Actually, aside from the subtly derisive intent behind using a spelling like "Windoze" to refer to Microsoft's OS(s), there is a really sound reason as well--this particular term at least helps distinguish to computing newcomers between Windows9x/NT and the concept of windows for a GUI. I've seen too many instances of people pointing at the Mac's GUI (for one example) and saying that it somehow "immitates" Windoze; I've seen X on Linux refered to on distrib boxes as a "Windows95 clone." Not that I have any particularly fanatical liking for Apple, though I do think their OS is superior in general to anything from Microsoft (NT 4 Workstation wins by a hair for stability but loses overall to MacOS 8.x for basic user-friendliness and general app performance), but the fact is I started working on computers the year before the Mac first appeared and I've been working recently on a book on the history of personal computing, and so I have some idea of who did what (in Microsoft's case you can add "to whom") and when, and where exactly all this nifty stuff comes from. So it angers me when people say Gnome is "just like Windows," because they are basically starting off on the wrong foot in their interpretation of what they see. Anyway it may be a subtle distinction but I think it's an important one. I've also seen the spelling Windoze thrown around in print-chatty Brit PC mags a lot.
I do however want to add that there are numerous other terms that/.ers regularly employ which make them look childish. "Microsucks," "Winbloat," etc., etc. While this may give people a pretty clear picture of what someone's opinion of Microsoft or its products is, it's basically ill-humored and on a level with the standard copy one used to find in the pages of "Famous Monsters of Filmland" magazine (anybody remember that beloved old rag?) or junior high-school playground blather. I understand though how pissed people can get when it's Microsoft-in-your-face every day.
Isn't it really just a variation of the theme of internet "disk backup" services? I have a tape drive for my PC, Zip drive, and SuperDiscs (iMac and PC). And I STILL use an internet back-up service too, for some stuff. I might make use of this iMacfloppy service. It makes sense, really, as an alternative, in some situations--I can access files from any computer with an internet connection--and this is useful for my PC, too. Floppies get damaged, lost, etc. Binaries transfered via e-mail easily get shredded or screwed up. I won't even mention newsgroups (hey--what are you doing posting binaries to newsgroups? none of your business!). Laugh at it all you want--I think it's cool, and it makes sense. Except they need to up the 3 MB storage space limit.
"Why don't you people just grow up and realize that you may not always be right and after expressing your opinion once or maybe twice just give up on it unstead of filling an entire forum with useless flames directed at products you have never used."
But it ain't. And that's the point, re: "if it were Microsoft that invented Firewire,"
--They didn't because they don't know or care shit about innovation--and HARDWARE innovation? MICROSOFT? Christ they swipe designs for MICE!
"and they _didn't_ charge for it, people would be all over their ass about unfair competition and driving other people out of the market"
--Damn right people would be all over their ass--the company has twenty times the market share that Apple does and the equivalent market-power, and the ONLY reason that Microsoft "gives away" anything is to kill competition. Otherwise it overcharges--by comparison--for virtually every one of its products--from its OS(s) to "Office" software to joysticks.
True, $1 per port is peanuts--it's just that Apple's move, if it's true, doesn't exactly create a good impression of the company, and it may indeed be a bad sign--"My Apple," anyone?
I like Apple--their hardware (or the hardware they use) is terrific, they're software is decent to fantastic, and they've been pretty smart lately in the marketing area, but if they start turning into Microsoft--hey, fuck 'em.
--what a nitwit answer. Other than disk-formating/partitioning--obviously--apps, I have never heard of any app on any damned platform that allowed the user/admin to DELETE the entire root directory of a hard-disk/disk-partition! You would think that Microsoft's engineers would have had the brains to have FrontPage automatically detect when a directory is the FUCKING ROOT DIRECTORY!
You'd also think that the damned OS would somehow provide some protection from this kind of thing. What's amazing is how in the hell can an APPLICATION wipe out the OS it's running under--Windoze won't let me drag its folder to the Recycle Bin or simply right-click>"Delete"--I just tried and still no luck damnit!--bit it WILL let FrontPage? Such brilliance and innovation comes only from Microsoft!
Where did this Office Suites thing come from? True, the abbreviation "OS" could stand for "Office Suites" but it can also stand for "Open Source"--a confusion which I realized was probable --even if it obviously wouldn't make sense--after I made the post using "OS software." I didn't even think of "Office Suites," though. WERE you discussing Office Suites? I don't think you were. I wasn't. Interesting little accidental detour, though, from another person's response to this little diatribe of yours.
The statement re Be: You obviously didn't bother with the URL I provided. I use and moreover love using BeOS, think it's the best GUI-run desktop OS on the (Intel) market for ANY general purpose, even with current app limitations considered. The specs you seem to be thinking of involve Apple's proprietary motherboards, and NOT the G3 itself, which Be can (and does) run on--with older PowerPCs equipped with G3 upgrade cards. You know this alone from Be Inc.'s own official statements. Be Inc. however may not be telling the whole story, regardless of Apple's stance.
Re: MacOS upgrade not twenty bucks? No. It's not--it's $19.95. There are some restrictions for non-iMac owners, though; iMac owners can upgrade forever, apparently. There may be some other upgrade pricing-plan available of which I am unaware. In any event, the full version of MacOS 8.5 is $99. The upgrade-only for Windoze98 is $89. And good luck upgrading over Windoze95--or worse 3.1--you'll need it. And yes I've read the stories re people having problems with upgrading to MacOS 8.5--which have occured in less than 1% of total upgrades performed. Versus Windoze upgrades, which result in serious problems 25% of the time--and this number is probably conservative. I'd feel safer dealing with the Apple upgrade product, to say the least (I've done it with no hitches, actually). Moreover, Microsoft offers nothing similar to the deal Apple offers with its OS software, to my knowledge, and in fact Microsoft has considered plans to charge users annual fees for usage alone. BeOS upgrade from 3.x to 4 is $25, no limitations I'm aware of, free if you purchased 3 within 30 days of the debut of 4 (though I understand they've fudged this to extend the date of original purchase limitation by up to a month). The full is (like the upgrade for both Intel and PowerPC COMBINED) $69.95. You should know this. Any version your heart desires of Linux is basically free, or cheaper in any given distribution than any of the aforementioned OSs.
Re price-fixing. I've read the original document in some detail now, and yes--contrary to my impression from the news.com article--there is mention of "price-fixing." Kick me for being unattentive. But I still disagree fiercely with the entire thrust of your post. To my mind, of commercial vendors Be Inc. has the fairest of the deals mentioned up above, with respect to upgrades. Full-product? Price should not be based upon what the market will bare, which is the situation now with Microsoft, but upon demand based upon economy of scale. I might pay ten cents for a Windoze CD ROM. It makes a pretty coaster.
Integrating browsers: As I think I hinted at at least I am not at all familiar with OS/2. So I'm uncertain just what browser "integration" would involve--I'd be willing to bet in the dark though that there's never been anything as extensive as what Microsoft has done with IE and Windoze, and at any rate the motivation is clearly not the same. Bundling browser software and "integrating" it is NOT the same thing, though the effects are--IE cannot be easily removed from Windoze98 by the ordinary user. IE and Cyberdog and any other bundled software CAN be got rid of without much hassle or technical knowledge.
Your conclusion(s)? Bullshit again. The war is not over by a long shot. And f there is no need for competition, as you seem to think, then the source code for Windoze must be made public, or users and developers both are in deep, deep shit--there is essentially no competition now, and, ahem, where are we?
If the "costs are cheaper with one OS standard," then how can a tiny company like Be sell its product for less than half the price of Windoze, and moreover give away upgrades? And hope to survive, let alone expand? Or maybe they'll start charging Microsoft-style prices next year--but I doubt it. In general, the damned software business needs restructuring--radical as it may sound, and I honestly think that this is exactly what will happen over the next couple of years, and Open Source will play a huge if not pivotal role in the remaking of the software industry. And--surprise--I agree with you about what (among other things) the DOJ should do about preventing Microsoft from hard-coding Windoze (or being obscure re APIs) to keep programs from working or force people to use Microsoft products. But that's not enough, really--and I don't think that Microsoft would really abide by anything. They'd surely try to find a way around not playing their own products as favorites, whether it's legal or no. They break a new rule every day, it seems to me. Hey--maybe this is what you meant by the OJ "glove trick."
--The only idiots I've seen in the courtroom are Microsoft's lawyers--either that, if they're playing straight, or they're playing underhanded and looking for a reversal on appeal by pissing off the judge so badly he screws up technically.
"Sorry,
But it is true. MS Windows is one of the cheapest OSes available to run on the PC. There are few that are cheaper or free.
*Wrong. You haven't had to go shopping for OS software in awhile, have you? Do some pricing. EVERYTHING is cheaper than Microsoft's products, with one possible exception that I'm unsure of. Honestly, how you can say this straight if you know whereof you speak absolutely baffles me.*
However, if Justice plans to throw the price of the OS in Microsoft's face then all they will end up doing is playing the OJ glove trick.
*Which is?*
Let's see... on Mac you only have ONE commercial choice (Be used to be a choice, which is still is provided you don't have a G3 - because be proprietary they won't let Be in on the specs).
*This last isn't the entire story, actually. The actual situation, from what I've read, may be somewhat different from the way Be Inc. tells it. See http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9067/ BeOS_Petition.html*
Mac OS is NOT cheap. They have a monopoly on their side.
*Huh? When an upgrade costs you $20-30?(Last I heard.)Sure they have a monopoly; but they have only 5% of the overall desktop market!*
The problem with MS is that by their own success they got even more successful and larger. Try to find apps in a store for other than Windows.
So what was the point of this news article? If anything it supports MS's claim about pricing. OS/2 has always been priced too high..
*This is the one exception--though I'm uncertain about the specifics.*
its one reason I gave up following it. Any of the commercial Unix softwares is priced in la-la land.
*Unix is not a "general-purpose" OS. Windoze 98 is.*
The question that begs to be anwsered... just what does Justice consider a fair price for an operating system?
*No. That isn't the question. I haven't read or heard anything about anyone wanting to set up fixed pricing for OSs, if that's what you're hovering around.*
When will Justice tag other manufacturers about their proprietary stance on their platforms? Since they are beating on MS for dominating their market why not beat on Apple?
*Indeed, why not--IF Apple or someone else winds up doing the same thing . . . *
After all its not like you can go outside of Apple easily for your OS.
*No. You can go INSIDE Apple easily for your OS--at least for a server and more limited desktop workstation--with MKLinux (though this may change with Apple's pushing OS X now). OUTSIDE there's LinuxPPC. But we shouldn't be considering SERVER OSs, of course; the issues involve desktop OSs, so you probably have a point, even if it isn't (yet) significant to a large number of people--the way the issues involve Windoze and desktop computer users.*
Hell, Apple went out of their way to stop clone makers. If that isn't the definition of a monopolistic attitude then nothing is.
*There's something to this too, perhaps.*
MS is a bunch of money-hungry we have to control the world of PCs, but they are not unique in their actions, and definitely not unique in the monolopistic state that Justice claims.
*Unique? You mean unique in the industry? I disagree--I don't see anybody else "integrating" browsers, or any other advanced application technology for that matter, WITH AN OS. Microsoft is $300 BILLION unique.*
(ps... I work on an AS/400 - as if anyone else could write an OS for it... )
Stop MS from short-selling the server market. Just get off the desktop market for PCs.
*But that is THE market we're SUPPOSED to be talking about here, isn't it?*
No one cares,
*Just call me "no one."*
and its better that there is one dominating standard.
*Bullshit.*
The best bet for Justice is to prevent Microsoft from creating exclusive deals for their server and hand-held Operating systems. That is where real competition still exists.
*Now that Microsoft has murdered all the rest? (Or rather, tried to.)*
If Justice had come to the desktop around the time OS/2 and Win 3.1 were fighting it out they could have made a difference. Now, they are just making press stories.
--But press stories matter--to ALL users, not just corporate execs and techies and geeks, but to Ma and Pa Kettle in Kentucky. That's why this little article and what it relates is important--it helps open the eyes of consumers to the facts which lie beyond the obscurantist PR of Microsoft.
Oh I don't know the last time I talked to anyone who was capable of talking back--whether they agreed with me or not--I think they had a brain. Of course, they didn't mind USING their brains. You seem to mind using yours, however.
Not only is Solaris not in the same ballpark as Windoze98, not in the same LEAGUE--it isn't even the same damned GAME! First they tried comparing Windoze98 upgrades to other desktop OSs' full installs, now THIS?
"1. Are we focusing on the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market or browser market?"
--Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop OS market. It has TRIED to extend this monopoly into the browser market. To a huge degree it has succeeded, and it is by entrenchment--via OS "integration" and exclusionary contracting--and not by virtue of any advancement in technology that it maintains any gains it has made. It has shown no sign of even any INTENT to alter its future business practices. We are talking about the browser AND the OS, because Microsoft has made it impossible to do otherwise.
"1. First and most obviously, of course, what about IBM, Sun, etc.? Is Microsoft a monopoly or just a market leader?"
--The only sense in which the word "monopoly" does not apply to Microsoft is the sense in which it is used in the board game. I'm sick of the debate on this issue, and won't say anything else.
"2. Couldn't you argue that Microsoft is in fact a natural monopoly."
No. (Though some pundits may disagree.) The nature of a "natural monopoly" is that it is ultimately inevitable. Microsoft Windoze as a "universal" computer OS is NOT, nor has it ever been, inevitable. The United States (and the world at large for that matter) has not yet--emphasis on the "yet"--reached the stage where desktop computers are a general public necessity, and moreover the technology of computing is EXTREMELY amorphous today, and is likely to be so for quite some time. This situation may change--and it probably will change--in the future, however.
"3. What specific laws has Microsoft broken in the OS arena? It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to violate anti-trust laws. What anti-trust laws are you suggesting they violated?"
--This is clearly a prejudicial assertion. There are, strictly speaking, no laws governing the "OS arena"--though there may be when Microsoft loses this round of the trial and if the DOJ prevails. I suggest you hop on over to the DOJs website to find out precisely which aspects of anti-trust law Microsoft is accused of violating./.is hardly a place for any legal treatise.
The last part is a bit involved, so . . .
Agreed on the first part about undermining the source of profit for Netscape (because this is obvious, as you note). Yes, one could view Netscape prior to Microsoft's marketing attack as a "monopoly of sorts"--it WAS, in fact, a virtual monopoly. HOWEVER, Netscape did not attempt to MAINTAIN that position by illegal business practices, to my knowledge, nor was it ever in the position to leverage its product to anull all competition, a position which Microsoft IS in and which Microsoft moreover seeks ruthlessly to maintain at the cost of competition in the marketplace. Linux and Open Source advocates in general are accutely aware of this fact; it is of concern moreover to anyone using an alternative OS.
The final point you make is very interesting to me, since, as I see it, proprietary web technologies have been both a blessing and a curse to web developers--on the one hand the competitive nature of companies marketing browsers (and also of companies responsible for other internet technologies) has benefitted developers by ultimately advancing ALL technologies. It has also been a royal pain in the ass--the issue has been and is still really one of multiple vendor COMPLIANCE that isn't necessarily being adhered to thoroughly. Perhaps it just isn't in the nature of a competitive commercial marketplace to be compliant with a public standard, and one is hoping and complaining pointlessly . . . . But one browser by one company for all? That to me seems like it would lead only to stagnation in overall technology developement. (Ditto this last for OSs, for that matter.)
That will be the key to making this thing fly, if you ask me. Most users couldn't care less--unless they run into problems--what video chipset their computer uses, what the speed of the system bus is, what kind of RAM, etc., etc.--they just want it to work and meet the demands they place on it. With users being able to simply install memory upgrades, expansion cards, etc., without having to deal with a "black-box" case that's bolted shut like a tv set (and "therefore" requires you to pay for some pimple-studded wanna-be geek from CompostUSA to come over to your house an hour later than scheduled, stare lustfully at your daughter, frighten the cat, enrage the dog, leave footprints on your new carpet, and then spend five minutes actually doing the upgrade . ..)is a HUGE step in the right direction. It helps to demystify an aspect of personal computing that I've always hated--from the standpoint of a general user, at least.
What's more--and don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking PC hardware itself in any way--but there is simply NO PC out there that I can think of that even comes close to being truly "user-friendly" in this way. (Coupled with Windoze what you usually get is user-nightmarish.)
Aside, the case's appearance . . . well, it looks pretty damned ugly, if you ask me. But hey, I thought the iMac was an eye-sore when it first appeared, but, well . . . now I have one and . . . it grows on you. (Wish I'd gotten a purple or green or orange one, though--ah well.)
I should have said "I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft DID sell off its non-voting shares in Apple sometime in the next year using this same line of reasoning" or something to that effect, which is what I meant. Damned double negatives. (Of course, Microsoft is likely to make money off of that investment, so maybe not . . ..)
Um I think that's more like $150 million + (as a people have already pointed out, along with elucidations of the correct causes of the stock-purchase & etc) but anyway
"My personal opinion is that this little donation is the single reason that Apple is still alive (remember, they probably wouldn't have been around to do the imac or MacOS 8.x+1 if Bill hadn't coughed up some spare change for the shoe-shine boys at Apple. Smart move on Bill's part too.."
may be based a upon a common misconception. Apple was already turning the corner financially and showing a profit when Microsoft made the "investment" you refer to. And anyhow Microsoft and Uncle Billy aren't in the habit of throwing their money into companies that look like they are about to choke, though they have pulled out of companies (i.e. Real) that are doing well in order to give their own products (of the same nature as said company's) an extra advantage . . . among other business tactics.
Of course there's no crime in eliminating conflicts of interest . . . I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft didn't sell off its non-voting shares in Apple using this line of reason sometime in the next year. It hardly matters--Apple doesn't, nor did it ever, need Microsoft's money, and it probably could do just fine without any of Microsoft's products, despite Steve Job's fears about losing Office (and remember that Microsoft is contractually obliged to keep Office available for the Mac platform for another two or three years, so there's a security blanket still). Whether Apple truly embraces open source or no, the fact that they are not dependant upon Microsoft products for their well-being is clearly evident in a software economy that is obviously shifting towards open source models in an irreversable way, nurturing an environment wherein businesses and execs are less apt to fall for Microsoft FUD about application compatability and maintaining business software "standards" ruled and governed by Microsoft. Open source will play in Apple's favor, at least in the shorter term.
Anyway I hope Apple does more to embrace open source. It would be a step in the right direction for the company, what with past debacles.
Slashdot Mirror
Charming. I see you actually created a /. profile just for this occassion. I guess the dig about "anonymous cowardice" earlier got to you . . . .
Check out
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/sucker.html
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/sucker.html
I just got an e-mail from Vic Flanders after I submitted jerrypournelle.com to him. He says "I'll be using this one for sure."
Yeah. I think I'll submit it to webpagesthatsuck.com. Be surprised if it hasn't been already, though.
Yeah. Kinda weird. Exactly what the hell was that all about?
Actually, aside from the subtly derisive intent behind using a spelling like "Windoze" to refer to Microsoft's OS(s), there is a really sound reason as well--this particular term at least helps distinguish to computing newcomers between Windows9x/NT and the concept of windows for a GUI. I've seen too many instances of people pointing at the Mac's GUI (for one example) and saying that it somehow "immitates" Windoze; I've seen X on Linux refered to on distrib boxes as a "Windows95 clone." Not that I have any particularly fanatical liking for Apple, though I do think their OS is superior in general to anything from Microsoft (NT 4 Workstation wins by a hair for stability but loses overall to MacOS 8.x for basic user-friendliness and general app performance), but the fact is I started working on computers the year before the Mac first appeared and I've been working recently on a book on the history of personal computing, and so I have some idea of who did what (in Microsoft's case you can add "to whom") and when, and where exactly all this nifty stuff comes from. So it angers me when people say Gnome is "just like Windows," because they are basically starting off on the wrong foot in their interpretation of what they see. Anyway it may be a subtle distinction but I think it's an important one. I've also seen the spelling Windoze thrown around in print-chatty Brit PC mags a lot.
/.ers regularly employ which make them look childish. "Microsucks," "Winbloat," etc., etc. While this may give people a pretty clear picture of what someone's opinion of Microsoft or its products is, it's basically ill-humored and on a level with the standard copy one used to find in the pages of "Famous Monsters of Filmland" magazine (anybody remember that beloved old rag?) or junior high-school playground blather. I understand though how pissed people can get when it's Microsoft-in-your-face every day.
I do however want to add that there are numerous other terms that
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
Gandhi
Isn't it really just a variation of the theme of internet "disk backup" services? I have a tape drive for my PC, Zip drive, and SuperDiscs (iMac and PC). And I STILL use an internet back-up service too, for some stuff. I might make use of this iMacfloppy service. It makes sense, really, as an alternative, in some situations--I can access files from any computer with an internet connection--and this is useful for my PC, too. Floppies get damaged, lost, etc. Binaries transfered via e-mail easily get shredded or screwed up. I won't even mention newsgroups (hey--what are you doing posting binaries to newsgroups? none of your business!). Laugh at it all you want--I think it's cool, and it makes sense. Except they need to up the 3 MB storage space limit.
"Why don't you people just grow up and realize that you may not always be right and after
expressing your opinion once or maybe twice just give up on it unstead of filling an entire forum with useless flames directed at products you have never used."
Right on.
But it ain't. And that's the point, re:
"if it were Microsoft that invented Firewire,"
--They didn't because they don't know or care shit about innovation--and HARDWARE innovation? MICROSOFT? Christ they swipe designs for MICE!
"and they _didn't_ charge for it, people would be all over their ass about unfair competition and
driving other people out of the market"
--Damn right people would be all over their ass--the company has twenty times the market share that Apple does and the equivalent market-power, and the ONLY reason that Microsoft "gives away" anything is to kill competition. Otherwise it overcharges--by comparison--for virtually every one of its products--from its OS(s) to "Office" software to joysticks.
True, $1 per port is peanuts--it's just that Apple's move, if it's true, doesn't exactly create a good impression of the company, and it may indeed be a bad sign--"My Apple," anyone?
I like Apple--their hardware (or the hardware they use) is terrific, they're software is decent to fantastic, and they've been pretty smart lately in the marketing area, but if they start turning into Microsoft--hey, fuck 'em.
--what a nitwit answer. Other than disk-formating/partitioning--obviously--apps, I have never heard of any app on any damned platform that allowed the user/admin to DELETE the entire root directory of a hard-disk/disk-partition! You would think that Microsoft's engineers would have had the brains to have FrontPage automatically detect when a directory is the FUCKING ROOT DIRECTORY!
You'd also think that the damned OS would somehow provide some protection from this kind of thing. What's amazing is how in the hell can an APPLICATION wipe out the OS it's running under--Windoze won't let me drag its folder to the
Recycle Bin or simply right-click>"Delete"--I just tried and still no luck damnit!--bit it WILL let FrontPage? Such brilliance and innovation comes only from Microsoft!
Where did this Office Suites thing come from? True, the abbreviation "OS" could stand for "Office Suites" but it can also stand for "Open Source"--a confusion which I realized was probable --even if it obviously wouldn't make sense--after I made the post using "OS software." I didn't even think of "Office Suites," though. WERE you discussing Office Suites? I don't think you were. I wasn't. Interesting little accidental detour, though, from another person's response to this little diatribe of yours.
The statement re Be: You obviously didn't bother with the URL I provided. I use and moreover love using BeOS, think it's the best GUI-run desktop OS on the (Intel) market for ANY general purpose, even with current app limitations considered. The specs you seem to be thinking of involve Apple's proprietary motherboards, and NOT the G3 itself, which Be can (and does) run on--with older PowerPCs equipped with G3 upgrade cards. You know this alone from Be Inc.'s own official statements.
Be Inc. however may not be telling the whole story, regardless of Apple's stance.
Re: MacOS upgrade not twenty bucks? No. It's not--it's $19.95. There are some restrictions for non-iMac owners, though; iMac owners can upgrade forever, apparently. There may be some other upgrade pricing-plan available of which I am unaware. In any event, the full version of MacOS 8.5 is $99. The upgrade-only for Windoze98 is $89. And good luck upgrading over Windoze95--or worse 3.1--you'll need it. And yes I've read the stories re people having problems with upgrading to MacOS 8.5--which have occured in less than 1% of total upgrades performed. Versus Windoze upgrades, which result in serious problems 25% of the time--and this number is probably conservative. I'd feel safer dealing with the Apple upgrade product, to say the least (I've done it with no hitches, actually). Moreover, Microsoft offers nothing similar to the deal Apple offers with its OS software, to my knowledge, and in fact Microsoft has considered plans to charge users annual fees for usage alone.
BeOS upgrade from 3.x to 4 is $25, no limitations I'm aware of, free if you purchased 3 within 30 days of the debut of 4 (though I understand they've fudged this to extend the date of original purchase limitation by up to a month). The full is (like the upgrade for both Intel and PowerPC COMBINED) $69.95. You should know this. Any version your heart desires of Linux is basically free, or cheaper in any given distribution than any of the aforementioned OSs.
Re price-fixing. I've read the original document in some detail now, and yes--contrary to my impression from the news.com article--there is mention of "price-fixing." Kick me for being unattentive. But I still disagree fiercely with the entire thrust of your post. To my mind, of commercial vendors Be Inc. has the fairest of the deals mentioned up above, with respect to upgrades. Full-product? Price should not be based upon what the market will bare, which is the situation now with Microsoft, but upon demand based upon economy of scale. I might pay ten cents for a Windoze CD ROM. It makes a pretty coaster.
Integrating browsers: As I think I hinted at at least I am not at all familiar with OS/2. So I'm uncertain just what browser "integration" would involve--I'd be willing to bet in the dark though that there's never been anything as extensive as what Microsoft has done with IE and Windoze, and at any rate the motivation is clearly not the same. Bundling browser software and "integrating" it is NOT the same thing, though the effects are--IE cannot be easily removed from Windoze98 by the ordinary user. IE and Cyberdog and any other bundled software CAN be got rid of without much hassle or technical knowledge.
Your conclusion(s)? Bullshit again. The war is not over by a long shot. And f there is no need for competition, as you seem to think, then the source code for Windoze must be made public, or users and developers both are in deep, deep shit--there is essentially no competition now, and, ahem, where are we?
If the "costs are cheaper with one OS standard," then how can a tiny company like Be sell its product for less than half the price of Windoze, and moreover give away upgrades?
And hope to survive, let alone expand? Or maybe they'll start charging Microsoft-style prices next year--but I doubt it. In general, the damned software business needs restructuring--radical as it may sound, and I honestly think that this is exactly what will happen over the next couple of years, and Open Source will play a huge if not pivotal role in the remaking of the software industry. And--surprise--I agree with you about what (among other things) the DOJ should do about preventing Microsoft from hard-coding Windoze (or being obscure re APIs) to keep programs from working or force people to use Microsoft products. But that's not enough, really--and I don't think that Microsoft would really abide by anything. They'd surely try to find a way around not playing their own products as favorites, whether it's legal or no. They break a new rule every day, it seems to me. Hey--maybe this is what you meant by the OJ "glove trick."
--The only idiots I've seen in the courtroom are Microsoft's lawyers--either that, if they're playing straight, or they're playing underhanded and looking for a reversal on appeal by pissing off the judge so badly he screws up technically.
/ BeOS_Petition.html*
... I work on an AS/400 - as if anyone else could write an OS for it... )
"Sorry,
But it is true. MS Windows is one of the cheapest OSes available to run on the PC. There are few that are cheaper or free.
*Wrong. You haven't had to go shopping for OS software in awhile, have you? Do some pricing. EVERYTHING is cheaper than Microsoft's products, with one possible exception that I'm unsure of. Honestly, how you can say this straight if you know whereof you speak absolutely baffles me.*
However, if
Justice plans to throw the price of the OS in Microsoft's face then all they will end up doing is playing the OJ glove trick.
*Which is?*
Let's see... on Mac you only have ONE commercial choice (Be used to be a choice, which is still is provided you don't have a G3 -
because be proprietary they won't let Be in on the specs).
*This last isn't the entire story, actually. The actual situation, from what I've read, may be somewhat different from the way Be Inc. tells it. See http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9067
Mac OS is NOT cheap.
They have a monopoly on their side.
*Huh? When an upgrade costs you $20-30?(Last I heard.)Sure they have a monopoly; but they have only 5% of the overall desktop market!*
The problem with MS is that by their own success they got even more successful and larger. Try to find apps in a store for other than
Windows.
So what was the point of this news article? If anything it supports MS's claim about pricing. OS/2 has always been priced too high..
*This is the one exception--though I'm uncertain about the specifics.*
its one reason I gave up following it. Any of the commercial Unix softwares is priced in la-la land.
*Unix is not a "general-purpose" OS. Windoze 98 is.*
The question that begs to be anwsered... just what does Justice consider a fair price for an operating system?
*No. That isn't the question. I haven't read or heard anything about anyone wanting to set up fixed pricing for OSs, if that's what you're hovering around.*
When will Justice tag other manufacturers about their proprietary stance on their platforms? Since they are beating on MS for dominating their market why not beat on Apple?
*Indeed, why not--IF Apple or someone else winds up doing the same thing . . . *
After all its not like you can go outside of Apple easily for your OS.
*No. You can go INSIDE Apple easily for your OS--at least for a server and more limited desktop workstation--with MKLinux (though this may change with Apple's pushing OS X now). OUTSIDE there's LinuxPPC. But we shouldn't be considering SERVER OSs, of course; the issues involve desktop OSs, so you probably have a point, even if it isn't (yet) significant to a large number of people--the way the issues involve Windoze and desktop computer users.*
Hell, Apple went out of their way to stop clone makers. If that isn't the definition of a monopolistic attitude then nothing is.
*There's something to this too, perhaps.*
MS is a bunch of money-hungry we have to control the world of PCs, but they are not unique in their actions, and definitely not unique
in the monolopistic state that Justice claims.
*Unique? You mean unique in the industry? I disagree--I don't see anybody else "integrating" browsers, or any other advanced application technology for that matter, WITH AN OS. Microsoft is $300 BILLION unique.*
(ps
Stop MS from short-selling the server market. Just get off the desktop market for PCs.
*But that is THE market we're SUPPOSED to be talking about here, isn't it?*
No one cares,
*Just call me "no one."*
and its better that there is one
dominating standard.
*Bullshit.*
The best bet for Justice is to prevent Microsoft from creating exclusive deals for their server and hand-held Operating systems. That is where real competition still exists.
*Now that Microsoft has murdered all the rest? (Or rather, tried to.)*
If Justice had come to the desktop around the time OS/2 and Win 3.1 were fighting it out they could have made a difference. Now, they are just making press stories.
--But press stories matter--to ALL users, not just corporate execs and techies and geeks, but to Ma and Pa Kettle in Kentucky. That's why this little article and what it relates is important--it helps open the eyes of consumers to the facts which lie beyond the obscurantist PR of Microsoft.
Oh I don't know the last time I talked to anyone who was capable of talking back--whether they agreed with me or not--I think they had a brain. Of course, they didn't mind USING their brains. You seem to mind using yours, however.
Not only is Solaris not in the same ballpark as Windoze98, not in the same LEAGUE--it isn't even the same damned GAME! First they tried comparing Windoze98 upgrades to other desktop OSs' full installs, now THIS?
"1. Are we focusing on the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market or browser market?"
/.is hardly a place for any legal treatise.
--Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop OS market. It has TRIED to extend this monopoly into the browser market. To a huge degree it has succeeded, and it is by entrenchment--via OS "integration" and exclusionary contracting--and not by virtue of any advancement in technology that it maintains any gains it has made. It has shown no sign of even any INTENT to alter its future business practices. We are talking about the browser AND the OS, because Microsoft has made it impossible to do otherwise.
"1. First and most obviously, of course, what about IBM, Sun, etc.? Is Microsoft a monopoly or just a market leader?"
--The only sense in which the word "monopoly" does not apply to Microsoft is the sense in which it is used in the board game. I'm sick of the debate on this issue, and won't say anything else.
"2. Couldn't you argue that Microsoft is in fact a natural monopoly."
No. (Though some pundits may disagree.) The nature of a "natural monopoly" is that it is ultimately inevitable. Microsoft Windoze as a "universal" computer OS is NOT, nor has it ever been, inevitable. The United States (and the world at large for that matter) has not yet--emphasis on the "yet"--reached the stage where desktop computers are a general public necessity, and moreover the technology of computing is EXTREMELY amorphous today, and is likely to be so for quite some time. This situation may change--and it probably will change--in the future, however.
"3. What specific laws has Microsoft broken in the OS arena? It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to violate anti-trust laws. What anti-trust laws are you suggesting they violated?"
--This is clearly a prejudicial assertion. There are, strictly speaking, no laws governing the "OS arena"--though there may be when Microsoft loses this round of the trial and if the DOJ prevails. I suggest you hop on over to the DOJs website to find out precisely which aspects of anti-trust law Microsoft is accused of violating.
The last part is a bit involved, so . . .
Agreed on the first part about undermining the source of profit for Netscape (because this is obvious, as you note). Yes, one could view Netscape prior to Microsoft's marketing attack as a "monopoly of sorts"--it WAS, in fact, a virtual monopoly. HOWEVER, Netscape did not attempt to MAINTAIN that position by illegal business practices, to my knowledge, nor was it ever in the position to leverage its product to anull all competition, a position which Microsoft IS in and which Microsoft moreover seeks ruthlessly to maintain at the cost of competition in the marketplace. Linux and Open Source advocates in general are accutely aware of this fact; it is of concern moreover to anyone using an alternative OS.
The final point you make is very interesting to me, since, as I see it, proprietary web technologies have been both a blessing and a curse to web developers--on the one hand the competitive nature of companies marketing browsers (and also of companies responsible for other internet technologies) has benefitted developers by ultimately advancing ALL technologies. It has also been a royal pain in the ass--the issue has been and is still really one of multiple vendor COMPLIANCE that isn't necessarily being adhered to thoroughly. Perhaps it just isn't in the nature of a competitive commercial marketplace to be compliant with a public standard, and one is hoping and complaining pointlessly . . . . But one browser by one company for all? That to me seems like it would lead only to stagnation in overall technology developement. (Ditto this last for OSs, for that matter.)
That will be the key to making this thing fly, if you ask me. Most users couldn't care less--unless they run into problems--what video chipset their computer uses, what the speed of the system bus is, what kind of RAM, etc., etc.--they just want it to work and meet the demands they place on it. With users being able to simply install memory upgrades, expansion cards, etc., without having to deal with a "black-box" case that's bolted shut like a tv set (and "therefore" requires you to pay for some pimple-studded wanna-be geek from CompostUSA to come over to your house an hour later than scheduled, stare lustfully at your daughter, frighten the cat, enrage the dog, leave footprints on your new carpet, and then spend five minutes actually doing the upgrade . . .)is a HUGE step in the right direction. It helps to demystify an aspect of personal computing that I've always hated--from the standpoint of a general user, at least.
What's more--and don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking PC hardware itself in any way--but there is simply NO PC out there that I can think of that even comes close to being truly "user-friendly" in this way. (Coupled with Windoze what you usually get is user-nightmarish.)
Aside, the case's appearance . . . well, it looks pretty damned ugly, if you ask me. But hey, I thought the iMac was an eye-sore when it first appeared, but, well . . . now I have one and . . . it grows on you. (Wish I'd gotten a purple or green or orange one, though--ah well.)
I should have said "I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft DID sell off its non-voting shares in Apple sometime in the next year using this same line of reasoning" or something to that effect, which is what I meant. Damned double negatives. (Of course, Microsoft is likely to make money off of that investment, so maybe not . . . .)
Um I think that's more like $150 million + (as a people have already pointed out, along with elucidations of the correct causes of the stock-purchase & etc) but anyway
"My personal opinion is that this little donation is the single reason that Apple is still alive (remember, they probably wouldn't have been around to do the imac or MacOS 8.x+1 if Bill hadn't coughed up some spare change for the shoe-shine boys at Apple. Smart move on Bill's part too.."
may be based a upon a common misconception. Apple was already turning the corner financially and showing a profit when Microsoft made the "investment" you refer to. And anyhow Microsoft and Uncle Billy aren't in the habit of throwing their money into companies that look like they are about to choke, though they have pulled out of companies (i.e. Real) that are doing well in order to give their own products (of the same nature as said company's) an extra advantage . . . among other business tactics.
Of course there's no crime in eliminating conflicts of interest . . . I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft didn't sell off its non-voting shares in Apple using this line of reason sometime in the next year. It hardly matters--Apple doesn't, nor did it ever, need Microsoft's money, and it probably could do just fine without any of Microsoft's products, despite Steve Job's fears about losing Office (and remember that Microsoft is contractually obliged to keep Office available for the Mac platform for another two or three years, so there's a security blanket still).
Whether Apple truly embraces open source or no, the fact that they are not dependant upon Microsoft products for their well-being is clearly evident in a software economy that is obviously shifting towards open source models in an irreversable way, nurturing an environment wherein businesses and execs are less apt to fall for Microsoft FUD about application compatability and maintaining business software "standards" ruled and governed by Microsoft. Open source will play in Apple's favor, at least in the shorter term.
Anyway I hope Apple does more to embrace open source. It would be a step in the right direction for the company, what with past debacles.