeds in eliminating casual pirating, they are going to be in for a rude shock when they meet my joe-sixpack brood and try to pull cash from _their_ wallet - subscription or otherwise....

Re:MS == Clones

[fermion]

I found this quote at bussiness 2.0:
LESSIG: Well, OK, let's remember an important moment in the explosion of the PC revolution. Everybody said IBM made such a terrible mistake in giving Microsoft the operating system and just licensing a version back. But IBM also had in its plan control of the ROM BIOS -- this was the startup chip that would make it so that it was a quote "IBM PC." It was Compaq that went and reverse-engineered that ROM BIOS to, then, establish the PC industry where there could be lots of competition among a lot of different producers all buying Intel chips but, still, lots of competition in the boxes that they produced that gave birth to the PC industry. Now, that reverse-engineering, under some views of intellectual property, is a crime, it was theft. It was theft to the IP that IBM had built into the original ROM BIOS. Now, it was because that view of theft wasn't permitted to capture the birth of the PC industry that we got the birth of the PC industry. And my concern is this idea of theft will take over the lawmakers right now so that we won't get the equivalent of the reverse-engineering of the ROM BIOS that gave birth to the PC industry.

This is the generally accepted but largely forgotten version of history. While MS did the relatively simple task of copying an OS from IBM, Compaq et al did the much more complicated job of reverse engineering, against IBM wishes, the BIOS. Legal battles were fought to give Compaq the right to do so. Compaq won, and thus the PC market was opened. MS did little to facilitate this process. Once the BIOS was cracked, anyone could write the OS, and many did.

The ironic thing is that MS is working the IP cartel to rewrite laws so that such reverse engineering of hardware,and software cannot happen. History indicates the high prices we might have to pay if IBM was allowed to protect their BIOS. I think we can look at things such as the DCMA, the XBox, and DRM, and wonder if we are going down the same exploitive price road.

Re:MS == Clones

[Daniel Phillips]

What I'm trying to say is ... here it comes ... that if it weren't for MS, we would still be paying an arm and a leg for PCs.

Hey, that is a nice point, sweetly put. Lets give Bill a big thankyou, and let me add that, if it weren't for Microsoft, Linux would certainly not have developed as rapidly and effectively as it has.

Let me also add that Microsoft has long outlived its usefulness in terms of driving PC prices down (Linux and BSD now fill that role more effectively) and the benefit of driving forward Linux development is far outweighed by other kinds of damage Microsoft does.

Re:MS == Clones

[quitcherbitchen]

People are complaining that Windows costs have stayed the same over the years, despite inflation and a lot more features?

I'm complaining that I have to pay that much to get an OS that runs current programs. (Yes I run Linux too but it's not a complete alternative).

I wouldn't bitch and moan so much if my money didn't buoy so much other Microsoft development. I don't really want or need a media player or web browser or authenticated sign on or anything else that comes with Windows.

With hardware you can generally buy what you need in the capacity you need it. With windows you're stuck with expensive (Home editions) and more expensive (Professional editions) -- most of which I won't ever use.

Re:MS == Clones

[Daniel Phillips]

This is the generally accepted but largely forgotten version of history. While MS did the relatively simple task of copying an OS from IBM...

Speaking of history, you seem to have forgotten some yourself. MS didn't copy the OS from IBM, they bought it from Seattle Computer, where Tim Paterson had written it as a knockoff of Digital Research's CPM86. It was called QD-DOS at the time (Quick-n-dirty DOS). Later, Microsoft turned their legal guns on Seattle Computer and forced them out of the PC operating system business.

Incidently, I actually ran QD-DOS. A friend had it on a S100 machine, and I used it to take advantage of the 'a' (assembler) command built into QD-DOS's debugger, since Microsoft had omitted that feature from their version of the debugger and I needed to bootstrap an interpreter. Hmm, Microsoft also delayed release of their macro assembler the better part of a year, in other words, as long as they could before somebody else would be able to fill that niche with their own product. Since IBM had published the source code of the BIOS (yes they did, I have my copy right here!) we all knew that a perfectly functional assembler was available and that it was being held back. Now that I think about it, this was no doubt done to help Microsoft get an early lead in development tools for the PC, but Bill probably argued to IBM that it was somehow in IBM's interest to delay the release of the assembler. This tactic worked. It didn't keep other companies out of the market entirely - Borland and Watcom are good examples - but it helped get Microsoft into a position where it was able to use other means of eliminating the competition later.

Re:MS == Clones

[Chris Johnson]

"If Microsoft gets their long-dreamed-of 100% market share and no piracy, do you really thnk that they'll keep their price at $100?"

Absolutely, because they want to have 100% market share over all consumer electronics- and all telephones- and all electronic voting systems- and everything that goes into your car, and fighter planes, and the video cameras that watch you in the street, etc etc etc.

They'd be a lot easier to deal with if they just wanted money, believe me.

Re:MS == Clones

[10Ghz]

Or add a lot more to the product which is exactly what they did, unless you have the quaint belief that there is absolutely no difference between MSDOS and Windows.

Are you saying that the hardware has stayed the same, except they have been getting cheaper. Whereas Windows has improved but it's price has remained stable (read: high).

Sorry, I don't buy that. Hardware has improved trendemously. Speed and capacity of hard-drives has shot through the roof. CPU's are order of magnitude faster. Vid-cards can do stuff we could only dream of few years ago. They have done all that, and the prices have come crashing down. Only exception is Windows. Sure it has more functionality than DOS had, but your CPU has alot more functionality (in it's case: performance) than Pentium 60 had, yet it's alot cheaper. So why is it that all other components in your computer has both increased their capabilities and reduced their price, but Windows has not? Could it be because Windows is the only product of a monopoly in your PC?

Re:MS == Clones

[Daniel Phillips]

I believe there was only one D - QDOS, Quick and Dirty Operating System.

That's correct. It was a while ago...

Re:MS == Clones

[Tim C]

As others have said, I'd love to know where you're buying Windows from for $100.

I recently (in the last couple of weeks) upgraded my home PC, and as I was buying a motherboard, processor, etc, I was elligible to buy an OEM copy of Windows XP Professional. It cost me £116 (Sterling), which is roughly $180US at current exchange rates. The retail version was double this, and so would be about $360US. Obviously large OEMs would be buying Windows by the truckload, and so would be paying considerably less, but then PCs they bought wouldn't cost them $800 either.

Other than that, I do agree - hardware prices have dropped a hell of a lot, even before taking into account increases in power and features, while software in general has remained pretty constant in price. For my upgrade, Windows was the second most expensive item, beaten only by the processor (P4 2.4B).

Re:MS == Clones

[mpe]

MS turned the PC market into a commodity market.

MS had nothing to do with it. The clone makers turned the PC market into a commodity market.

Re:MS == Clones

[mpe]

The costs involved in manufacturing hardware are very different from the costs in manufacturing software.

In order to build a processor, be it a CPU or a graphics processor, you need to design both the chip itself and a facility to manufacture it.

Considering how much more complexity and how many more features operating systems have than they did in the past (browsers, media players, TCP/IP stacks, etc. all used to be separate purchases),

None of these are new.

Re:MS == Clones

[mpe]

The manufacture of software is much more than just pressing a CD. Programmers aren't cheap

Engineers who can design chips and fabs arn't cheap either

and, thanks to ongoing support and development, keeping a piece of software up-to-date remains expensive.

Assuming they don't simply EoL the software after a few years.

Re:MS == Clones

[clontzman]

2: The price the market will bear is dictated by Microsoft defining the market, I speculate. If not for Microsoft setting the price for XP and 2k at $150 for upgrades and $250 for full versions (or whatever the price really is), then Apple and RedHat would not price the way they do.

To use an example, Sony prices at $400 for a TV. JVC wants to sell a TV, but because it doesn't have the name Sony does, it has to price lower in order to make any sort of sale, for similar features.

That's my point, though. RedHat and Apple (presumably the JVCs of this analogy) *don't* sell their products for appreciably less than Microsoft. $149 for RedHat Pro and $129 for OS X is right in line with $99 for XP home and $199 for XP pro.

There are Macs that don't come with OS X 10.2, 10.1, 10.0, or OS 9.

Um... no, not really. I just clicked through all of the G4 towers, Powerbook G4s, iBooks, iMacs and iServes on the Apple site and every one of them came with a MacOS operating system. Apple's never sold systems without a bundled OS.

Re:MS == Clones

[Sloppy]

Remember when a decent PC cost at least $4000 (US)?

I remember 1983 when a decent personal computer, the C64, dropped from $600 to $200. Your $4000 figure is from the late 1970s. What good has MS done lately?

Re:MS == Clones

[Dolohov]

The larger part of the decline in prices has come from sheer volume of sales, and the sharp drop in prices of hard drives and RAM, which MS had nothing at all to do with (Except, possibly, that its bloated OS requires more space and more memory every iteration). Now, much of that was driven by competition in the market for these devices stemming from the fact that multiple companies were building machines using parts from multiple sources -- but by no means can you conclude that this wouldn't have happened if IBM had retained their PC monopoly. Cloning was going to happen, no matter what. It was just a matter of which system got cloned; it could have been Apple's, it could have been Commodore's.

Re:MS == Clones

[2nd Post!]

When OS X first came to sale, XP didn't exist.
Windows 2k did.

Windows2k cost considerably more than XP Home and XP Pro. Even today, I think Win2k costs more.

But yes, you are quite right that XP Home and XP Pro are 'in line' with OS X, but the $199 price for XP Pro are higher than OS X. There is no 'XP Home' version of OS X, since OS X is multiprocessor out of the box, it has all services and servers that XP Pro does, as well as networking functionality, and it has the full suit of security features, whereas XP Home does not but XP Pro does.

OS X's equivalent to Windows 2k Server, OS X Server (10 client license) costs $499 to Microsoft's $900 on Pricewatch. Windows 2k Advanced Server, with 25 clients, is $1200, while OS X Server *unlimited* license is $1k.

In all feature for feature price points, Apple is priced less than Microsoft. XP Home is an anomaly because there is no stripped down version of OS X comparable to home. Microsoft makes the home/business distinction, and Apple does not.

Finally... you didn't seem to understand my point about used Macs.

There are whole years where Apple sold Macs *without* OS X 10.2, 10.1, 10.0, or OS 9. You claim then that all boxes of OS X are upgrades, rather than full versions.

Look at PowerMax and you'll see a whole catalog of older Macs that never had OS X; perhaps you claim all these machines, running OS 9.1 or OS 8.6 or whatever, merely 'upgrade' to OS X?

In which case I think that's a semantic difference, the same way that I would claim then that installing Linux on a Windows 95 PC is an 'upgrade' too.

Re:MS == Clones

[clontzman]

I understand your point, but I think you're just splitting hairs with me. Most home users buy XP home because the few things that XP pro lets you do. For them, XP is cheaper. For people who need the "pro" features of XP, it costs a little more. Either way, they're all within throwing distance of each other. I'm not sure it's fair to call XP Home an "anomaly" since it's the biggest selling version of Windows by far.

Even with your comparison of software prices, you're ignoring the fact that Apple builds the cost of its software into its hardware. When you're buying a boxed copy of OS X server, you're adding it to a machine that already has the (ahem) Apple tax built-in.

As for used Macs, I still don't quite understand your point. Any Mac that has ever been sold has been sold with a copy of MacOS [something]. Just because you buy it used with no OS doesn't mean that Apple didn't sell it with one. Since the OS is tied to the hardware, yes, upgrading from OS 8.6 or 9.1 to X is an "upgrade."

Agreed that it's a totally semantic argument.

Put another way, the least expensive new Windows machine is about $300. The least expensive new Mac is about $900. Either Apple's hardware is 3x the cost of the PC hardware, or you're paying extra for built-in costs (like bundled iApps or the operating system). Shouldn't people be making the same complaints about Mac hardware/software not declining in price in concert with PC hardware/software?

Re:MS == Clones

[2nd Post!]

Ah, well that's easier to tackle! The Mac market is not the PC market, while the PC market is the Mac market. One is a strict superset of the other, so correlations in one may indicate correlations in the other, but not vice versa. In other words, prices falling in the PC market is not indicative of prices falling in the Mac market because a comparable PC has LCD, DVD-R, firewire, and movie editing capabilities. No $300 PC can compete. It's like comparing a $300 motorcycle with a $900 compact coupe. Apple (whether smart or not) decides not to build $300 machines because there is no profit margin in them. Rather than building faster and more capable G3 iMacs (which can scale up to PC200DDR and 1.4GHz if they wished) with 17" CRTs, they adopt instead G4s to keep the margin up. Sound financial/business decision, possibly stupid market/business decision. Compare the high end, however, and you find that Macs cost the same as comparably *featured* PCs, but offer less computation power.

However, the trend of falling prices and increasing functionality holds true for the Mac as well as it does for the PC. A Mac today vs a Mac two years ago: OS X is more stable than OS 9, OS X does more than OS 9, and OS X has more potential than OS 9, while at the same price point. You gain iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, Mail, iTunes, iChat, iCal, iPhoto Apache, FTPd, SMBd, Rendevous, Ink, and Quicktime for the same price where two years ago you only got iTunes, iMovie, and Quicktime.

Hardware, unfortunately, has only increased by a smaller factor: More MHz and more memory. The difference between the PC and Mac market would be a function of scale, really, but the only thing new in the landscape might be DVD-RW available in 3/4 of the product line, and dual CPU in half the product line... Oh, and LCD displays in 3/4 of the product line. Hardware, on both sides of the fence, hasn't really changed all that much. Bluetooth is a possibility, as is new form factors, faster USB, faster Firewire... Oh, I guess I forgot wireless networking, but again, Macs have been doing this for nearly 4 years now (Firewire, wireless networking, gigabit Ethernet, are fairly old on the Mac). DDR is new, but PCs have had it for a while, on the flipside.

So 'prices' in Macland have fallen dramatically. What cost in PC land $10k now costs in Macland $1k (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio, OS X unlimited server), or $5k (Shake), or $100 (iMovie and iDVD) with similar price falls for Logic Audio, RayZ, in the near future.

Distributed Litigation

[core plexus]

What if the People rose up and filed their own Pro Se suits against Micro$oft? Crash the Courts! Has somebody a website for this yet? Just a thought.

From the CNN article

[Scooby Snacks]

She concluded that some penalties proposed by those states would chiefly benefit the company's rivals.

Well... okay. Isn't that what punishing a company and making an effort to restore competition usually does? How can you accomplish those two goals without bring benefit to the competitors?

Re:From the CNN article

[Anonymous Coward]

Antitrust rulings are not about punishing the company.

Antitrust rulings are not about restoring competition to an industry.

The only concern is to help consumers. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly.

Re:From the CNN article

[Chris Johnson]

You are talking only about the 20th century USA view of antitrust law, as if it was some higher moral standard.

In other countries, antitrust law means the government can actually attempt to PUT BACK TOGETHER the broken free market, and get damaged companies and competitors back on their feet as if they hadn't had their kneecaps broken.

And that's not unreasonable. Deal with it.

Re:This Will Get Modded Troll

[Anonvmous Coward]

"This has got to stop. The anti-Microsoft propaganda and complete disregard for any kind of SOCIAL regularity is pissing me off."

Parent poster has a point. Slashdot's turning into an Anti-MS tabloid. Though this story is legit, some of the recent stories like "Apple Users Hate Microsoft" illustrate how ridiculously low this site can reach.

Remember the good old days when Slashdot was about posting cool geek stuff? I can't believe a site that's so pro-Linux can't help but watch MS's every move.

Re:Why?

[zombiepopper]

I'm from MA as well and I have heard that part of the reason we are pursuing the case is that we have already incurred most of the legal costs of the case in the initial stages (according Tom O'Reilly, our attorney general for non massholes). I suppose that makes some sense if you consider how much preparation must go into a case like this; I can see how the research and paperwork might be the most expensive part.

Other States should follow suit?

[The Ancients]

Why give up? This is exactly what they want - keep battering for long enough, and cracks will show. A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. Although the complaint was rejected, the new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. You can be assured that this law firm is not about to take it lying down, as this site shows.

Re:Other States should follow suit?

[The Ancients]

Link toOpen Letter to Microsoft Users, and to Commerce Commission Complaint.

Soap Opera

[TiMac]

Yes!!! I love it when the producers of a great soap opera decide not to cancel the show. Now I'll still have my fill of "Redmond Justice" to stay tuned to...at least for one more season.

Maybe they should spice it up for sweeps with some guest appearances in the courtroom...maybe Larry Lessig, Steve Jobs, and the perennial courtroom favorite, OJ! :-D

Re:Soap Opera

[CdotZinger]

...and the dramatic moment when OJ tries to slip Windows 98 into 64k of RAM--but...!

{OJ makes OJ-can't-do-it-face}

At last!

[WCMI92]

The state I have spent most of my career working in does something right!

If MS has proven anything in the many years of settlements with the DOJ over breaking the law, it's that a settlement with them is as worthless as one with Saddam.

Re:At last!

[mpe]

If MS has proven anything in the many years of settlements with the DOJ over breaking the law, it's that a settlement with them is as worthless as one with Saddam.

That is insulting, to the Iraqi leader. No real sanctions have been applied to Microsoft, no demands that they submit to inspections or bombings either.

Economics.

[mindstrm]

As anyone will tell you... future monetary decisions should not be made based on how much you have already spent.. but only on the business case for moving forwards.

Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Met his quarterly sales quota in his first three weeks - thereby pissing off everyone in the office. Since he had already make big bucks riding Oracle to the top, he quickly bolted. He said

1. M$ is scared shitless of Linux. They have no real strategy to deal with something that even they know is more stable and secure, and know they can't compete on price.

2. Win XP and M$'s licensing went over with customers even worse than what you read - even here. M$ kept a tight lid on how badly Win XP cratered in the corporate world.

3. M$ rank-and-file are a bunch of arrogant asswipes who think big corporations and gov't have no choice but to buy M$

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[tomstdenis]

"1. M$ is scared shitless of Linux. They have no real strategy to deal with something that even they know is more stable and secure, and know they can't compete on price."

While MS costs more to "buy", linux I'd say costs more to install. Almost anyone can setup and use a MS windows platform. Compariatively noone can install and use a linux distro. Ask some business student to install Apache [when they aren't that computer literal to begin with] is fun :-)

The rest of your post is fairly typical of MS-hate speak.

Tom

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[tomstdenis]

True I haven't tried Mandrake but I've seen enough of Linux [e.g. RH] to know the "you don't have the millionth copy of this RPM to install this package circular logic" crap.

Personally I have no reason to leave Win2K since a) I didn't pay for my copy, b) works like a charm and c) have yet to have problems installing drivers or using any app.

What boggles my mind is why Distro should be 3 full CD's to begin with. If they just consolidated their fucking support libs/apps then it wouldn't be so big.

Last time I installed Linux [RH 8.0] I got three versions of QT, five different kernels, two copies of GCC, KDE/Gnome support libs, various versions of Motif, etc, etc...

Now I know every linux user likes having "their" version of a program but this is very useless for the "I just want to use the damn thing" user [e.g. me].

Choice be damned, when you have to install 1400 packages [4GB] to get your RH install to work properly without any depend bitching there are serious problems.

If Mandrake is completely the opposite then maybe I should go check it out some time but so far I'm not that inclined.

Tom

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Daniel Phillips]

True I haven't tried Mandrake but I've seen enough of Linux [e.g. RH] to know the "you don't have the millionth copy of this RPM to install this package circular logic" crap. [..] Last time I installed Linux [RH 8.0] I got three versions of QT, five different kernels, two copies of GCC, KDE/Gnome support libs, various versions of Motif, etc, etc...

You haven't tried Xandros either apparently, or Suse, or... well, actually I don't think you've tried anything recent. It sounds like you want a Debian-based distribution, so I'd recommend Xandros. Debian just doesn't have library dependency problems, unless you intentionally run the unstable version, which a lot of folks due just for the geek factor. Even then, dependency problems are so rare you might never run into one as a casual user.

Sounds like you're not a geek though, so I'd say, just go for Xandros - it installs easily, plus has the typical Debian upgrade smoothness.

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Zordak]

Almost anyone can setup and use a MS windows platform. Compariatively noone can install and use a linux distro. Ask some business student to install Apache [when they aren't that computer literal to begin with] is fun :-)

I don't want to get into a flame war here, but I think your premise here relies on a flawed assumption. Windows installation is easier than Linux installation in the same sense that the stock engine in your car is easier to install than a custom engine that fits in the same slot. It's easier because it's already there. If I gave your hypothetical business major a Windows 2000 CD and told him to install it, he'd have at lease as much trouble as he would with a newer RedHat or Mandrake distro. This is particularly true if you are not dual booting. Probably the biggest hang-up people have with Linux installs is partitioning, and there is no good analog for this in Windows installation, because you generally are not setting up a dual-boot Windows system (and if you are, it is at least as hard as partitioning Linux). So, take a newbie, give him two identical boxes and one copy each of Windows 2000 and Mandrake 9, and set him loose. He'll probably manage to muddle his way through both after reading the on-screen instructions and continually choosing the default options.

The real problem with Windows is that all of those slick GUIs give people a false sense of capability. You get clueless people who think that knowing a little point-and-click qualifies them as admins. The truth is, if you want to set up a stable and secure system, it doesn't matter if it's Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris or Novell; you need to understand the system and know what you are doing. Windows doesn't have some magical solution to this.

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Malcontent]

apt-get install apache

WOW that was real hard.

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Malcontent]

"Seriously, are you going to get your opinion of any company from someone who quit after 3 weeks? He's probably got an attitude, or was just a bad cultural fit for Microsoft."

He probably did not like to lie so much. I heard that if you don't lie to dozen people by lunch you get fired from MS.

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[spectecjr]

He probably did not like to lie so much. I heard that if you don't lie to dozen people by lunch you get fired from MS.

You still work there then huh? Or did you start working for Sun when you got good at it?

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[mpe]

While MS costs more to "buy", linux I'd say costs more to install. Almost anyone can setup and use a MS windows platform.

Virtually no-one installs Windows in the first place. They either get it installed by their vendor or their corporate IT department.

Compariatively noone can install and use a linux distro.

In no other area of technology would expecting an end user to perform major maintanance tasks be considered sensible.
Do you have "easy to assemble" cars, etc?

Ask some business student to install Apache [when they aren't that computer literal to begin with] is fun :-)

So how are they going to install IIS, as a regular user?

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[giminy]

I booted up my PC and typed "apt-get install apache" but it didn't work (login incorrect).

Be honest. Setting up a debian (or redhat, or whatever) box with apache takes more of a clue than setting up a windows computer with iis. Especially if it's a *real* webserver, and not just your personal "Yay! I set up a webserver!" webserver. But I'm okay with that. I'm not saying that iis is better/will be better tuned, I'm just saying it's easier to set up.

I don't think it's good to try and convince the world otherwise...at least not until I'm telling the truth ;-). But needing a clue to set up a webserver is a good thing...I didn't hear as much moaning about the latest apache worm as I did about the code red worm, for example...

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Malcontent]

I honestly don't think it's easier to set up IIS. Installation is just as easy for both of them and setup is dirt simple if you are running debian.

In fact if you are running debian apt-get install apache will automatically configure your apache in a safe and secure manner with your web site in /var/www (a logical place). And then you can do apt-get install mod-apache-ssl and apt-get install php and also have them set up automatically for you. All with sensible defaults.

Honestly I don't know how much easier it needs to get before people will stop whining.

You can also install complete working applications like phpgroupware or midgard by typing apt-get install php-groupware. How is windows any easier then that?

Imagine trying to set up a iis webserver with SSL support and a complex application like php groupware (I am assuming similar products exists in the asp world). It can't possibly be easier then debian.

I am speaking of debian here but freebsd is similar and so are a bunch of linux distributions. By typing in a simple command they will automatically download and install any one of thousands of programs. In windows you have to locate the program, download it, unzip it, install it, and configure it. In debian you apt-get it and configure it. It's much easier.

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[giminy]

In fact if you are running debian apt-get install apache will automatically configure

If you are running debian. My mother can install win2k and get iis running without a problem, but she can't install Debian (things are getting a little easier with tasksel, but you still need to know how to partition a disk, you have to know what packages you need, and in general you have to have a clue about networking, the weird hardware in your box, etc). Somehow, in my mind, that means setting up iis from scratch is easier...but what do I know?

And you're still talking about a "hi this is my webserver" webserver (except it can say it dynamically and securely). Note that when I say webserver I mean the machine, not just the server software. Feel free to tell me setting up raid5, trunking, ldap, or nfs is easier in linux than windows....I've done both. Windows is easier.

Imagine trying to set up a iis webserver with SSL support and a complex application like php groupware (I am assuming similar products exists in the asp world). It can't possibly be easier then debian.

Here we go again...I can't comment on groupware. I've set up groupware for windows before, and it's a no-brainer, but I've never done it under linux. I guess I'll play this weekend. But hey, at least I can admit when I don't know something :).

As for SSL: I don't need to imagine this, because I've done it on both windows and linux. It looks like you haven't, so let me clue you in. IIS has supported SSL for a long time, and setup is a snap. IIS is much easier to set up and maintain when you're managing lots of virtual hosts (and waaaaay less headache when all the virtual hosts need their own ssl certs)...if you're running a serious webserver this could be useful.

And before you call me an ms-lover or whatever fun names you have saved for guys that say what I say, my primary job is unix administration. I don't like microsoft as a company, and run only linux on my home pc boxen (and mostly linux with a few solaris servers at work, though I was forced to set up new win2k servers when the windows administrator revealed his incompetence :)). I just think ignoring a competing product doesn't make the one you settled with better. You should really play with both...Of course this is slashdot we're talking on, here....

Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago

[Malcontent]

"My mother can install win2k and get iis running without a problem, but she can't install Debian "

First of all unless your mother knows the difference between a netmask and a ski mask I highly doubt she can install windows or IIS. Windows especially windows 2000 server is royal pain in the ass to install. You have to install it and run windows update something like six times because there is not a comprehensive security update and most updates force you to download them one at a time and reboot. Last time I did it I think it took me something like five hours to install and secure the thing. I am not even counting the time it took to find out what each service did and if I could safely disable it I think that took a week working part time on it.

As for debian It's not that bad. Your mother will probably have an easier time installing lindows or xandros (both are based on debian) then windows. For me I can install debian and get it completely patched up in under an hour (longer if I am doing an over the net install which is not even possible with windows).

"Feel free to tell me setting up raid5, trunking, ldap, or nfs is easier in linux than windows....I've done both. Windows is easier. "

It all depends on if you know what you are doing or not. Certainly there is nothing magical about setting up ldap other then the fact that LDAP itself is a complex protocol that I doubt your mother knows how to install. I installed LDAP on debian and it was a breeze. I typed in apt-get openldap, it installed, asked me a series of questions which I answered and voila it was done. The hard part is knowing what your CN and DN settings are and windows does not magically implant that knowledge in your head.

"As for SSL: I don't need to imagine this, because I've done it on both windows and linux."

I set up and used IIS both professionaly and personally for along time. It got hacked then I decided I would never use it again. Since then I have been using apache and zope. Both are more useful in a thousand ways then IIS and both are more secure.

" IIS is much easier to set up and maintain when you're managing lots of virtual hosts (and waaaaay less headache when all the virtual hosts need their own ssl certs)...if you're running a serious webserver this could be useful."

I simply have a different file for each virtual domain. I include all the files in my httpd.conf. When I want to set up a new domain I simply copy an old one into a new file change a few settings and I am done. I seriously doubt clicking though endless dialog boxes is easier or takes less time. I was thinking of using one of those ISPMAN type of programs to handle all the virtual domains but after fooling around with them I decided that a GUI simply got in my way. Copying an existing file (or a skeleton) is so much faster and easier.

"I just think ignoring a competing product doesn't make the one you settled with better. You should really play with both."

I have played with both. I have also worked with both. I think you will find that 99% of all linux or apache users came from the windows world while less 1% of all windows users ever used linux. I did not start with apache I ended up with it and found out along the way that it was more useful, more stable, had more features, was easier to maintain, and was simply more fun then IIS could ever expect to be.

If you see some MS atro turfer sprouting off about how hard linux is to use (or install) then you can be pretty sure they have never used linux but almost everybody in the first world had used windows both at home and at work. The linux users avtively chose it after being fed up with windows, they certainly did not start there.

For the FIRST TIME EVER...

[MissMyNewton]

...I'm proud to say I live in Massachusetts!!!

Go Tom Go Tom Go Tom!!!

(and Doug!)

Re:Why?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"The lawsuit was just abuot a lot of pissed off competitors that couldn't keep up. MS won the PC market fair and square."

Though I agree with the 'competitors that couldnt keep up' bit, it has been proven MS has done some illegal stuff.

However, what's never really talked about is that MS needed cooperation from outside sources to pull their stunts. Just as an example, it's in Gateway's best interests to have only 1 (one) O.S. to support. Extra OS's = extra support staff = extra QA testing = extra $$$, passed on to the consumer. You'll notice that the retailers weren't crying foul until long after the charges were filed against MS. You'd think they'd be complaining before Netscape did, afterall they do have demand to fulfill.

Heh. The point I'm making is that if MS gets punished, why not punish the companies that went along with it? The answer is simple: You don't. If you punish everybody that went along with MS's monopoly, you basically punish everybody that's keeping this economy alive. The truth of the matter is that the majority of the market wanted MS to be the standard.

Above the law?

[KristsInferno]

So many say "Why bother? M$ is above the law." What a crock of shit. Even if my tax dollars are going toward a battle which may be lost, I would be more pissed off if there were no appeals, much as I was pissed off about the states who signed the settlement. It is obvious that Bill & Co. think that they are above the law, or rich enough to buy it, so why should we throw our hands up when there is still more that can be done to fight the ruling?

I believe that these states should be congratulated for not stopping. That is what the court of appeals is for. And I hope the other seven decide not to back down either.

WV has a clue

[r_j_prahad]

West Virginia has a long history of their population getting dispossessed and sold up the river broke-and-naked by rich out-of-state corporations so this warn't that big a surprise. Microsoft is just like any big coal company looking to take buttloads of money out of West Virginia except Microsoft hasn't started having their opponents murdered... yet. That we know of, anyways.

Re:This Will Get Modded Troll

[Siriaan]

Shut the fuck up, and stop with the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Because I, and I suspect most of the others who frequent this forum, are just about fucking tired of it.

What do you mean, "this forum"? Slashdot is a news service, with many individual forums on many individual topics. If you don't like article posts about Microsoft and it's illegal business practices (and that's not speculation BTW, CKK's ruling found that Microsoft HAD practiced business illegally) then don't fucking read them!

Howabout Netscape?

[gad_zuki!]

PCs didn't really get cheap until the internet boom of the mid-90's. Considering the hottest browser at the time was Netscape, shouldn't they be credited with bringing PCs to the masses and the masses credited with lowering prices through demand?

Just about any OS can run a browser, so what did MS do? I mean other than bundle a free browser with their OS. PCs may be 1/4 the price but Microsoft's software sure isn't.

Re:Why?

[JimmytheGeek]

I like your website, but you are completely wrong here. We would all be serfs owned by a Rockefeller if it weren't for antitrust. MS dominated the desktop based on superior marketing. It used its dominance to move into servers. Anybody seriously think MS had a technical advantage over Novell or any of the Unixes? Only a wintroll would say as much. But a half-assed windows tech can manage a windows server about as well as a desktop machine. So it grew. Maybe I'm a luddite, but I don't think a server needs (or should have) a GUI, let alone multimedia. MS used its dominance of the desktop to kill off a shift to web-based computing. Now instead of using the web to free users from pc's, MS was able to pervert and invert the move and the web is now harnessed to pc's. It's as if internal combustion engines have been installed on wagons.

I think you confuse economies of scale (which drive down unit cost, to a point) with network effect. There was an astroturf economist who, based on astroturf product reviews, claimed that MS products were better than their competitors at the time they took over the market. Never mind that the reviews were generally atrocious journalism, the reason Office took over was because of clever bundling. The reason IE took over was because you couldn't get a machine without it, but had to do something extra to get Netscape. Once you start to lose momentum vs. MS, the rest of the world smells blood and the downturn accelerates. If everyone else uses it, you sort of have to as well.

Once you have the power to own everything that can generate the power to own things, it's over. Markets are great. Monopolies are not markets. Libertarians take note! And MS wasn't just a Baby Huey, good-naturedly and inadvertantly squashing competitors. It wasn't just big, it was evil. MS is a sleazy, sociopathic entity. It cheats, it lies, it extorts, it bullies, it bribes.

Stereotypes

[Snorpus]

Massachusetts is considered a high tech haven, West Virginia a low tech backwater. I wonder what local politics led to these decisions.

Re:Stereotypes

[MacAndrew]

Actually they might be both characterized as states who ships have sailed. I like Mass. and lived there ten years; the disappointment in losing the Massachusetts Miracle tech industry, and now even Polaroid, was clear. The state is hardly at the end of the line, it's just waiting for rebirth, like after they finish that Big Dig interstate reconstruction.

As for WV, well, I bought gas there once! I too would like to know the political considerations. Really, they're not risking much money, and maybe they have less to lose by possibly alienating MS.

Re:Stereotypes

[krinsh]

Actually West Virginia is a bedroom community for thousands of workers in Northern VA, DC, Baltimore, and even Pittsburgh. Martinsburg, Clarksburg, Huntington, Morgantown, Charleston (the state capital) and a few other places are sites for lots of aerospace, astronomy, and mining interests. Martinsburg houses several Federal government computing facilities for the IRS, the VA, and the U.S. Coast Guard; as well as training centers for other Federal agencies - I know of OPM and one more I won't mention since I used to work for them [and don't like them at all anymore for personal reasons]. I am sure there are dozens of companies and three-letter government agencies with places out here - a quick search on Dice reveals lots of high-tech jobs if you know IBM, DB2, or financial systems like [D.B.?] Edwards.

I think regardless of the porkbelly legislation, West Virginia's Congresspeople and Senators at the DC level do try and get communications/data center work into the state - though they may not have a real concern over the salaries paid to the people manning those facilities.

Re:Why?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"So if they break up MS, it would be replaced with what...? OSS alternatives generating $0 tax revenue, and 0 jobs?"

Or what happens if they heavily fine MS? Besides making their stock price plummit (bad for economy as other companies would suffer from that as well), what would it really do? I'm hard pressed to imagine that a fine would make them say "well we better prevent that from happening again". At best it'll make them say "huh. We can act like this, and it only costs this much. Let's figure out how efficient we can be!"

Heh.

Wrong.

[MacAndrew]

Bush pardoning a death sentence? Well, that's something you don't see everyday.

That's something you don't see ever. Especially in Texas.

Reality check: No death penalty was in the offing; this isn't even a criminal prosecution; and the only thing really at stake was Bill Gates's shot at becoming the first trillionaire. If Microsoft had been divided into software and OS divisions, does anyone seriously think that either BabySoft would have failed? Or that the quality of their products would have declined? (MS haters: substitute could for would.)

President Bush comes from a political philosophy that is anti-antitrust. It's pretty simple.

Um ... ExxonMobil?

[MacAndrew]

Think you got that one backwards chief. :)

we all do

[g4dget]

It is quite clear that there will be no noteworthy changes to the original settlement, so any interested parties (mostly Microsoft's competitors) don't have anything to gain.

A loss doesn't look good; the attorneys general that are pursuing this case wouldn't waste time on if if they thought they didn't have a chance to win it.

The real question is why the other states aren't pursuing it further. I suspect that's because of heavy lobbying and "campaign donations" by Microsoft, convincing politicians that what's good for Microsoft is good for the country.

Would other states join if economy were better?

[ClubLeader]

If I were to hazard a guess, I would guess that if the state of the economy were better, most, if not all, of the other seven states would join. Nearly every state is broke and have other things that are of a higher priority at this time. I'm sure that the economy is hurting M$ but they can just downsize. Government never finds it easy to downsize so M$ probably has the advantage.

Re:Would other states join if economy were better?

[geek]

The state of the economy has little to do with it. In actuality it's all politics.

This trial is incredibly expensive. States have a limited budget for prosecuting, they recieve this budget regardless of the state of the economy. Each states District Attorneys has to make due with that budget as best they can. They have murders and rapists to deal with, MS rates pretty low on the scale as far as prioity is concerned. The average citizen could care less about the MS case, but they do care if a rapist is roaming their neighborhood.

Besides that the point of this trial was to draw attention. The states and feds never would have gotten what they wanted, it just wasn't in the cards. These trials ar more about bringing public awareness than justice. Now everyone knows there is something wrong in Redmond, where before they may not have. In the end consumers will decide.

In other news...

[Transcendent]

Microsoft dodges yet another possible bankrupting lawsuit by buying the entire state of Massachusetts...

David Boies did his job-the rest is post game

[vandelais]

Boies should be attorney General instead of Ashcroft, but is too smart to take the pay cut.

That rotten judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
His indiscretion cost the whole world global domination for one company.
If he would have kept his mouth shut, none of this would have happened.

Jackson's findings of fact were correct, Bill Gates and other Microsoft execs lied in court, and Microsoft should be broken up--period.

Ken Starr could crucify Gates over his testimony if he could put forth as much effort as he did over Clinton's perjury. Put Gates on trial, that's my solution. I bet Boies would do it pro bono if Ellison and co. sent him a few briefcases full of cash.

Re:David Boies did his job-the rest is post game

[krinsh]

I bet Boies would do it pro bono if Ellison and co. sent him a few briefcases full of cash.

... but then it wouldn't be pro bono, would it? If money's the source of all evil why do we all need it so much for food?

Re:What good comes out of this?

[lost sheep]

Acting against a monopoly is not trying to shut down MS [or severely disrupt it], but rather, to keep them from using their OS muscle to push around developers of other products.

Imagine that you're Real Audio a couple of years ago. You've come up with a great product. However, Microsoft not only tries to make your product irrelevant (i.e. building Windows Media Player into Windows), but also uses their OS to crash your product (demonstrated during initial trial).

Actions against monopolies are to protect against one company using dominance in one area to corner other markets. I for one, as a CS undergrad, am for court action against MS. Why? 'cause what happens if 5~10 years from now I create a great app for windows. MS decides that they want to sell my app, so they build a clone. Not only that, after the latest "Service Pack," my app crashes constantly and their's becomes more stable. Protection against that scenario is the good that will come out of a ruling against MS. A fair ruling would protect developers and developers that want to build on top of Windows.

By the way, I was born and raised in West-By-God-Virginia

Re:Of course they are capable of more they can say

[man_ls]

Agreed.

It's not so much the application, iexplore.exe, that is the fundamental part of the OS, it's the MSHTML rendering engine that comes in the Internet Explorer backend DLLs.

Most applications, if they want to launch a web session or access HTML content, load an iexplore.exe inside of their own window, instead of rendering the page itself. Easier that way...

IE isn't just the program people use to browse the Internet; the API (seems) to involve quite a bit of talking to the application itself, not just the backend. Designed, no doubt, to make something like that easier -- for my database program to be able to show me the manufactuerer's web site, inside it's own window, while still correctly rendering all the scripts, etc.

(IANA Developer)

lawyer fees

[MacAndrew]

Last I heard, the states had $25 million to divvy up. California I believe had the largest share of expenses.

So Microsoft pays. It's a win-win, ha-ha. I doubt the states will be reimbursed more than actual costs. I also assume/hope the law has some safety valve against nonsense prolongation of the litigation, but this appeal sounds meritorious if doomed.

(And, it should be noted, an appeal costs peanuts compared to the $25 million -- tens of thousands, maybe. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind, they want to be sure this is done right.)

mm lawyers

[Flamesplash]

The nice thing about lawyers in this case is that a small mistake made in a lawyers case doesn't really hurt the overal product, however in software that isn't true. I'd rather have a lawyer whine a lot than have to test NxNxNxN... extra test cases myself...

Re:What good comes out of this?

[geek]

" We have law makers introducing anti-terorism laws [e.g. patriot act et al.] You have law makers introducing new adjustments to miranda, you have law makers trying to break up a computer firm in a tough economic time."

The above is false. The miranda case currently in review is in regards to a police officer who shot and blinded/crippled a mexican immigrant for no particular reason and is now trying to justify a false confession from him while riding in the ambulance to the hospital with him and harrassing a confession out of him. The case is bogus background noise to try and save the officer from going to jail.

"Suppose they manage to shut down MS [or severely disrupt it]. What comes of that? 1000s of people lose their jobs."

No one is trying to shut down MS. They are trying to find justice for the companies MS has destroyed.

"By making MSFT illegal and leaving linux as the only option you'd actually be hurting the industry, not helping it."

There are many options, Apple, Linux, FreeBSD, Sun. The list would be much larger if it wasn't for MS shutting down companies such as Be Inc. and destroying OS/2's chances of making it. If MS got out of the way today, there would be 20 companies inline tomorrow to pick up the slack. It's called a free market and is the only proven method for economic stability and growth.

"When linux distros actually compete with Windows [e.g. in a meaningful sense, having 1500 packages on 3 CD's is not "competition" when installing a GFX driver can kill the install] then we'll see the beginning of the demise of Windows."

Agaian, no one is wishing for the demise of windows. It has it's place just like Linux does. Linux will never be as userfriendly as Windows or MacOS. Linux developers don't care about that nether do most Linux users. It's only when a "company" is held accountable for it's products due to bad sales/no sales that the product advances. Linux for this reason will always be playing catchup until some company picks it up and actually does something with it. However they cant do something with it because they have to make it freely available and like my mom says "If you're going to give it away, no one is going to pay you for it". It's just as simple as that.

we win even if we don't win

[g4dget]

It's worth pointing out that even just the legal scrutiny often causes companies to change their business practices profoundly.

For example, there was never really a decisive victory against IBM, but the decade of ongoing legal scrutiny caused IBM to change their business practices greatly, in many areas. As a specific example, the fact that the PC is a fairly open architecture is a result of such legal efforts: IBM only outsourced the PC operating system to Microsoft because they were afraid that bundling hardware and software would get them dragged into court again.

While this created another monopoly in the form of Microsoft, the overall outcome was still better than the alternative, a closed, all-IBM solution. The fact that the PC software was separate from IBM hardware allowed a third party hardware market to flourish and indirectly made software like Linux possible.

So, nibbling away legally at monopolists like IBM and Microsoft does produce long-term benefits, even if such efforts fail to produce groundbreaking short-term victories. The efforts against IBM opened up the PC hardware/software platform, and similar long-term efforts against Microsoft may kill the Microsoft monopoly as well.

And there are indications that Microsoft is changing subtly under this pressure already. But the point is: the longer the legal pressure is on them, the more they will change. This is not the time to lean back and say "oh, we'll just stick with this little settlement". It is on-going lawsuits, not some signature under a settlement, that ultimately keeps companies like Microsoft in check.

The judges have to eventually take notice

[mao che minh]

There is a good reason why nearly the entire computing industry, from small mom-and-pop shop to Sun Microsystems hates Microsoft. The concern that many politicians show about the role of Microsoft in our world is valid. The multiple trials and appeals and bickering and complaining is justified.

Eventually, we have to get a judge that either sees the sense in all of it, or cannot be bought, or (hopefully) both. How much more can will it take?

Imagine if all this money were spent on Linux!!!

[MarkWPiper]

Just an interesting though: what if all the money that went in to this trial went into development of Free software instead? (We might be a lot farther along. There can be more than one way to make competition...) Anyone know how much has been spent??

MS exists because of anti-trust efforts agnst IBM

[g4dget]

MS turned the PC market into a commodity market.

Yes, and you know why MS got the opportunity to do this? Because IBM was subject to the same legal scrutiny as Microsoft is now. IBM outsourced the PC operating system to MS because IBM was afraid of more anti-trust action if they did both the PC hardware and software in-house. Note that influencing IBM in this area wasn't the result of an actual settlement, it was the consequence of on-going legal scrutiny and the threat of lawsuits.

Today, Microsoft is the monopoly that kills innovation and competitiveness. And we can apply the same strategy to Microsoft as we did to IBM decades ago: on-going legal scrutiny and on-going lawsuits. Discovery, legal proceedings, and the threat of legal judgements have the teeth that anti-trust settlements lack. This is what will keep Microsoft in check, just like it did IBM.

Re:WV not W.Va.

[MacAndrew]

Well it was part of Virginia until y'all got principled on us! (Kudos!)

Re:Why?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Heh, I'm the troll?

Whatever.

You may resume goosestepping around chanting "Down with Microsoft". You wouldn't want to waste any brainpower actually thinking about the situation.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Imagine if all this money were spent on Linux!!

[El]

What if every government or private entity that disaproved of Micro$oft tactics simply stopped buying their products??? That would punish them far more than anything the courts are going to acheive, and would do much to promote alternatives such as Free/Open Source Software.

IANAL proposal

[MacAndrew]

I've been thinking, we should change IANAL to IANALBIHAOA (I'm Not A Lawyer But I Have An Opinion Anyway). ;-)

Funny thing, the U.S. dropped the tying claim altogether. They stuck to the 2 monopoly claim. This article describes the why and how (caution: may cause blurry vision).

My non-expert opinion is that DOJ sabotaged its own case on a go-easy directive from above. Actually, it may not have needed any such directive, as President Bush appointed people sympathetic to his views and the views of his supporters -- all people I would describe as antagonistic to antitrust generally. More than one conservative has proposed abolishing the department.

Re:IANAL proposal

[MacAndrew]

Oh, I know IANAL is a CYA (and a lawyer would include one in a posting, too), I just argue for full disclosure. It's pretty funny to preface something with "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this is how it'd be if I were in charge." But what the heck, people can read between the lines.

And IAAL, just slumming here I guess. :) Being a lawyer sure as hell doesn't mean you know what your talking about, just that you're paid to talk.

Easy but...

[MacAndrew]

Microsoft could offer a selective install option like, say, Apple does, but it doesn't want to. I refuse to believe there are serious technical obstacles -- even if they can't extirpate all of, say, the browser code, all they have to do it sabotage access to it. Why would anyone do this is they didn't at least save disk space? Well, they wouldn't, but Microsoft doesn't wan to give up even this much control, and worried what vendors who preinstall the OS might do.

MS (correctly) perceives that it is doomed if it does not branch out into newer and different industries from its stalwart OS. It is not enough to keep its OS's on as many machines as possible, because its monopoly will not hold forever, and when it breaks so will their profit margins. The Web caught it off-guard; now it thinks it can conquer it. The easiest and most familiar way to do so is to bootstrap via the OS advantage. Hence its aggressive efforts to slot IE into everyone's desktop including Apple's (which seems to have gone away now).

Also, MS has for years now used a scorched earth policy towards any competitor. It viewed the government as just another opponent. Its recent recent experience appears to be making it less arrogant and more political. There was even an NYT magazine article on the kinder, gentler Steve Ballmer.

microsoft will die eventually

[Anonymous Coward]

The root of the problem is the line between applications and operating system is blurred. If you can't say what is and isn't part of an operating system, you can't prevent MS from unfairly bundling its own applications with Windows.

Until somebody comes up with a definitive answer as to what constitutes an operating system, Microsoft will be able to do as it pleases.

I doubt that any such strict boundries can be determined, such is the nature of software. The reality is that Microsoft will continue to steal any financially viable idea and put the originator out of business, until they own the entire industry.

When that day comes they will be forced to open their codebase and MS will be no more. In short, Microsoft will eat itself to death.

Tax operating systems.

[Nick Driver]

If I were to hazard a guess, I would guess that if the state of the economy were better, most, if not all, of the other seven states would join. Nearly every state is broke and have other things that are of a higher priority at this time. I'm sure that the economy is hurting M$ but they can just downsize. Government never finds it easy to downsize so M$ probably has the advantage.

Now is the time for the states to tax the sale of software (separately from the normal sales tax). Of course, when you're favorite O/S and apps are free, guess which ones everybody will migrate towards :-)

Re:Of course they are capable of more they can say

[Todd Knarr]

Actually, MS went to great lengths to make the browser not part of the OS. That's the whole point of COM/COM+/DCOM/.Net/flavor-of-the-week. They have an interface called IBrowser that defines a way for applications to ask a component to render HTML pages. Components that provide that interface can be installed on the system, IE being one example. An application can ask the system for a list of all components that provide the IBrowser interface, instantiate an instance of one of them and use it. The whole point was to decouple the IBrowser interface from the component that implements it, so that you could have multiple implementations as the situation demanded.

Of course, what happened along the way was that MS went from the minor player trying to create a way to insure that there wasn't anything special about those big third-party apps that everybody had to have (if they were all just COM components that provided standard interfaces then swapping that Oracle database out for MS SQL Server would be easy) to a company trying to keep everybody else from easily replacing it's aps (if browsers are just COM components that provide a standard IBrowser interface then swapping IE out for Mozilla would be easy).

HA!

[Cinematique]

I guess we can all stop the stereotypical cracks about WV for being a bunch of stupid illiterate hillbillies, huh.

yeah WOooo HOOO

[BroadbandBradley]

You get those Bastards WV, take them to the cleaners and LEAVE THEM THERE. we're all done with MS now, we don't need or want them anymore.

Rock on WV.

3.47 cents a minute, no monthly fee.

[raehl]

Why, how much do you pay?

Both AT&T and MCI have pre-paid calling cards that are sub-3.5 cents a minute. You can set them up to autorecharge. No monthly fees, no late fees when you forget to pay your bill, extremely cheap long distance. Use those. Only downside is an extra 20 digits when you want to call somewhere.

Deregulation and competion works. I now get local and long distance service (7 cents a minute, for when I'm feeling especially lazy and the call is going to be short) for $30/month, everything included. That's compared to the combined $50 I was paying Sprint and SBC Ameritech for my service and features before (the vast majority of which was going to Ameritech). Hell, if you do a lot of calling, they have a $50/month plan with UNLIMITTED LONG DISTANCE. Nice.

Re:This Will Get Modded Troll

[Alien Being]

Trying to get on with life is exactly what this is about. We want MS to stop restricting what we as consumers and competitors can do.

We want our vendors to have the right to sell us a linux or dual-boot box without losing their right to sell MS.

We want MS to tell the damned truth.

As of Win 3.1, BG was oblivious to the Net/WWW. He figured that the world's computers would all be connected by the MSNetwork, when *he* was ready to do it. 3.1 didn't even have a TCP/IP stack. Suddenly IE is a core component of the OS? Of course not, it was purely an embrace-and-extend tactic.

"It's soooo old."
Yeah, it's old, but not so old that we don't remember the exciting and competetive mini and micro days before the 800 pound gorilla sat on us all. The personal computer revolution was about to happen with or without the kid from Seattle. He jumped aboard the train as it was gaining steam and highjacked it.

Believe it or not, I'm not religiously anti-MS. I was very happy to have Bill's Basic available on many pre-PC machines. I was happy to be able to walk into the store buy a copy of DOS5.0 when I bought a used PC with the drive wiped clean.

What I'm vehemently against is their ability and willingness to stifle and/or steal the fruit of other people's ideas and hard work. If I were still a customer, I'd also be very upset at the way my data was being held hostage.

choice?

[MegaFur]

To think people have no choice between, for example, SQL Server and Oracle

We want the desktop you insensitive, M$ clod! All that stuff you mention is aimed at backend, server type stuff. I know it's a hopeless pipedream, but the Linux zealots (includes me, marginally) want the desktop!

Choice! Ha! I laugh at your idea of "choice".

Seriously, are you going to get your opinion of any company from someone who quit after 3 weeks?

I don't base my opinion on that. My first inklinkgs of a negative opinion of M$ goes back to 1994. When I realized that DOS and the splashy GUI I was using (Win 3.11) were made by the same company, I was at a lose to explain why I couldn't close a DOS window by double clicking the little button on the upper left of the window. After all, it worked for all the Windows programs. But not for the DOS windows. But the programs are made by the same damn compnay.

Then I went away for the summer and heard about the new Win95. I saw it but was not greatly impressed. Then when I got back, some weirdo on campus showed me OS/2 Warp. Then I found that while I'd been gone, M$ had sent me an issue of a magazine that was essencially nothing but a big commercial for M$. I wondered why I'd never heard of OS/2 before. I felt like I'd been betrayed on some deep level by not being told that there was more than one OS in the world. I wonder how many non-computer-savvy people in the world still don't know this basic fact. It's like the people chained up in the cave. They've not seen the light.

Then I started to notice (over time) that not only was M$ a near monopoly, their products sucked, crashed a lot, and, M$ played the game dirty. That was what pissed me off the most. On second thought, no, it was the crappy software that pissed me off the most. The other thing was just a close second.

Now that M$ is all the way up to XP, the crappy software is mostly a thing of the past. M$ apps seem to run pretty solidly now (I'm not saying that XP is the first version to be able to make that claim, I'm just saying that it is that way now).

But I will never forgive them for playing the game dirty. It's not that I have a problem with them competing with other businesses and trying to win and drive other businesses out of business (although, despite what some people say, that's not always the best strategy for a business). It's the way they do it. Do you realize what company you're working for? Can you really look at yourself in the mirror each morning? Really?

If you see a person bleeding to death on the street, will you help them? Because I'm not so sure Ballmer or Gates would.

Yes, yes, I know. I'm a crazy lunatic. Don't worry about it, I'm just venting. :-P

Re:I figured this was a good place to put this...

[smittyoneeach]

r0xah,
I dig getting paid, too. And I'll be the first to admit I've written wreams of code on MS platforms.
Agreed, much of what you hear here is the sound of a full diaper.
The other extreme is an ostrich-like attitude about fascist business practices. "What's good for MS is good for the US" is not much of an answer. I personally worry that the US stands to be at an economic disadvantage to the rest of the world because we've optimized ourselves to bow to Redmond at the expense of knowing how to get anything done, rendering US business less competitive.
Particularly offensive is crap like this. Government stuff is supposed to be all about the lowest bidder. Who bids lower than the GPL? TCO arguments do have merit, so make them. Show me that forking over a pile of cash to Redmond gets us a better memo.

Re:What good comes out of this?

[Caid Raspa]

I've been saying this for a few years now. The best way to "adjust" MSFT "way of business" is to hurt them fairly. Sell a better product.

I most wholeheartedly agree. The MS dominant market position and unfair competition (closed and fluctuating file formats etc.) just makes this really hard. Playing fair against someone who is 100 times bigger and plays dirty is too much for most people. I have not yet given up the hope.

Linux is a good product, but it is not being actively sold, at least not here. I have never seen a Linux/OpenOffice/pine/gcc/whatever commercial outside the geek-world.

Open source advocacy si the solution. MS-bashing may speed things up, but I'll not waste my time on that. Most people I know don't like MS, they feel it is a blood-sucking monopoly. What needs to be done is to show them the alternatives, and let them rationally decide whether they want to try it. I have started actively advocating for Open Source a few months ago (when I was forced to get a Windows workstation to our workplace, but that's another story.). Two successes so far.

When my wife got a new laptop for her birthday, I installed Linux and asked her to try it. She used to have an ancient 386DX with Win 3.1 and Word 6.0. (The main use is stadard text editing, so 386 was perfectly good for that.). After a few weeks, I asked if it's OK to remove Windows, as she had not used it. And now it's gone.

A political association I'm active in decided to get a part-time employee. We have an old Pentium, and it has so far been used mainly for updating our webpages (Win95 + Frontpage, the people are used to that.). Now, we needed Office suite so that the employee could actually. I asked whether we could try OpenOffice first, as it's free. If it would suck, we could buy Office later anyway. And people seem to be happy with it. Propagating this to the OS side seems to be perfectly possible, and also forwarding it to our sister associations.

Starting form the grassroots, and just asking 'couldn't you try the free one 1st and buy something only if you really need' seems to work. I'm just asking the question when people are forced to upgrade or buy something new. This may not work for large corporations, but you have to start somewhere.

Quibble:

[Happy Monkey]

Please vote for one of the following:
[ ] Big Industry Patsy/Media Cartel Puppet (R)
[ ] Media Cartel Puppet/Big Industry Patsy (D)
[ ] Piss Away Vote (I)

WV Has No Clue - Trial Lawyers Rule

[Black-Man]

I hate Microsoft, but WV is a state owned by the trial lawyers. Highest workman's comp claims, high malpractice insurance premiums forcing doctors to leave in droves, etc.

And you sound like the typical hillbilly... it's those big bad corporations fault! The coal industry ruined our state! Yeah... no West Virginian never got rich.

Now... no corporation wants anything to do w/ the backward state. But, there is hope. Once the Eastern Panhandle becomes the most populace area - the politics of the past will be gone.

In Other Words...

[waltc]

...a judge who agrees with you is a judge who "sees the sense in all of it", right?

Good grief. How many lynch mobs have behaved in precisely the same dull-witted, imbecilic, zombie-like manner? Not knowing, not caring about the "facts," a lynch mob doesn't rest until the noose snaps tight. After that, it takes the time to consider its actions.

Your idea that "nearly the entire computing industry hates Microsoft," is truly one of the most egregiously ridiculous statements I've ever heard. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of software and hardware companies world wide which owe their existence--their entire success--to the market Microsoft built with Windows. In fact, Microsoft could never in a million years have built such a market without the aid of all of these companies consciously working to build a market. The idea that Microsoft did it alone is sheer nonsense *chuckle*--the Dells, Gateways, Microns, HPs and all the rest in this world have contributed just as much if not more to the Windows market as Microsoft has.

The kind of thinking which places Microsoft in its current position and forgets all of the other corporations sharing in and assisting in Microsoft's market illustrates the most extreme kind of ignorance.

Frankly, I'm sick of the self-righteousness of deluded people who think the courts, the companies--and anybody else who stands in their way--is wrong. It's really looking like a pathetic viewpoint these days.

Deny them the fruits of the crime

[Sloppy]

Thus spake the West Virginia AG:

"No reputable government should plead poverty and allow an adjudicated lawbreaker to retain their ill-gotten gains."

The fact that the settlement did not address the "fruits of the crime" was my main gripe with it. I think it kicks ass that someone's approaching from that angle.

If it weren't for the monopoly abuses, almost nobody would be using any Microsoft products today. Most of Microsoft's 1987-to-date (approx) revenue should be taken from them.

Microsoft's only legitimate defense against this, would be to attack the morality of anti-trust law itself, and even I with all my hatred for them, have quite a bit of sympathy for that position. But if you don't like a law, repeal it. I don't see Elcomsoft being let off simply because DMCA is immoral.

Re:This Will Get Modded Troll

[NineNine]

Hmmm.. retail (any big box store), denim (Cone Mills), soft drinks (Coke & Pepsi), and many other products that you've never even heard of, and also the components of many of the products that you use every day. There are plenty of 'em. You just don't know about any outside of your little geek sphere of influence. Pick up a business magazine or two. You may actually learn something.

Again, you're asuming that A. MS has a monopoly, which they don't, and B. that a monopoly is a bad thing, which I don't think that it necesarily is and C. that they're "predatory", which happens to describe every other for-profit company on the planet.

Re:I figured this was a good place to put this...

[Melantha_Bacchae]

I'm not tired, I'm furious!

Microsoft has:

Been tried and found guilty of multiple counts of breaking the law.

Left behind a trail of broken companies. (No, there are no guaranties or "rights" to success in business, but being viciously attacked by a huge predator is another story. Huge predators should not be running loose in a civilized society.)

Cost countless businesses and individuals many hours of productivity, lost documents, and damage to systems due to faulty software and security holes you could drive a truck through (or so the FBI warns us). Why should the FBI have to issue a warning about a new release of an operating system (Windows XP) in the first place?

Terrorized their customers with accusations and audits into buying more licenses than they needed.

Bullied a third of their customers into accepting License 6 (despite their customers' complaints that they had to cancel projects and lay off workers to afford it), and then Microsoft crowed about their "unearned profits".

The list goes on and on. All of these items have been documented in the media, most in the past couple years. I'm furious with Microsoft for having done these things. And I'm outraged at my government for letting them walk away with a wet tissue paper lease after having been found guilty of committing crimes. Where is the justice for those who have been wronged? Why is this huge corporation being allowed to rampage freely and do more harm?

Time to appeal to a higher court, 55 meters tall!

Microsoft:

The crown is not yours.
Footsteps drum a dirge of doom
By nuclear rage!

The world's great hero,
Dreaded God and Monster King,
Millennium ends.

Re:Imagine if all this money were spent on Linux!!

[krinsh]

Why not spend all this money on Linux...!? But, but, isn't that the point of Linux - NOT spending money on it? So you're going to use the same tactic you so obviously egregiously deplore -- giving it away for free until it is locked in; then charge for it?

Re: Ease of install, 3 CDs, etc.

[tomhudson]

1. Mandrake 9.0 is the easiest install of any OS I've ever seen;
2. Remember, when you complain about installing 3 CDs, you're not just installing the OS, you're installing over 1000 apps as well, without having to reboot after installing each app;
3. It's actually quicker and easier to install, (along with > 1000 apps), than just Windows and Office