Slashdot Mirror
Time For Anti-Trust 2.0?
An anonymous reader writes, "PC manufacturer Acer is complaining that Microsoft has jacked up the price of Vista, and that the basic versions are so basic no one will ship them. Since the collapse of the Microsoft anti-trust case under the Bush administration in 2001, manufacturers have no choice but to accede, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of each PC. With Gates now proclaiming victory over European regulators, Microsoft once again seems unstoppable. But Microsoft had drawn itself
close to the Republican Party.
With the Republicans now evicted from the House and Senate, is it time to
look at the Microsoft anti-trust suit?
Could Microsoft be compelled to lower its inflating Vista prices,
or to open their tech or even supply funding
to Linux-flavored Windows such as Wine? What do Slashdot readers think about the likelihood of another go at breaking up the Windows monopoly?"
I welcome high prices on w32. There are alternatives, said manufactures could just install one of those.
Now, if the prices dependent on not selling anything by w32, I can see the point, and that should be fined so heavily that they never, ever dream of doing it again.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Probably something like "good luck".
Look at what M$ is pulling with Novel and Linux. This is typical M$ arrogance and disdain for the law.
They should have been broken up before, and they should now.
No one, or company should be allowed to act this way in any modern society.
Cheers.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Ship it with the cheap version. If users want more, they can, gasp, choose to pay more!
Mind you, I particularly don't care much for MS, however if anti-trust can break its monopoly, I do believe that it will bring about a great revolution in software quality that will be seen for many years to come. More competition = better choices for us. =)
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
The Democrats in the congress do not have enough political capital to waste on slaying Microsoft. In under 2 years, no less. Not when there are other priorities.
Plus, I say let them jack up prices. Let manufacturers hurt. It may convince them to introduce Ubuntu pre-loaded machines. Why not? It doesn't require a complete changeover, just a quiet new line of products. Snowball effect, at some point. Surely they see the trend of the snowball coming their way, anyhow.
Or price the same machines without an OS. It's simple enough that car ads and other products do that. Most ads offer the 2007 model Toyota whatever, starting at $9,999. Well, we all know that's base model. But that magic 9 price grabs our eyeballs and does it's job all the same.
"manufacturers have no choice but to accede"
er, no
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I only use Windows to play Half-Life. At work I've already blown it away and use Linux exclusively on my workstation. I've also replaced 4 of our 5 servers with Linux.
So why do you guys act as if you even HAVE to use Windows? Games aren't a requirement, and if nobody buys games because they can't afford Vista, then they'll have to release a few more Linux games.
The submission takes a bunch of half truthes, wishfull thinking and hope for revenge and throws it altogether to make a stew designed to rile up the /. reader. Don't bite.
The truth:
1. OEM Windows licenses are nowhere close to "hundreds of dollars". You'll still be able to buy $500 PCs
2. Force to open to WINE?!?!?! Are you smoking crack? The judge migh, literally, laugh.
3. Microsoft has not "won" over EU regulators yet. This is only one battle.
4. Just because we have a democratic congress is no reason to look for revenge "killings." Yes, MS is a Monopoly that totaly abuses it's position in a way that's damaging to its competition, but have you heard we're at war? The new congress should look at MS again before too long, but definately not right now. They have far more important work to do.
I'm glad people are still interested in this subject, but you definately need to start looking at this realistically. This isn't so much a start as an unrealistic rant.
TW
MS are busily pricing themselves out of the market. I don't have a problem with that.
This is not a signature.
Ignorance of economics and the Constitution flourish here.
--- Bill
The great majority of people who acquire Vista will not do so by buying Vista on an entirely new machine. Therefore, what the full retail price of Vista is does not have a lot of impact here. Anyone who thinks Gateway, Dell, or HP pays full retail for Vista (or XP) needs to take off their rose-colored glasses and look again. Acer probably doesn't pay retail either, although they also probably do pay more than "the big three".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Did Microsoft stop selling Windows XP while I wasn't looking?
"No choice" indeed. Does anyone on slashdot have any critical thinking skills at all?
High prices could be a good thing. To average Joe, Windows is simply a part of the computer, and he doesn't think about it. But to the manufacturers, this will represent a place where they can cut prices. Not shipping Windows, and with OSs like Ubuntu becoming so good nowadays, there is a real alternative: even for average Joe. Dell gave a refund for an unused copy of Windows the other week and I think this is just that start of things to come.
I actually don't think much needs to be done to break the Microsoft monopoly. Unlike when the first Anti-trust law was going on, there is now a real choice of operating system. (It's so cliché but) next year could be the big year of Linux.
But hey, we could always speed it up...
Nobody has mentioned the fact that within a few months of release, Vista will be the ONLY Microsoft operating system you can get on an OEM PC. You won't be able to buy an XP machine anymore because Microsoft doesn't want you to. In a free market, Windows XP would become cheaper and due to the fact that it's battle-tested, will probably be more desirable for some time, than Vista.
But there is not a free market, is there? You can't buy an OEM PC without paying some sort of windows tax, with few exceptions. And the latest windows tax is Vista.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
The justice dept is run by the white house and there is no way in hell this white house is going to go after any corporation let alone MS.
evil is as evil does
...are question marks after every headline.
5 Stories ago the war was won and over. Now MS are back to evil monopoly status and government intervention is required apparently to defeat them. Again.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
While I imagine that the increased cost of Vista will not make a huge impact on OEM computer sales, it's still an impact. And right now, any loss in the Windows marketshare is a bad thing.
I'm not trolling, I'm dead serious- and I'm no windows fanboy either. Sadly, Linux still isn't quite ready for Joe Desktop. It's come a long way, and is certainly getting there, but it's just not ready yet. I'm a Linux user myself, and it is definitely poised to hit the (non-enthusiast) desktop scene in a big way, but not just yet. Be patient.
So, if Microsoft drives anyone away from Windows, where do you think the displaced users would go? Apple. And frankly, the thought scares the shit out of me. If they get a hold on the market, Apple will enslave the industry more than Microsoft ever has or ever will. M$ at least knows their place, and generally sticks to software.
So please... just hope that M$ does not shoot themselves in the foot, for a few more months at least! If a Microsoft backlash were to happen now, it would only benefit Apple!
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
Think about it this way. $600-$100 per machine is a lot to spend for an OS; most individuals won't want to spend the cash for the bells and whistles and more importantly, once they get acquanted with vista and what each version has, they'll want certain hardware with a certain OS version on it. Which means it will be very difficult to give a customer something which they want; functional, stable hardware with usable applications. You'll go, see that dream HP, buy it and take it home to find programs such as calculator or certain necissary networking features completly absent.
Which means an easy-to-use linux with a good gui, which is just around the corner, has a great opportunity to grow.
More importantly, corporate machines, which are used for few tasks and require little interoperability beyond those tasks from their users, will now cost $600 apiece. POS (point of sale) machines, accounting, 3d design and word processing software, and even simpler things like managerial software will all be able to be run off of linux and since that's all that machine will be doing, it will be superior to the vista machine in cost and usability.
The only downside is that places which go with vista, will be vista only; microsoft will assuredly, under the premise of terrorism and data security, say they don't want to share their protocols with anyone and their protocols which are supposed to be, you know, standards compliant, won't be.
Did I mention the machines will be more crippled than their predicessors and individuals looking to do things such as file-share or burn, mix and copy music will have to use alternative means to do so?
Or they can ship with OS/2, Serenity Systems sell them nowadays. Not IBM. It's unkillable :-)
Or they can write their own operating system, or get out of the Personal Computer business and into the Games Console business.
Plenty of choices.
This story is overflowing with FUD and misrepresentation. A routine fact-check will demonstrate this. Let's pull this apart:
According to Jim Wong, senior corporate vice president of the Taiwan-based company, the issue is simply that the basic home edition of Vista, Home Basic, which is available for preorder on Amazon.co.uk for 154.99 pounds ($293), is so basic that users will be forced to move to Vista Home Premium, at 189.99 pounds ($359).
First of all, they got the prices of Vista wrong: Vista Home Basic (non-upgrade) is 185 GBP; Vista Home Premium is 224 GBP.
Second, price-conversion. Everybody knows that you don't take the street price of a product in British pounds, run it through xe.com, and come out with the street price in USD. Microsoft's MSRP on Vista Home Basic (non-upgrade) is $199 USD, -not- $293 as given in the article. Vista Home Premium (non-upgrade) is $239 USD. Note that the MSRP on XP Home Edition is $199 USD, the same as Vista Home Basic.
Third, Microsoft has never sold an edition of Windows with the Media Center included on the retail market, so in a way there isn't really any good point of comparison.... of -course- it's going to be more expensive than XP Home.
"The new (Vista) experience you hear of, if you get Basic, you won't feel it at all," Wong told PC Pro magazine. "There's no (Aero) graphics, no Media Center, no remote control."
Yeah well, guess what? some people just don't want or need that stuff. Actually, I'd hazard a guess and say that the vast majority of users don't want or need Media Center functionality or a remote control. That's not what's worth harping on about. Home Premium does have a lot of neat things in it, especially for mobile users, media centers, tablet PC owners, etc., but it's useless for a lot of people who just use their computer to get stuff done.
Wong also said that the manufacturer's license for Vista Home Premium is 10 percent more expensive than for XP Home.
It's also got far more functionality (Media Center, new mobility features, XBox 360 connectivity, Tablet PC features) than XP Home Edition or Vista Home Basic Edition, the latter of which Acer is refusing to sell to its customers.
"We have to pay more but users are not going to pay more," Wong said. This would mean an increase in the cost to PC manufacturers of 1 percent to 2 percent, according to Wong, in a business where the profit margin is around 5 percent or less.
Quit your bitching, Mr. Wong. If the price of Windows is going up by 10% because you are choosing to force a higher edition on your customers, you pass that price increase on to users... it's not your job as a company to absorb price increases from Microsoft.
At the top of the Vista lineup is the Ultimate Edition, which can be preordered for 325 pounds ($614) and, again, is significantly more expensive than the XP operating system it replaces.
Ultimate Edition is covers a lot more ground than XP Professional. The thing comes with Media Center, twice as many games (good ones, too, like Chess and Majongg), backup software that doesn't suck, a bunch of extra software and add-ons analogous to the XP Plus! Pack, and even a friggin' UNIX stack to boot -- and that's not even going into
Maybe there is need to challenge Microsoft lawyers again in court. Vista prices are like extremely over priced generally. There is no point in Home Basic since it's missing important features like A.E.R.O. And somehow Ultimate doesn't offer anything special for the price point it ships. Expect huge discounts in future. When Ultimate comes with $200 price tag I think it will be acceptable. Home Premium for $100. And business for $150 or something.
But I don't like the idea that Microsoft will share their code with projects like Wine. Instead they should provide their own APIs for linux themselfs so that existing windows products (read: games) could be run on linux. Porting DirectX on linux isn't impossible task, but it's hard. Cedega is one example of that. Plus that API should be licensed in GPL or similar license. So that it won't be able to get hijacked.
-Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
I see this as similar to the drug companies. You people think its outrageous for a company to make a profit on something they spend years & millions of dollars developing. So what if they charge $200 for a decent OS. Crap, I spend $50 on one silly-ass game.
Get it? Microsoft has nothing like a monopoly on the server side, and never had it. They do have a de-facto monopoly on the client side.
The only thing that prevents them from extending their client-side monopoly to the server is the threat of government regulation. Otherwise, it is simple a question of letting the clients refuse to talk to "unauthorized" servers.
If anything need price control, it will be drugs, both legal and illegal.
You know, if you were to buy a new car in black, with no stereo and with an empty gas tank, it would cost less, however most car manufacturers don't give you than option. Perhaps we should be going after the car manufacturers for anti-competitive practices?
They key word there is 'contract'. No manufacturer is under any obligation to enter into any contract with Microsoft. Any company or individual could sell PCs with Linux preinstalled if they so wish.
Acer should throw a bucket of Soyo pcb chip sauce in M$'s face and not give in to Microsoft's outrageous pricing.
in the BBC article
No security in Microsoft products: considering you're only secure when software is designed by people who don't care what the intent is behind hackers. Bill Gates must have worn some 3d spectacles if he'd saw an inkling of 3d interface on windows xp?Wise consumers see that Vista lacks creative inspiration, is cookie cut from Mac OS X graphic design, and is duct taped together with the cage of .net (microsoft said in an ad once, "think inside the box"). Its the thing corp software CEO's dream of for potential berry customers who believe what others tell them to believe and are ignorant of any self-creativity: in that Vista has no reputable faults to publicize because its nothing, has all the feel of a collective network virtual world where everything's provided to a user arbitrarily (like a jail), and M$ has 90% of the software market's support.
>Could Microsoft be compelled to lower its inflating Vista prices, or to open their tech or even supply funding to Linux-flavored >Windows such as Wine? You are dreaming.... Where do you live?
The OLPC system is innovative hardware that proves that a computer does not need to be as expensive as they currently are. When it is possible to build a full features system for $130,- then the current prices of laptops and desktops for that matter are overpriced. On the OLPC it says explicitly that there will be little that you can not do that you can do on a $1.000,- laptop.
The point. Computers are overpriced not only because of the cost of proprietary software but also because of the cost of the rat race that is the hardware market. There are few people that need a $1000,- system. When the motivation is that they also run games, I would urge people to buy a dedicated game kit, that incidentally is able to run everything that runs on a PC and is often intentionally crippled to prevent these "other" uses.
It is not only but also proprietary software that makes computers expensive.
Thanks,
GerardM
Hell, yes. In fact, forget the anti-trust thing and just flat-ass shut them down, period. Anything that came up in their place, no matter how bad, could not possibly be worse. Hell, I would sacrifice Linux just to see Microsoft die.
First of all as someone already pointed out, this type of suit would be the realm of the DoJ, which you can bet not only doesn't care, but moreover would have to have their heads completely up their asses to do something as controversial as suing Microsoft when they're already on the run from bigger things like torture and Abu Ghraib.
Second of all, people need to remember that Average Joe likes windows, and likes microsoft. The last thing the democrats want to do is confuse a large number of voters and take the limelight away from their bigger winners, namely GOP corruption and the Iraq war. Something all rules and numbers like fighting big business would not be a boon in 2008 in these ideological, partisan times.
So no, I wouldn't count on it.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
It needed to be done before. It still needs to be done. And not just micro$oft.
Haven't you heard? The War is Over, Linux has Won! This story has no merit. MS can charge whatever they want since we'll all be using linux and forced to pay their unreasonably low (free but possibly requiring beer depending on who you ask) licensing fees along side every pc purchase. Word is even Apple will be forced to pay the "linux tax". MS isn't our problem anymore.
No one's forcing these vendors to package their systems with anything. If cost goes up, so what? Pass on the price to the consumer. No one's forcing them to ship with it and nothing is stopping them from shipping systems with XP or vista. For the cost aspect, it'll add what, $100 to the price, maybe $60 at the most more then they currently pay for XP.
For party funding...last I checked MS was for network neutrality...what a better way to make sure congress doesn't listen to the telco lobby and fund their own. It'd save them money rather then buy off a bunch of telco's later on if tiered does roll out.
WINE, how is this even a suggestion that MS pay for something. ITS COMPETITION! I don't see Ford demanding money from GM for not making their whatever compatible.
I'm not a fan of MS but come on, this is really stretching it. If you really want to "take them down" help develop easy to use, highly user friendly alternative and get game support. Try being proactive instead of reactive.
Let the internets rage out.
High prices are not anticompetitive. Aside from that, the price of windows hadn't changed in 10 years since 95, while inflation has been around 2% annual. In real dollars, the $300 windows today is cheaper than it was in 95.
What I really don't get is why people are upset at having MORE choice.
No.
Congress != Attorney General
Try again after 2009 January 20.
About the only we would gain some freedom from Microsoft's OS monopoly would be to take some serious action, such as:
1) Enforce all existing antitrust laws (this is not being done)
2) Require that computer manufacturers not be allowed to bundle/include an MS-Windows license
3) Prevent MS from trying to lock the OS license to a particular computer
Never gonna happen, but it is nice to dream. None of the other so-called anti-trust penalties against Microsoft have had any teeth/impact. If you could ONLY buy computers without an OS, the manufacturers could produce a quick-load, quick-start CD/DVD that walks the user through installing an optional, separately purchased MS-Windows license. Or- allow the pre-installation of MS-Windows with with no license. Optional licenses must be purchased separately from a different source (could be same vendor, but not the hardware manufacturer).
The bundling/preinstallation/forced-licensing are what has given MS almost absolute control over the market. Why unbundle?
1) It would allow real competition- forcing MS to innovate and lowering prices
2) It would show consumers that there are alternatives
3) It would mean the consumer could actually see the prices of what they are buying
4) It would allow the customer to not pay a MS tax on any computer model they wished to buy
5) It would help equalize the disparity between the OEM and aftermarket price of MS-Windows
6) Businesses would not be forced to buy licenses twice when they choose to have a corporate license structure with reimaging on installation.
And even all this would only address the OS Monopoly, not the control MS has over other segments of the industry.
"Linux-flavored Windows such as Wine"
W T F
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Speaking of the Novell deal, what are the odds that we'll see a distro called "Redmond Linux" as an option for PCs, the poor man's Windows with Wine, Mono, and some other stuff meant to make one say "Geez -- I wish I just simply had Windows!"
Well, not only americans, but many people around the world is looking towards democrats to see them set right to many wrongs that had been done.
Read radical news here
I think that Acer is missing the point on how the market works. Come on, it's customers who decide which OS they want on their PC's. Saying that customers won't want a version of Vista or another is simply being ignorant. They should offer the basic version and their respective upgrades (reminds me of the Dell or Alienware online store where you can choose which version do you want) and finally it should be the user who decides which OS suits him better or not. As for Linux, I think that the basic user already know how to use Windows and they will not be taking the risk to use a new OS, they know that Windows simply works, it runs the applications and do the things they want to do. As somebody else said, if Linux get native support for Win applications and a much better game support, it could broaden its market.
From the perspective of those who might like to see Microsoft destroyed completely, re-opening the antitrust case would actually be counterproductive.
The reason why is because if they are allowed to continue to behave as a monopolist for a certain period of time, negative publicity resulting from their own continuing abusive and unethical actions will sink them in fairly short order. If they get broken up, while it might provide consumers with some remedy, it will also allow Microsoft to continue to exist, (albeit in a reduced form) regroup, and re-invent itself.
Let them release Vista and engage in fascist behaviour in association with it. Let them think that they are invincible, that they can treat their consumer base in whatever manner they please...and most importantly of all, let the public see exactly what a computing world truly run according to Bill Gates' vision would look like.
Public reaction and opinion, consumer advocacy groups, market forces, and the law in many other countries (if not the US itself) will then do the rest. The case does not need to be re-opened now...it is redundant.
As the mathematical proverb says:- Every problem does, indeed, have its' own solution.
...we can't espouse Linux as a viable alternative in both the server and desktop markets and simultaneously complain that Micro$oft should be punished as an anti-trust violator because they're charging more for Vista and OEMs have no choice but to ship some form of Vista.
They don't *have* to ship Vista. Hell, people should be yelling at Apple to make a go of it with OSX. Then you'd have OEMs who could ship Windows, OSX, various flavours of Linux.
It sounds to me like the OEMs are complaining that there aren't more companies who make 'Windows' in order for them to have competitive pricing on 'Windows.'
Loading...
As a matter of fact, all you need is hate.
Just a well put terrorist act -- genuine or faked -- and the Republicans will be back on stage.
With enough hate towards another common enemy and "patriotism" will arise again, claiming its quota of lives -- from the enemy or from the US, doesn't matter.
If you think the terrorists are happy now, well, think again. They want their US counterparts in power, to restart the game.
You need a lot of courage to fight in war -- and much, much more to fight for peace.
a judicial failure that this idiot wants remediated by legislation
First: everyone check my comment history to confirm that I'm as much a raving anti-MS, logiciel libre freak as the next guy.
But this thread is dangerous:
"if major pc manufacturers start shipping pcs without windows, they lose their discount pricing on windows & other ms software"
"In addition, there should be no "incentives" of any kind"
C'mon guys, we believe in a free market here. What's needed is for a manufacturer or two to grow a pair, offer preinstalled Linux, and put some effort behind it. Some marketing that makes the case for Linux. How much is the discount? $50? How many people would notice the difference between a $1400 computer and a $1450 one?
Abusing monopoly power in order to crush new markets is wrong; offering incentives to partners in order to maintain market share is 100% legal and moral.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Once again I hear the usual cries of, "if you don't like it, don't buy it" and "it's a free market."
No, it's not a free market, and no, there is no choice! This is the simple truth of it for most people.
When the principles of free enterprise are corrupted and perverted to the profit of the privileged, it is the people who must pay the price their masters set.
Shed your tears not for the dollars lost, but rather for the freedoms spent.
Words to men, as air to birds.
Did they really win. The EU commisioner told MS to publish the protocols and unbundle certain applications. MS has done neither buts pleads 'confusion' over what the ruling really means.
0 33758760
"It is therefore misleading to imply that the Commission could be the cause of delays in launching Vista in Europe."
"One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers"
As far as I am aware MS have not done so. Has the commision recinded its ruling. If not Microsofts lawyers must be aware of this. Or are they going to stall the process long enough to manufacture a new set of protocols, release a new version of Vista using these protocols and make sure it's incompatible with the old 'opened up' protocols.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5325690.stm
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060411
davecb5620@gmail.com
I think it would be a pretty easy sell for all the big computer companies. I can see the ads now. "For 1899.00 you can get this great computer with Windows Vista on it and no other applications!!!! Or, you can get the same computer, fully load with open source applications that do all them same things for only $1300.00!!! I think a lot of regular users (I.E. non gamers) will be sorely tempted to save that $600.00 and get all that "Free" software to boot.
Computer buyers are becoming more savvy overall and I think that coupled with Microsofts greed will eventually catch up to them.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
Well, sadly I can't provide a citation for this (although hey, this is Slashdot-- citations are for wimps, right?), but I was under the impression that the deal worked something like this:
In the post-Dell world of low-margin commodity PC's, the difference is likely to be at least $100, possibly more. Hell, there are even things like 'co-marketing' grants from the likes of MS and Intel, where the OEM gets money in return for putting MS or Intel prominently in their advertising, and I'm sure that the MS one offsets most of the remaining cost of the Windows licenses. However, when you're competing for a slice of the $500 PC market, you don't want your $25 copy of Windows to start costing $150 now. Or, in the case of Vista, $200 or more (because no-one wants the basic versions, as Acer suggests). Now, if you don't get favourable pricing, your offering either costs $700 compared to the competition's $500, or else you're going to lose money on every unit sold.
It's not the potential markup on a $1400 PC that hurts -- it's the markup on a $400 or $500 PC that hurts, because the retail price of Windows will increase that by a fairly noticeable percentage.
-Q
We're imperially raping and pillaging in a few places just to get our rocks off, and we're torturing some brown people for good measure and killing a few hundred thousand locals just to show the lowly non-whites and non-Christians that they should lick our anal rims when we tell them to lest we be upset and shoot their faces off, but that's par for the course for any empire.
The Elite supply the cash to the politicians to run campaigns; and, all politicians are puppets of the Elite. Not only does Mark Cuban say that on his blog - but so does Ralph Nader on his blog. And so does Chomsky. Quite a range - that is from Nader to Cuban to Nader.
So if anyone here has to be convinced that the USA is not a democracy but instead an oligarchy run by the Elite; than you have been brainwashed. Just ask President Rove.
What to do? It's time to punish those in the Elite who control the puppets strings. What is the absolute worst situation for the Elite? A loss of money! Get the list of the Elite corporations that gave Bush (Rove) and the boys money and (you know Dell, Microsoft and so on):
A] Don't buy any of their products.
B] Sell any shares you own in those companies.
C] Sell any mutual funds that include those corporations.
D] Sell off all ETF's.
E} Sell any bonds you own in those companies.
It's called being an Ethical investor, it's called being an Ethical consumer.
Besides how many back doors do you want to your computer - installed so that Bush (Rove) and the boys can spy on anything, everything you do - and make decisions on when to sweep you off to one of the 50 secret political prisons that the USA Feds have built across the USA. Just in case you wonder who works at these prisons - they are guarded by Marines ( do you know that only 1 out 10 Marines are sent into battle - they are kept in the USA in case of insurrections in the USA by USA citizens)
"Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 has a recommended retail price of 289.99 pounds ($550), but is currently available for 234 pounds ($444)."?!?!
2 E168321161752 E16837116195
Amazon.co.uk has insane prices, apparently.
Newegg has XP SP2 with an upgrade coupon for $139.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
Even their retail XP SP2 is $269.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
I see several posts that say "just install linux and stick it to the man!" that is incorrect becausethe problem is forced bundling...find me a Dell or HP notebook without a MS tax: some HPs have an option of MS Dos to save money, but you still pay MS because of these bully tactics hwereby every unit sold must have a windows license!
And if Microsoft calls that bluff? Well then preload Linux and let your customers decide whether they want your barebones system for half the price of your closest competitor's.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why is that PC brands keep shipping with windows? Shouldn't that be a customer option?
If that happened, then people could buy computers with no OS or perhaps linux. I don't get why some institutions with MS licenses have to buy computers with Windows OS (normally they'll charge you for Home edition), and then reinstall their own licenses of Professional.
So... If they sell computers with no OS, that would:
A. Increase the Windows piracy, forcing to one of two things: Price increase due to losses or prices reduction for competition.
B. Allow lower price products, since you don't have to pay extra for some people putting a ridiculous amount of programs that totally slow down any CPU to a toaster level.
With the Republicans now evicted from the House and Senate, is it time to look at the Microsoft Anti-trust Suit?
Fat chance. There may be some Congressional Hearings under the new Democratic-led Congress, but the Justice Department that would handle any anti-trust suit is still under the Republican President. Gotta wait a couple years (or two quick impeachments) for Democrats to get ahold of that.
If a company like Dell announced that they were only pre-loading Linux from now on, Investors would be falling over trying to dump the stock...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Question:
Is it people's overuse of the claim "FUD" or the overuse of FUD in slashdot articles that causes me to see the word FUD at least 20 times in three out of four articles?
In either case, FOR GODS SAKE CALM DOWN!
It's 1/3 of the Senate that's up every two years, 100% of the house goes up every two years.
Personally if computer manufacturers started having bare bones machines with the OPTION of pre-loading at the customers request, and that pre-loading costing the price of the OS plus say an extra small amount for 'time to install' say like $10 - $20 or something, people would start to see the MS Tax being added and how horrendous it happens to be. Computer - $499.99 (or whatever it is) OS - $259.99 (or whatever it is) OR you could get Ubuntu pre-installed for only $10 w an Extra DVD of source code for those who want to tinker. Seeing the amounts so clearly laid out there you will find cost conscious individuals start questioning if they really need Windows on their machine. The fact that windows came bundled and the PC manufacturer did all that stuff in the background helped cement PC = Windows in most peoples minds, and its also why that IE = Internet in most peoples minds because IT WAS THERE, they didn't have to THINK about it. MS would go Bugnut if a large computer company started being transparent like this however because MS doesn't want people to make that decision, they simply want it on the machine no questions asked. Computer companies if you want MS to offer you an amazing deal on the OS, mention you will start being completely transparent about the pricing of the OS being added to the computer with an option for an alternative.
Whatever for?
Unfortunately, most slashdotters are too issue-oriented to understand that they compromise their own freedom when they use the government to fight their battles rather than taking the personal responsibility to solve it themselves.
I yield to no man in my bewilderment as to why the hell the 90% of computer savvy consumers who would be better off with Windows 98, Apple, or Linux insist on buying Microsoft's ever more complex, bloated, and questionably usable software. And I don't have the slightest idea why any sane person would contemplate buying a computer with Windows Vista. Maybe there are folks out there whose life includes too little aggravation.
But I don't see how Microsoft's ongoing blunder with Vista is going to bump PC prices by "hundreds of dollars". OEM pricing of Windows XP Home is something of a secret, but it's clearly under $100. Probably significantly under $100. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=118 . If you actually read the first article linked in the post and get past the absurd pricing of boxed copies of Windows (gee, I wonder why Microsoft has a piracy problem.) you find that Vista Home Premium is going to cost OEMs 10% more than XP Home. I make that something like $8-$10 a copy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like your Vista machine might cost a few bucks extra, but no more than a couple of cups of upscale coffee.
Should Microsoft get whacked for their occasionally abominable conduct. Won't bother me a bit if they are. But it won't likely happen until a Democratic president appoints a Democratic Attorney General. That's barring the unexpected appearance of the reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt. Don't expect the Democrats to do anything much before 2008. They are, if they have any sense at all, going to be focusing on making sure that there are new headlines every week spotlighting some idiocy or other of the Bush administration during the five year reign of stupidity following 9/11. Fortunately for them, there is a near infinite supply of tragedy, lunacy, corruption, and even a few honest mistakes for them to draw on. No need to demonize Microsoft when Dick Cheney and George W Bush are stuck there in the headlights and there is enough ammunition handy to blast them and anyone who ever appeared in a photo with them into orbit around Alpha Centauri.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
I've been trying to make the case to folks at work that Vista *might* fail like Windows ME did a few years ago. Looking at my customers, I don't see how most of them could choose to upgrade to Vista corporate-wide. I don't see too many features that make it a compelling upgrade for a business...nevermind that those little pizza-box Compaqs probably don't have the graphic horsepower to run all the eye candy. Once you take the pretty wrapping off it there's not a whole lot left other than WinXP, which can be fitted with IE7 when the time is right anyway. So if businesses skip this version - as I expect - then it's going to have to be the OEMs and the retail sales that drive it. Unless I'm missing something (and I'm sure you good folks will point it out if I am), we saw how that worked out with WinME right?
This sig intentionally left blank.
..and no legacy apps which require Vista, and no customers who demand Vista. Therefore, there is no reason to preload Vista, unless Microsoft is giving you a good deal on it.
You can say there will be a demand for Vista after the network effects created by any other preloaders, but it simply doesn't exist right now. Preload something else, or load nothing at all.
You know, there's really very little reason you have to preload an OS, especially Microsoft's. Microsoft's #1 claimed advantage -- THE reason that some people say it is "ready for the desktop" whereas other OSes are supposedly not -- is that it comes with drivers for everything (so users know it will work with whatever hardware they happen to have) and is alleged to still be easy to install. So let the customer buy Windows seperately, and let them see the cost (so that your PC does not appear to be priced higher than your competitor's), and let 'em install it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
With the Republicans now evicted from the House and Senate, is it time to look at the Microsoft Anti-trust Suit?
Do you really think this is a partisan issue? get your heads out of your asses. What will happen if the democrats do nothing more to MS than the republicans did? Are you going to finally wake up to these two parties being different sides of the same coin? time and time again we've seen this go on and you idiots just will not wake up to the truth of it all.
It's a pattern of practice with Microsoft and plenty of other megacorps: if you can't buy favorable legislation or regulatory treatment, you draw out the legal case long enough to make the results useless in the real world. Microsoft initially just bought anyone who was a threat. It was when they tried to get a lock on the then-new web that the revolt finally started. That first time, Microsoft told the courts to go do anatomically impossible unnatural acts on themselves. There was a judgment against them, a shell-shocked looking Bill Gates, and then the tactics changed. Ever since, they've just made sure that court cases take longer than the approx. 5 year life span of software, and they're home free.
Unfortunately, we need a lot more than Antitrust 2.0--although that's essential too to get real competition back into software. We need a Legal System 2.0, one that can provide due process fast enough to do some good.
Time for an end to headlines that end with a question mark?????
its time microsoft is broken. its now more than ever that they are at their most arrogant. also since the company hasn't been reigned in. like mr.bush - will be a liability. it is time someone took action against them, and that someone will be the regulatory bodies of the USA or EU.
I yield to no man in my bewilderment as to why the hell the 90% of computer savvy consumers who would be better off with Windows 98,
That's a funny way to spell Windows 2000. Or were you thinking of Windows NT 3.51?
Back in the '90s I insisted that all the computers on the engineering network run UNIX or Windows NT, *not* the traditional DOS based Windows. Despite having a couple of hundred users we only needed two admins to support the netork. The admin network had less than 20 people, two admins, and one pretty much spent all the time just going around un-fucking-up Windows boxes.
And their users were a LOT less "inventive" than ours.
When we finally got them upgraded to NT4 and 2000 they were *so* happy.
NT4 was a drop in reliability compared to NT 3.51, but it was still infinitely better than Windows 9x/ME. Windows 2000 was an improvement and since it was the first with native USB support I don't think there's any point sticking with 3.51 or 4, but I haven't seen anything in XP worth upgrading for unless you absolutely need Bluetooth and don't have a Widcomm stack for your hardware.
.... not an issue with Microsoft's price.
Force MS to change their price? That is completely ridiculous in the USA where capitalism and free markets are central to all business.
If MS is forcing the OEM's to include Vista with each PC then there would be actionable monopolistic behavior.
With the growing success of Apple and linux it is hard to argue there is sufficient competition for MS's Vista.
Any argument for a monopoly must center around the MS OEM "tax" and lack of OS choice on that level.
Noz
Windows is expensive? Well, who woulda thunkit. So, sell your PC products with a clear distinction between the prices of Windows and Linux versions and put them on the shelves side by side.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
They are comparing XP Home to Premium, not Media Center, and stuff like that. Seems like more propaganda to get something out of the money machine/ATM from another loser, also-ran, no dicked, we were beat by the ugly stick of Dell PC company.
What do Slashdot readers think about the likelihood of another go at breaking up the Windows monopoly?"
Free market forces should work as long as there is not an abuse of monopoly power. If the MS lisence did not prohobit shipping dual boot and other OS machines, then the likes of Wal-Mart and Circuit City may start to expamd their product lines to include Apple and Ubuntu. The high price of the Vista machines will make the e-mail and document crowd consider affordable stable alternatives.
Now if we can get past MS volume lisencing deals that prohibit shipping alternative OS'es. That may require anti-trust action.
The truth shall set you free!
It's the way it is.
Linux would already be on a lot of desktops except for one important detail: it doesn't run Windows apps and drivers very well or at all. The inability to get round that obstacle is what has defeated every single would-be competitor over the last 11 years.
Of all the monopolies and price fixing competitors what warrants blaming MS for it's on success.
You can't blame MS for using the corrupt American lobby system, that capitalism, and if they don't do it their competitors will.
As far as price goes, that's MS's right. I don't think there is anyone out there not willing to pay more money for a better MS OS. It's only the most important part of your PC. Of course, that leaves the question of if Vista is better. As all MS upgrades it certainly will be slower, but I think it's all a moot point since XP is still an option for users and OEMs.
As far as this giving the competition a foothold... I don't think so. First off all these MS will implode theories are based on the idea that MS will stand by and let it's market share erode and make no changes to it's business strategy. MS isn't stupid, they are highly successful company and it's not because of their monopoly.
It's because no one else has a product that really competes with the MS platform beside Mac. This is mainly because all the companies that make competing office programs simply refuse to take their jobs seriously and make either stable or full featured products.
Corel didn't loose to MS because MS used unfair practices. They lost because their office suite sucks and is even more bug filled than Microsoft and I know because I used it for years and have even tried the latest version, which is arguably the worst ever. Open Office is just so lacking in features and that smoothed over feeling that is current has no real hope of drawling people off the MS platform unless they are really looking to change and willing to accept the decreased functionality of competing office products.
The OS market is hardly any different. Linux has struggled with becoming a desktop OS for years, and made no major advances. Apple had such a bad business model they've lost most of their original user base, though now Apple has arguably the best product on the market. However success in business is much trickier than simply making a the best product. Apple still lacks the support and most people are not interested in running windows programs in Mac or any other OS for that matter.
It's not that MS is such an unstoppable monopoly. It's really that the competition sucks. Even with Mac as a great option to switch to, users are not bailing in Windows.
This is because most of the peoples theories of how MS will fall are all complete idealogical crap.
For MS to loose it's monopoly the competition has to offer not equal functionality, but something truly compelling that Windows can't do. This is why for instance a lot of people in the the video and audio editing business choose Mac, because in this niche market Mac offers compelling features that MS doesn't. Thats why Linux gains ground in the server market, because it offers compelling performance and stability as a server that windows cannot.
But, when we look at the desktop market, there just is no compelling reason. With PC's so cheap these days people aren't even going to notice a slight increase in cost. Their new Vista PC will still likely be cheap and noticeably faster than their old PC, so they will be statisfied.
Thinking like a computer geek will not help you predict the desktop market. You have to think like a dumb user who wants the least hassle and probably dislikes the idea of change. You have to consider how much software this person has invested in Win32 and that chances are the increased cost of Vista is many times less than the equity they've invested in the windows platform already.
I just don't see the compelling reason. If anything you give up a hell of a lot of flexibility by greatly limiting your software possibilities since if you haven't noticed there is about a millions more software for the win32 platform. Sure, most of it sucks, but most TV shows suck too and people keep watching them. Your personal tastes as a computer geek don't reflect the average users habits or needs.
Normally MS would hav
So lets see, the cost the of the OS went up? Wow?!?! I'm soooo shocked. You mean I can't buy a Camary for $14,000 anymore? What it's now $22,000? Whine, Whine Whine. But I should sue Toyota for making me pay more for what I want.... .NET developer so I'm loving Mono right now.)
.NET... oh, sue them for not supporting .NET installs. And sue them for making an OS that doesn't work with my PC programs without an emulator!
Come on guys, get off it. An increase in cost is associated with any new technology, this isn't a suprise, the manufacturer doesn't like they can install SuSe or one of the other OS's. But guess what, if you do, you'll sell less machines and then you'll be screaming that it's Microsoft's fault that you're not willing to increase the cost of your PC's by $50 to $100. I think if your approach to business isn't abosorb cost or pass cost along to consumer, which EVERYONE is going to do, then you should go back to remedial economics because you just failed the class.
Costs go up. You don't expect to buy the new Geforce8800 for the same price as the 6800 do you? It's new technology, it's a new OS, and yes, it costs more. Don't want it? Use XP or try Mono. (I'm an
As for no one shipping with Basic, they will. The $399 PC will come with it, and as soon as you start it up, Dell will ask you if you want to upgrade to Premium. If so, enter your CC number here, and place your DVD in the drive and in 20 mins you'll have Premium. Did people forget that the idea of a teired OS is to allow you to only install what you want? Let's sue MS for giving you a choice instead of cramming Ultimate down everyone's throat. Which if they are a true Trust, they would have done. They gave options, and yes the options cost more, that's inflation, that's change, that's 1st year economics. Want to file an Anti-trust suit? Good, here's where you start. File a suit against Macintosh for bundling software with their OS and use their own commercials against them, (They do more out of the box, because they come with all the stuff you normally have to buy!) That's unfair competition! I can't sell my software to Mac owners because Apple installs it and they don't give them an option to use my programs! Wait.. I program in
You guys get it? The idea of sueing someone for a trust based on monopolistic software goes both ways. The suit against MS was allowed to fall apart for a reason, if you succeeded completely and tried to break up MS, you'd A) Cripple the nation... 84% of US households use MS and would now have to purchase copies of every type of program you can imagine. and B) You'd set precident for other companies to file suit against Apple and Novell, etc anytime they include something that only imporoves the end users experience, but in doing so limits the likelyhood of purchasing another product. (See Symantec trying to sue Apple because the OS is virus resistant...wait arn't they trying to sue MS because of that?)
Within a few years you'd have to buy EVERYTHING on your PC ala carte. You'd plug your computer in, and then have to go to a store and buy a web browser, because your computer wouldn't have one. You'd have to go buy a media player, because your computer wouldn't have one, then you'd have to buy an email program, and FTP program....etc..etc.. and you're basic PC would now cost you $500 more because of the software you had to go out and buy...which brings us back to Acer.. Okay, I'm done ranting now...
Of the commercial supported linux distrros SuSE seems to be a good replacement of Windows, has all the bells and whistles, supports the non-business stuff like games in their repoistorty and provides a tech support service.
The bulk license purchase for the OS with all the apps and proprietary bits (codec licenses?) would still come out way below anything MS would offer for just an OS.
A lot of the problems people have with Linux is that it does not install easily, if Acer were to get a distrro version that works 100% with their hardware (like replacing that blasterd Inprocomm wireless card with something that just works) they would have it made, to be sure they should also include a few no-brainer restore borked video, etc. scripts as well as an Acer tuned kickstart profile (or whatever they call it in YAST.)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
> manufacturers have no choice but to accede, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of each PC.
/. reader thinks it's best to let the market take its course. Past antitrust actions against MS have been ineffective. Grassroots Linux use has had a far greater impact than the sum total of all legal actions.
That's not true. Manufacturers have two choices:
1. accede, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of each PC.
2. find an alternative, like Linux, that costs less
PC manufacturers cannot remain competitive with option 1. Microsoft knows this. That's why Microsoft is making the deal with Novell. MS can't fix Windows, but they don't want to directly support Linux, either. They'll steer PC users, manufacturers, and corporate customers to Novell Linux and dump the Linux OS support burden on Novell. Most customers would rather buy an MS-blessed, Novell-supported Linux than go off on their own.
> Could Microsoft be compelled to lower its inflating Vista prices,
> or to open their tech
> or even supply funding to Linux-flavored Windows such as Wine?
No. MS has found a way to legally sidestep every antitrust penalty ever imposed. MS has a stronger and more enduring motivation to defeat antitrust actions than the the government has to impose them.
> What do Slashdot readers think about the likelihood of another go at breaking up the Windows monopoly?
This
In any case, MS is not in a very strong position. Budget-conscious city governments are switching from Windows to Linux. Apple is offering computers that are less expensive than equivalent Dells. MS is unable to leverage their Windows/Office monopoly in new markets like music players and game consoles. All MS can do is hang on to a weakening Windows/Office monopoly.
By the end of 2007, I expect a slow but steady stream of small cities switching to Linux. A small but steady stream of consumers will be switching to Apple computers. Zune will hold a money-losing distant second place in music players. Xbox 360 will hold a break-even third place in game consoles. The Windows/Office monopoly will be steadily eroding.
Apple will establish a lead in media devices (iTV), maintain the lead in music players, and gain in consumer computers. One of the PC manufacturers will be racing ahead because they adopted Linux early. If done right, Google's Web-based office products will gain popularity against MS Office.
All this, with or without antitrust action against MS.
MSFT is free to charge whatever they want for Windows.
I, likewise, am free not to buy Windows if I think it is too expensive.
Personally, my next laptop is going to be a MacBook Pro, in part because I don't like MSFT's business tactics, though in larger part it's because I think OS X is a vastly better OS. For various reasons, using XP Pro day-to-day is painful at times (but at least the MBP can dual-boot OSX and Windows if I want).
Let the market sort out MSFT's pricing. Windows licenses are already so expensive that even some very big corporations are starting to look at running Linux on the desktop (my employer, with over 15,000 employees, has considered this at the architectural level. Then again, we are also IBM's bitch).
Seriously, why are so many of you slashdolts hostile to the free market?
What do Slashdot readers think about the likelihood of another go at breaking up the Windows monopoly?"
I couldn't care less. I use Linux exclusively on every box I have at home, save my laptop which dual-boots (and I expect to wipe
windows off of it soon), and on my desktop at work. I don't buy pre-built PCs from mainstream manufacturers who are forced
to include a Windows license, so I'm not paying the "Windows tax." In short, it's completely irrelevant to me.
My only concern in the whole windows vs. linux "thing" involves hardware support for Linux and that's more an issue
of manufacturers not being willing to release specs so that people can write open-source drivers.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Ten years ago I was being told that Microsoft was a juggernaut that would squash anything in it's way. I was given all the usual tripe. That Sun would be out of business, that Linus Torvalds would be in jail for treason, that Gates would be knocking on my door to collect my firstborn. None of it happened.
There is no monopoly. There is only a large marketshare. For the past ten years, during the very period of time everyone was telling me I had no choice, I have been using non-Microsoft systems. Currently I am using FreeBSD on my desktop and Mac OSX on my laptop. The only Windows I have is on my work-supplied laptop, and that's on a *secondary* partition. I can tell Bill Gates to "bite me" with no fear of repercussion.
Sun is still going strong (and still stuck in their perpetual layoff/hire cycle). Solaris is still the workstation of choice, whose chief competition comes from Santa Clara instead of Redmond.
Apple, the perpetually dying platform, is doing gangbusters. Sure, Microsoft gave them some money. But the very first thing they did with it was to come out with Safari and dump Internet Explorer. The OSX desktop is just starting to explode on the scene. I work with a lot of software companies, and most of them are moving into the Mac market for the very first time.
During the very height of the Microsoft monopoly, Linux went from an obscure kernel project to a major player in the server and embedded markets with lots of inroads to the desktop. And it's not just because Open Source is the equivalent of "price dumping", because the service side of things isn't inexpensive.
OpenOffice and Firefox have shown that high quality productivity tools don't need to come from Redmond.
So where's the monopoly? What is stopping me, or anyone else, from not using Microsoft products? It may be still be hard to find pre-bundled Linux systems, but pre-bundled Mac OSX systems are just one aisle over. That's just on the desktop side. On the server side only the true-blue Microsoft fan still uses Windows on the server.
In short, there is no monopoly.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
1) Demand Microsoft have stripped down version of windows
2) Wait until Microsoft has multiple versions of windows with various levels of completeness
3) realize that microsoft is going to make you pay for them having to do extra work
4) complain to the DOJ
5) ???
6) Profit!
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Linux would already be on a lot of desktops except for one important detail: it doesn't run Windows apps and drivers very well or at all. The inability to get round that obstacle is what has defeated every single would-be competitor over the last 11 years.
I'll allow that drivers are something of an issue, but for run of the mill destop productivity softare, not so much. For most of the basic things you use a PC for, there are perfectly functional packages available for Linux, either open-source programs which maintain a linux version, or things which are inherently cross-platform (liek Java apps).
To use myself as an example... my primary uses of my laptop are: playing music with winamp, surfing the 'net with firefox, editing documents with openoffice 2.0, writing Java code with Eclipse, running Java apps on JBoss, reading RSS feeds with RSSOwl, writing blog posts with JBlogEditor, reading email with Thunderbird, tracking my calendar with Sunbird, downloading things with Azureus, IM'ing with AIM and Yahoo IM and, er, that's about it. Now I don't claim to be a representative sample all by myself, but I bet plenty of people do pretty much those same things, or less. The oft mentioned "my grandmother" or "mom and dad" certainly fall in that catetory.
So out of that list of software, everything is either available on Linux, or has a suitable equivelant:
Winamp -> XMMS
Firefox -> Runs natively on Linux
OpenOffice 2.0 -> Runs natively on Linux
Eclipse -> Java, runs on Linux
JBoss -> Java, runs on Linux
RSSOwl -> Java, runs on Linux
JBlogEditor -> Java, runs on Linux
Thunderbird -> Runs natively on Linux
Sunbird -> Runs natively on Linux
Azureus -> Java, runs on Linux
AIM / Yahoo IM -> Gaim
For home use, I think Desktop Linux is very usable for the majority of folks. Business use, where there is often demand for a very
specific application which doesn't exist on Linux yet, is the bigger deal. But I think we're making progress even in that area.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic practices in almost every court case, and has yet to pay any consequences. If you were on the board would you stop?
No, I didn't think so.
Microsoft will continue to do what it does until someone has the stones to force them to comply with the court judgements against them.
Vista is the long-awaited update of the Windows operating system
The only ones waiting for it are Microsoft - XP can only carry them for so long before new revenue streams need to be implemented to replace it.
It is time not because of prices, but because it was not done right the first time. Microsoft needs a smack-down just as bush did.
Now that the democrats have taken control, it's time for them to revisit EVERY mistake that congress was coerced into making. If congress could just undo half the damage done over the last 6 years, that would be better than anything they could do on new issues.
If Congress appointed the Attorney General and the Department of Justice was a part of the Legislative branch, than maybe the recent election would allow for a new antitrust trial against Microsoft. But, that's not the case. I seriously doubt Alberto "The Torturer" Gonzales cares any more about enforcing antitrust laws than John Ashcroft did before him.
-- dR.fuZZo
but I was under the impression that the deal worked something like this:
It did. Past tense. Today, Dell offers an entire frigging line of Linux PCs!. As does HP.
The fact that you don't see them on the shelves at Wally World is simply the nature of Linux.
Thank you sir. Well said.
In general, the proponents "free enterprise" can't define it. In special cases, they can, but choose not to, and play games instead (i.e. talking about "free trade" rather than the end of labor regulation, which is what that really means).
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a "Free Market" - only anarchy, where markets do not exist, and the strong rule the weak. All markets run on rules. "Free Enterprise" is lately becoming a code for Laissez Faire capitalism, a ruinous permutation of the rules that was a notorious economic and social disaster.
The more socialist policies that America has (until recently) employed for the last 50 years, by comparison, are what actually "made this country so great." You had laissez faire in South America - where did it get them? Meanwhile our bitter lessons learned from the Great Depression led us to socialist-lite economic policies that created the wealthiest nation on earth.
Capitalism is not some magic religious trinket you can wave over a society and create a utopia. It's a class of machine. It needs to be well-designed, tuned, and maintained.
For it to work, you have to foster competition through (for instance) vigorous use of antitrust law. There's no market if one participant can prevent any other potential players from entering the market. Elementary. Or are they re-writing those history books these days?
Wealth begets wealth, so the Christians say - but it's obvious that money does make money. You also need systems that redistribute the wealth (for instance, our once-great public educational system). Stratification of capital leaves you with a few people who have orders more money they can ever spend, while everyone else lacks education, leisure, and even basic buying power. And why do you care, Mr. Libertarian? Our economy is 2/3's consumer spending. Doh. It's also powered by a millions-strong, well educated middle class.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
...because you know you need to hit Antitrust 3.11 before it'll be any good.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For years now a few of the manufacturers have been dishing out low end computers with a copy of XP home or the XP pro on them. The parts on these computers are low end parts, with stats that barely made the minimum to support XP. Hell some of them the Operating System cost more than the computer itself. I don't like the idea of having many different versions of Vista. But after thinking about it... I think it makes sense. You buy a cheap computer, then you get the cheap Vista. If that is what these company's want to dish out to the consumer then fine. But it may be the only way to separate a well built computer, from a computer that has cheap parts. Plus the only way for the consumer to know the difference. In the past, 400 bucks got you a computer with XP on it. The consumers always thought it was a good deal ...till it broke down.
Two things.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
The purpose of the antitrust laws is not to prevent a major software vendor from shooting itself in the head.
While I think DOJ should try enforcing the original antitrust judgement against MS and at least pretend that MS's campaign bucks to Bush didn't buy them off, if computer vendors find that they can't create computers at an affordable price with a Windoze OS, they should look into buying Linspire licenses at $22 a pop. (though I suspect that Acer can get licenses in 100K quantities cheaper than I can get them wholesale in onesies) Or keep buying XP if MS will keep selling it to them. As for Vista pricing, I can't think of a reason why our tax dollars should be wasted in protecting MS from itself or vendors who do business with MS from MS beyond the original judgement.
Given the dramatically increased component cost required for a box capable of running Vista (my Vista-ready upgrade cost about $375, though I'm going to run Linux instead), I was wondering how anyone was going to create $300 boxes for the home market. Come to think of it, even my upgrade (Athlon 3500, 24 pin 450W PSU, 1G DDR2, Biostar GEforce6100 AM2) is a trifle undersized for Vista.
I guess the answer is... the vendors can't do it, either. All I can say is. . . that's what happens when a company "partners" with Microsloth. Bloated, buggy, unsafe, and unaffordable... a great combination for everybody.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The antitrust case against MS did NOT collapse. MS was found guilty.
DOJ antitrust enforcement collapsed after a $1M+ contribution to the Bush 2000 campaign by MS.
Tech Public Policy stuff
No. They still have plenty of seats, though short of a majority. And over time, you'll find out that while the Republican bark was much worse than its bite, the Dumbocraps have neither bark nor bite.
Silly liberal, trix are for kids.
The government grants a 100 year copyright monopoly on software which is likely obsolete in 5-15 years.
If competition is desired, then the length of government granted monopoly should be re-thought, rather than going after the company that takes advantage of the monopoly.
The copyright monopoly was supposed to be limited, such that information went into the public domain, still allowing for innovation from enhancements.
Instead, the copyright expires usually after information has lost most all value.
Without copyright reform, the public domain is effectivly dead, and the only replacement is open-source or creative-commons works.
People dont write programs for them enough. I believe that is the ONLY reason. If a big portion of the compagnies (game makers!) made their programs work (properly) on linux/OSX aswel, it would be a great alternative. I don't think this is hard to do either, mostly libraries like directx must be ported to linux and a recompile, or they could use cross-platform libraries in the first place. (Ok, that could greatly be a underestimation of the difficulty, but i am sure for most programs it is doable for reasonable cost)
I have used Ubuntu, and installing stuff can be made really easy with aptitude/debian packages, even without the command line. (although it isnt always, because the maker of the program failed to make it so, also why the hell would you want to do it without the commandline!) Probably compagnies dont do so simply because they dont care what platform people use, and users dont know wether they care.
It might even be arguable that linux/OSX is, for many users, a decent competitor now. This is if you're only interested in using the web, text-editing, listening music, watching movies. Codecs and flash can be a problem for a bit, but most of them are easily installed.
The point is, if compagnies that make the products that people use took interest in linux/OSX, it were only all up to peoples stubborn glue wether they made the change.
I thought this story was about a sequel to the first movie.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Linux can't read the nasty proprietary file system that my camera uses to write to the memory card but Windows can. That's just one example, there are also games that won't run and plenty of drivers that are Windows only. What do you suggest I do in this situation? Buy a new camera? Not likely.
To use myself as an example... my primary uses of my laptop are: playing music with winamp, surfing the 'net with firefox, editing documents with openoffice 2.0, writing Java code with Eclipse, running Java apps on JBoss, reading RSS feeds with RSSOwl, writing blog posts with JBlogEditor, reading email with Thunderbird, tracking my calendar with Sunbird, downloading things with Azureus, IM'ing with AIM and Yahoo IM and, er, that's about it. Now I don't claim to be a representative sample all by myself, but I bet plenty of people do pretty much those same things, or less. The oft mentioned "my grandmother" or "mom and dad" certainly fall in that catetory.
No most users don't write Java code, run Java apps on JBoss or read RSS feeds.
My dad has quite a lot of various shareware programs and games like Microsoft Flight Simulator which will probably never have Linux versions or equivalents.
My sister uses MSN places which doesn't work as well on Firefox as IE.
I used to play (and might again) Legend of Mir 2 which doesn't run that well on Linux under either WINE or Cedega. World of Warcraft is quite a lot slower too.
It's very easy to take a subset of apps and say hey Linux has something similar but as soon as something that the user wants to work doesn't or doesn't have an equivalent or no driver for a device they'll want Windows back ASAP.
Do you seriously think that more people wouldn't try Linux if they could run everything that they could in Windows?
I usually suggest, when anyone asks me for hardware recommendations, to look for linux support. Even if they only use windows. This way if they ever want to try linux, the devices will work. Secondly, if they are getting rid of old hardware, I might be able to take it if it is linux compatible, and move it on to one of my many linux using friends. IF it doesn't run on linux I don't have this option. Thirdly, if they go into the shop, and they are double checking for devices that have linux support, hopefully this message (that there is demand for linux support) filters back up to device manufacturers. In summary, it's all about avoiding the lock in. Even if I was happy using linux now, I'm still looking for devices with windows or BSD support, so that I can change my mind later. (of course I probably am going to avoid windows while it is closed source...)
If George W. Bush wasn't there to stop their evil plans we'd be looking at stagflation, runaway tax increases, enormous increases in the size of our federal government, and massive amounts of new regulations on our businesses that will make it impossible for them to compete with foreign competitors.
Really funny. Not! Bush has increased the size of government and took the US from the biggest budget surplus to the biggest budget deficit ever. Republicans are supposedly fiscally conservative but while they've cut taxes they've also balloned federal spending and created entire new agencies and departments. Reason magazine, Free Mind and Free Markets has an article in the current issue, "The Budget-cutters Who couldn't Stop Spending" which isn't online yet, that details just how Republican have gone on spending sprees. There's the expansion in medicare spending estimateds to cost as much as $1.2 trillion in the first 10 years. Then they stuff billions more in so called supplimental approriations bills such as $150 million to the NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminitration, added to a bill to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq along with another $2.3 billion for avian flu preparedness, which already get $3.8 billion, added to the same bill. This year's supplimental bill is $94.5 billion which makes it the largest supplimental bill ever. In 2005 supplimental appropriations represented 16.7% of new discretionary spending which was $143 billion compared to $7 billion in 1998 when discretionary spending was only .9%.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No you had military dictators in South America whose regimes murdered thousands.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"...is it time to look at the Microsoft anti-trust suit?"
This question is rhetorical, right?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It is NOW about NAFTA shipping jobs out of the country to the benefit of a few owners.
Are you sure it's only for the benefit of a few people? The people RECIEVING the jobs are certainly benefiting.
Actually Mexicans are seeing those jobs that were sent to Mexico after NAFTA was approved being sent to China. Meanwhile because US agribusinesses can send corn and other foodstuff to Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmer can grow it Mexican farmers are being driven off their farms thus we have all of those "illegal immigrants". And businesses aren't able to sale produce in Mexico cheaper just because they can grow and ship it cheaper but because of the billions of dollars agribusinesses get in subsidies.
I'd argue that a country with many higher-skilled and workers is better than one with many low skill production workers (the primary type of job outsourced). We should be trying to increase the skill levels of our workers,
I agree but what jobs are being created in the US? Flipping burgers? Even professional jobs are being outsourced such as accounting, programming, and radiology. Yes accounting jobs are being sent to India as are programming and radiology jobs wherein xrays and such are interpreted.
It is about hiring illegals to avoid taxes - again so owners can profit AND avoid paying taxes.
That's a problem, but it's a tax regulation problem, not a market problem.
Actually what many don't know in the US is that the IRS has issued dummy SSNs and about 8 million "illegal aliens" use them for work and pay income taxes on their earnings. They also pay into medicare and social security just as anyone else with an ssn that is legally employed, however because they are illegal they can't use medicare or ever collect social security, not unless they become legal. Illegal aliens pay about $50 billion into Social Security a year, if it weren't for them SS would go bankrupt much sooner than it will otherwise.
It is about academic researchers doing research with gov money and then personally patenting discoveries tax payers paid for in order to charge exhorbant "license" fees.
I am not familiar with this effect.
I don't know examples of this but I know of an example of government research being given to a corporation who then made a killing off the research. The NCI, the National Cancer Institute is part of the NHI or National Health Institute, spent $183 million developing Taxol for the Pacific Yew tree as a chemical treatment for different types of cancer such as breast cancer. The NCI then "sold" the right to the exclusive use of the clinical data used to have Taxol approved by the FDA to Bristol Myers Squibb for $43 million if I recall right. It was estimated that by 2000 BMS would make $1 billion a year in profits off of Taxol. BMS has gotten the cost of Taxol down to cents a dose yet it cost thousands of dollars for a patient to go through a treatment regime. I understand pharmaceutical companies need to be able to pay for all the research they do but BMS never did any research to have Taxol approved, instead taxpayers did and patients are getting ripped off. But you're right it's a government granted monopoly.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I assume you accidentally omitted the qualifier "battle tested and found utterly inadequate for modern computing".
you had me at #!
Linux vendors, by not charging for their product, have not been able to produce this marketing and development puch to ensure worldwide software and hardware vendor support. When it boils down to it, the very thing that makes Linux attractive (price) may be the factor that is holding down it's implementation.
Linux vendors do charge for their product but some like Redhat are leaning more towards selling services and support than programs, Linux in this case. As for commercial or proprietary software for Linux there's a catch 22, companies need Linux users to sale applicatins to and potential Linux users need applications. Now if more computer system came with Linux preinstalled more people would try it however the major computer manufactureres or builders get volumn discounts for Windows and at least previously they paid a license for each PC sold whether Windows is installed or not, I don't know if this is still true. But as more computer come with Linux preinstalled more people will use it and therefore more commercial software apps will be released for it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Linux would already be on a lot of desktops except for one important detail: it doesn't run Windows apps and drivers very well or at all. The inability to get round that obstacle is what has defeated every single would-be competitor over the last 11 years.
Yea, I recently got a new PC with Linux preinstalled however it only had a cdrom drive installed not a dvd. I've been looking for a compatible dvd+-rw that's dual or double layer but I haven't been able to find one. While I don't need it right now, I only got the pc because the one I'm using now is dying and I've been waiting for Apple to release the new Macbook Pros with Core 2s, I'm hoping there will be a compatible one available soon.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Linux can't read the nasty proprietary file system that my camera uses to write to the memory card but Windows can. That's just one example, there are also games that won't run and plenty of drivers that are Windows only. What do you suggest I do in this situation? Buy a new camera? Not likely.
I hadn't thought about that, drivers for digital cameras. I'm hoping to get a dslr next year perhaps. I'm waiting for resolution to increase and price to drop. I've been looking at two dslrs, both by Canon, however one is $8000 and the other $3500. I'd also like to get a medium format camera with a both a digital back and a film back. Also Linux is missing something like Photoshop. Sure there's GIMP but it's not even 16 bit yet. PH 7 can be run in CrossOver Office on Linux but that's the newest version that's been tested so it doesn't run CS.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Steve should be able to see a decent market here for Mac OS X. He can specify what types of hardware are totally tested and compatible (there are quite some videocards, networkcards (I even plugged in Realtek's in a Mac before) and soundcards available) and request Dell, Acer and HP to comply with the configuration for full support from Apple. Then give them a decent discount ($50-$90 per OEM license) and sell an optional AppleCare for the OS. Windows moved out in both functionality, price and security, OS X is the best fitting replacement for people that only do certain applications, Linux is for the least of technical people that like to mess around once in a while.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The election that will put the Democrats into the majority only happened four fucking days ago and you are already blaming them for some God damn "movement away from free-enterprise." What a partisan prick. Get a grip asshole. They don't even take office until January. The Republicans have until then to continue to screw up this country.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Every, everytime this comes up the script is the same:
Windows user says "Please make a version of Linux that can run Windows Binaries, and I will stop using Linux"
Linux zealots reply "Use Linux for everything you l0zerz"
Windows user says "but I need 3DSMAX/Autocad"
Linux zealots reply "grep is a perfectly good alternative, you lamerz"
And Bill laughs all the way to the bank.
First, no thanks.
Second, the way the insurance companies have fixed the laws, it might as well be. Look around you at the problems with health care and magnify them about twice and that's what nationalized health care will give you at it's absolute best.
Yeah, I've seen nationalized health care in the only socialist country that's ever been able to get socialism close to right. How do the Japanese get it right? Enforcement by word-of-mouth. The laws look like socialism until you recognize that the laws have no claws, no teeth. It works because the people help it work. The reason things are going south in the US is because too many people there are deciding they want their piece of whatever mirage it is Hollywood is selling. And the more the Japanese buy into Hollywood's illusions, the farther things go south here.
Informed self-interest and greed are two completely different things. Almost any form of government that allows the former to work will work if the people use it. The latter will destroy any form of government when too many of the people go that way.
No, socialism doesn't solve problems. Responsible people solve problems. Well, they solve more than they create. Irresponsible people create more problems than they solve. That is pretty much independent of the form of government.
But when you try to make the nation responsible for health care, you would seem to be kind of implicitly trying to make people non-responsible for their own health. To me that seems kind of counter-productive.
Let's start by undoing the laws that give insurance companies so much special treatment.
Does it help if I put it that way?
Changing what you call it without changing the prices does not change the effect.
In fact, this is more damaging because it takes the small players out of the hardware market as well.
What on earth is the excuse for bulk pricing for OS software?
by individuals willing to put up with a little lack of comfort to protect their rights to put up with a little lack of comfort.
because of arrogant Americans like Bill Gates behaving in the international market in ways that induce enough discontent that some of the extremely discontented actually went to the trouble of blowing up themselves along with more than 3000 non-combatants working in one of the larger symbols of said arrogance.
If we really want to solve the problems in Iraq, including the ones we are now causing and making worse, we absolutely have to fix certain problems at home. That includes deposing a lot of our favorite purveyors of patronage.
tech.
Was. Until now.
But your comments about great games? Chess? Mahjongg? Sarcasm?
The solution to MicroSoft's problems combating open-source vendors is simple.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. All they have to do is open-source *all* of their products, make all of the help files only available online (so they can run revenue-generating ads with them, alternatively, charging for downloadable help docs & embedding product activation within them to limit improper copying), and begin charging for any phone or human-reply(as opposed to knowledge base searches, etc.) email support.
Sounds crazy? Sure, but no more than their current model. As things stand now, the consumer takes one big hit buying Windows, Office, etc. then gets free updates & help for the life of the product. Why not pay a little at a time, as need for assistance comes up? Sure, some will never need the help, but the average Joe is *not* technically oriented, and will be happy to plunk down $9.95 for the solution to "The Mail-Merge Hell", then another Hamilton for knowing "All About Icons", then again for "Secrets To The Mystery of Cut'n'Paste", and so on...
On the commercial side, they could give away SQL server, but charge for the config. What's that, you want to set it up yourself? Fine, but then down the road if you come back asking for help, there will be an extra fee for backing up your current data, fixing the problem, then restoring, so see, you should have just let us handle it from the start...
Becoming primarily a support organization as opposed to one geared just toward sales would also serve to make the products themselves better. The company would have better internal feedback on which features cause the most problems, and hey, if they just slack off on quality control and the entire line starts to suck (as a method to increase support calls), folks will simply switch to a competitor's product.
I'm kinda curious... what would MS have to do before people finally stop crying every time there's a CHANCE that something they do will be successful? At what point are they allowed to go about their business like any other company?
You Slashdot guys need to give up on this rabid, irrational hatred you have for Microsoft.
MS is one of the main drivers of the US economy, and a vital part of computing. If you break up MS, you not only degrade the quality of their company, but you open up the fragments of the company to foreign buyout. Look at the banking industry: most of the major banks are now foreign owned, which means even more money leaving our economy to enrich other countries.
On another note, I don't see how enabling the competition of free products which will cut into a company's market share will help anything. If the consumer wants to be "Windows compatible"... use Windows! How does giving all your technology away benefit anyone? Linux has not produced any innovations, they are just following the leader. So what makes anyone think that helping these vocal whiners is going to help the consumer?
I have a good idea for the FOSS community: make something people want, rather than riding the coat tails of everyone else. IMO, the FOSS community is like the Borg: they just take any good ideas they see and absorb it, but never give anything back. Sure, their product is free, but it's also an unsupported land of anarchy and caveat emptor.
The world does not neet three thousand different kinds of text editors. And that is exactly why FOSS will never be anything other than a tinkerer's toy. Windows will always lead in a corporate environment, and they will always lead among home users and gamers.
I was once supportive of antitrust action against MS, but have fundamentally lost faith in the government's ability to succeed in prosecuting antitrust against MS. It's not all the government's fault. I think the way the law works favors MS. In past actions, MS was able to drag out the legal process long enough for parties to change and the government to lose interest. That's what I mean by "more enduring motivation" of MS.
Even if the government is successful in getting a favorable court ruling, is that going to protect MS competitors? The gov't did get some favorable rulings in the past MS antitrust actions, but as far as I can tell, they had no impact. MS pretended to go through the motions of complying and that was enough to drag on the legal process further. Netscape still disappeared.
It's not just the MS case I'm looking at. When DEC sued Intel for copying IP, DEC won the lawsuit, but the settlement was Intel buying DEC for a ridiculously small amount of money. DEC still disappeared, even after winning the lawsuit!
Given these conditions, I think the government pursuing antitrust actions would only serve to give OSS-backers false hope. It's better to let OSS fight MS directly, with no false hopes pinned on government antitrust action.
I would consider suggesting the OSS movement take on MS directly, but I don't think OSS is as unified on this matter as MS is. For now, perhaps we can somehow support Groklaw in this effort.
In any case, I think this is a moot point. MS is slowly imploding. In every previous business challenge MS has faced, MS used monopoly power against a competing commercial venture that simply could not survive against MS. This is the only tactic MS has ever used successfully.
The result is akin to overuse of antibiotics. Virtually every company/business that is vulnerable to MS business tactics has been defeated. Among the few that remain are antivirus companies, which are about the be snuffed out by Vista (actually, I predict Symantec will produce a product that protects Windows from its own antivirus program's faults). The only competition left is OSS.
Like resistant bacteria, OSS is invulnerable to Microsoft's only successful business tactic. Microsoft's latest deal with Novell may be a new threat, but I predict that OSS will morph out of this threat more quickly than MS can apply it, much like nimble resistance-gaining bacteria.
I don't quite agree with that statement. I know quite a few Mac OS X users who are still running version 10.3 Panther, and even a couple 10.2 Jaguar systems out there. Upgrading at $129 each and every time Apple releases a new OS version isn't at all a requirement.
The "granularity" simply means you can buy an OS with the "latest and greatest" features more often, instead of having to wait years for one to come out...
I was the submission author. Some people have claimed the submission was a troll. It was not:
Total_Wimp (564548) on Saturday November 11, @05:48AM (#16803978):
> 1. OEM Windows licenses are nowhere close to "hundreds of dollars".
> You'll still be able to buy $500 PCs
My PC Dealer charges $105 for OEM XP Home Edition to be sold with on new PCs.
There's $100 already on my $500 PC. That already occurred to me;
Remember when Win 3.1 and OS/2 were competing with each other on price?
And now we have Bill with no effective competition jacking up the price.
When I saw Acer complaining about the same thing, seemed like a timely story.
I'm a Windows user and an MS Developer. I don't like the way Windows prices keep going up,
especially after the way the Anti-trust law suit was dropped. That's why I asked the question.
If Acer had Linux+WINE as a viable alternative, what do you think would be installed?
> 2. Force to open to WINE?!?!?! Are you smoking crack? The judge migh, literally, laugh.
A company can be ordered to redress monopolistic behaviour my means *other*
than breaking up the company. After the first Anti-trust suit MS made a deal
with the DoJ to discount the price of their OSware that was supposed to compensate
us for the high price we were paying now as a result of their illegal conduct.
Microsoft has a monopoly *now* after using illegal tactics to seize the market.
Finders-keepers no more applies to Anti-trust law than it does to burglary.
If Bill didn't use his illegal practises to keep other OS' off PCs, maybe desktops
would be running something besides WIndows / MacOS. Remember when IBM was trying
to get PC makers to offer OS/2, but they already *had* to install Windows anyway?
I remember trying to buy a PC once from Dell (to replace my broken one) and
they insisted I buy a new copy of Windows. Refused to sell me one without it.
Remember when we could buy Turbo C++ for $69? Now MS charge thousands for Visual Studio.
Check google and you'll find the stories of Borland complaining about Microsoft
undermining them and poaching their compiler staff.
We pay *a lot* more now for software because of Microsoft's predatory practices,
and because they still haven't been bought to account.
> 3. Microsoft has not "won" over EU regulators yet. This is only one battle.
Bill Gates said that himself. Read the link in the story.
You *did* read it before you attacked the submission right?
> 4. Just because we have a democratic congress is no reason to look for revenge "killings."
> Yes, MS is a Monopoly that totaly abuses it's position in a way that's damaging to its
> competition, but have you heard we're at war? The new congress should look at MS again
> before too long, but definately not right now.
Lets be specific: Bill "hired a Repubican Lobbyist and made political donations to the Republic Party"
which then dropped the Anti-trust suit. Now they're out, and the Democratic Party under
who the DoJ started the Anti-trust suit is back in power. It's a legitimate question.
> They have far more important work to do.
C'mon, man. You *know* the can do more than one thing at once.
> 5. The "Microsoft has drawn close to the Republican party" link is six years old--pre-9/11, pre-
Afghanistan, pre-Iraq
Yeah... at the time of the Anti-trust suit. You think they're going to hire a
Republican Lobbyist *after* the suit is over? C'mon. I know you *know* this...
Some posters split hairs over "evicted". "Evicted from the House" is a play on words.
Heck! President Bush himself said "thumpin'". Would it to be better to say?
"Now that the Republication Party has received a Thumping from Angry Voters".
"evicted" is a punchier *and* yes, *nicer* way to put it. I'm guessing there are
some raw nerves out here, but then
Why can't people accept that just as the PS2 and the GameCube have a different set of exclusive titles, Windows and Linux have a different set of exclusive titles?
Microsoft's tying of OEM license discounts to Windows exclusivity is a contract of adhesion, take it or leave it. Most PC manufacturers tend to run at such low margins that the difference in price between OEM Windows with the discount contract and OEM Windows without the discount contract is enough to make the business unprofitable. So do you find it a desirable situation that all PC manufacturers should be either Windows-only or Linux-only?
So why don't more OEMs invest in developing a direct clone of Microsoft Windows?
Enacting copyrights is government involvement.
As the owner of a small computer shop, I am faced with this situation on a daily basis. I can't afford to build a Windows PC, because the OS license kills me. Adding completely removes any margin from a similarly equipped retail PC with a volume license ('retail' OEM 3-packs of XP cost me $80-90 per license).
What is also insidious about this situation is the tight control Microsoft puts on the hardware in a volume license. It is becoming increasingly difficult to repair a volume licensed Windows machine. Motherboard replacements have to be exact replacements, or the re-activation will fail hard, and require a long talk with Microsoft's reps--not just a short "No, I haven't installed this on any other machine, yes this is the original software." This is the current situation with Windows XP--I am certain that Vista will be an order of magnitude worse. Microsoft just last week or so agreed that owners of retail versions of Windows Vista could upgrade their machines--what kind of straitjacket do you think they have ready for their locked in Dell, HP, and e-Machines customers.
It's obvious Microsoft want customers to re-license their copy of Windows every year. While they can't make this fly in an open fashion, they're constantly pushing in this direction from the back door. Just one more reason to oppose their monopolistic practices.
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
That we accept the lack it doesn't mean we wouldnt like it. :D, but it has to be handy from the users point of view also. (Actually, the GP2X has many older consoles ported, prolly has those linux aswel, but you prolly have to have some skills to install them )
And we want it because windows has so damn many titles, and most linux titles are windows titles aswel. And people are used to some of those programs/games. Multiplayer games can have more other players if windows plays along.
Some PS2, gamecube, name_your_platform games ported to linux would be nice aswell
Well there is Flightgear. "FlightGear is an open-source, multi-platform flight simulator." I'd call that an equivalent. Here's the link http://www.flightgear.org/
Wow, someone who's actually read and understood history. Kudos to the parent poster.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Once again, an eloquent argument informed by extensive historical erudition, rather than the noisy platitudes one so often finds here at Slashdot. Thank you too for replying in more than just an emotional huff, which leaves you able to find agreement with your "opponent".
Cheers!
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
It is my opinion that, regardless of how much better Linux may be than Windows, whether for efficiency, business ethics, "price" or just customizability, the weight of bringing Linux or anything else to the forefront is going to rest on the shoulders of software and hardware manufacturers.
Example 1 - Hardware: Most programmers use both Linux and Windows when writing software for reasons I shouldn't have to explain. It is relatively easy to convert the drivers you are writing for Windows to drivers that will work with Linux and the labor and distribution costs would be minor.
Example 2 - "I'm used to X software": Once again, although it becomes a bit more complicated, once again, the LABOR costs of creating a Linux version of the software you're writing for Windows is negligible. However, distribution is where it gets costly. Solution? It's already coming. With the advent of iTunes and other licensed data downloading, it shouldn't be long before buying a copy of Half-Life 4 or even Microsoft Office 2010 will be as simple as clicking a Buy button on the Net and inputting your credit card info. Want a CD? Burn your own.
Unfortunately, as a standard used, there's not much we can do to change the world for this. But for those who work in the industry, perhaps it's time to start pushing corporations toward creating modified versions of software for the "Big 3" (PC, Mac, Linux) rather than just for one or the other.