I totally love the presentation mode in Impress where you have your slides on projector and slides thumbs (so you can see the next slide coming) along with notes on your laptop screen. And it shows you the time you spent presenting -- priceless during university seminars. Didn't know it was there, now I can't live without it. Don't care if PowerPoint has similar features -- it has to run on my Linux first.
How are the chances that a PC in store has Vista compared to Linux? 100 to 1? 1000? As EEE shows us -- sell 40% of PCs with Linux and 40% will buy Linux;)
You should've read Halloween documents -- MS does feel threated by Linux, it did even in 1998. The proposed solution was to deliberately cripple standards (sounds familiar?). You may also read some documents from Iowa case, especially about EDGI group with its "under no circumstances lose to Linux!".
Probably. Probably not. Google is already trying to make OEM's to pre-install Chrome. Some will agree for sure. More would agree if IE weren't there by default. That is what I mean by unfair.
IE is always there. It is a reason enough for many -- it is OEM that need to provide support for installed programs. And two browsers cost more than one to support, so why bother adding a second app which does basically the same? It's not about choice, it's about fair choice. IE or IE + Firefox or IE + Chrome or IE + Opera or IE +... isn't a fair one.
Yes, but will a person without Internet access know to run ftp pub.mozilla.org/? What if the URI changes? Besides, Windows's built-in FTP sucks.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to open up IE, point it at getfirefox.com, download the package and install it with a few deft finger presses. I don't fancy the idea of doing it via FTP, which is slow, buggy and inconvenient.
Yawn... OEM will install the browser of your choice if you buy a new PC. MS might provide a link to IE for boxed installs. The point is that IE has to be optional as any other browser is.
Ever heard of OEM's? They will pre-install some browser (otherwise no one will buy from them). As for retail -- I don't mind MS including a shortcut to download and install IE -- as long as there is an opportunity not to install it at all. Besides, very few use retails anyway and they are most likely tech savvy and can use USB stick or CD or ftp to get a decent browser.
As far as I am concerned, they can make an "install IE" desktop shortcut in retail version. And before you start asking "what's the difference then" -- you will have a choice what browser to install in the first place. As you're probably computer savvy if you use retail version, you'll have dozens of ways to install an alternative browser (ftp, CD, usb stick etc.). It's all about choice which you don't have at the moment. And please don't insult us both with starting "just don't use it" again.
None of those is making the development or use of competing products harder. If MS Paint would use incompatible jpeg format implementation or if solitaire would somehow prevent that cards display correctly on other solitaires -- that'd be the same. Your comparison is just moot. As for other operating systems -- none of them is a monopoly so a decision to bundle a browser won't affect entire market.
I must admit, it is cleverly done. Put me in front of a Windows machine with default settings and I'd probably select the topmost option. Still, it's an epic fail to enable such autostart of random programs from USB stick. It is sacrificing essential security for questionable convenience.
Choice may exist, but fair choice doesn't. You really should've read the original complaint. Vital part of it is that Microsoft should cease its embrace extend extinguish tactics and start following standards. Car analogies aside, let me explain how bundling IE harms the competition: First you have to keep in mind that Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OS market, so its actions can have vast effect on this and related markets. One of the markets is browser market. As IE is bundled with Windows and Windows is the dominant OS it is easy for web developers (and some software developers too) to assume that PC=IE. And you cannot shift the blame for IE-only sites and apps to devs alone as they choose to use Microsoft's incompatible implementations -- they have basically two choices -- support IE or be standard-compliant (which will most likely break things in IE). Now, we all remember about Microsoft's dominance in OS market, don't we? A developer which is usually under time-pressure is more likely to ignore the standards knowing that there will be IE on the PC for sure. If you make it according to standards you can at most assume that people *might* have another browser or *might* download it. IE is simply there. And developers who make their apps IE-only is exactly what Microsoft wants as it helps to lock user further to Windows. That is the point where unfair competition lies. This is how Microsoft is using its desktop OS monopoly to gain share in browser market to strengthen their OS monopoly even further. Unbundling is simply needed to put IE on par with its competitors.
Important part of the antitrust claim is Embrace, Extend and Extinguish tactics of Microsoft. One may argue that they aren't forcing anyone to use their non-standard implementations, but in fact that's exactly what they do. Remember, they have an OS monopoly, so every decision they make may affect entire markets (which might include browser market). IE is bundled with Windows = almost all PC's come with IE. So many devs will simply ignore standards -- why bother? And developers who make their apps IE-only is exactly what Microsoft wants. You cannot put all the blame to devs in that case -- they want their sites and sites to run on most PCs. But there are two ways of achieving this -- support IE or be standard-compliant. And latter option might (and will) break things on IE which means more work for you. What would you choose if you're a developer under constant time pressure? They are basically bullied into supporting monopoly. And that's a bad thing.
The proper protest would be to cease using their software and tell them why did you stop doing it. Anything else is just a cheap excuse. I don't like Microsoft and the only MS-branded thing I use is my USB mouse. I also opted for money refund of pre-installed Vista on my laptop, making myself clear why I wouldn't use it. Such a thing might be hard for you to do -- but no protest is ever easy.
There is nothing but grey area. Let me paint a few shades:
1. What is the market Opera is vying for? Is it the 'Windows PC' browser market? Is it the 'PC' browser market? Is it just the 'browser market' (OS/Architecture be damned)?
It is the browser market (OS/Architecture be damned).
Opera (on the desktop) is only available for windows. So I could argue that Opera is in the 'Windows PC' browser market.
Really? The fact that you didn't even bother to visit Opera's homepage before making such claims says it all. Because (sit down, kid, it'll be a shock for you) Opera is availible for Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, QNX, OS/2 and BeOS.
<obligatory car analogy>
You expect any car you buy to have upholstered seats. This does mean that custom car upholstry people lose business. But you can't rule that car companies have to stop providing upholstry -- even though there is undeniable proof that this hurts the aftermarket upholstry people. Even if there was one car company with 90% market control such a ruling would have no basis.
</obligatory car analogy>
You're better with analogies than you are with facts. I'd be pretty pissed of if I could buy a car with exactly one upholstery color and shape and if the seats would be deliberately made incompatible with third-party upholstery. Besides, I expect to be able to choose what upholstery I want before I buy a car, not after. And if my only choice is to put my upholstery above the one that is provided, it would piss me off to.
Remember IE for mac? Microsoft has stopped making it because they where unable to compete with bundled Safari. So it does prevent competition, they say it themselves. Besides, thanks to this bundling software and web developers assume that PC=IE (which is true because of OS monopoly) and build their apps accordingly. We now have tons of IE-only apps which would be cross-browser (and to some extend cross-platform) otherwise. Still don't see how this actively prevents user from using other browsers and even operating systems? These illegal practices of abusing the OS monopoly to gain browser monopoly (and to lock users even further into Windows) are now challenged in the court.
I use a belkin home router and it is awful. I have a high-speed internet connection and if I try to download something via wireless it gets blocked and I need to restart the router. Turning firewall off didn't help. Very crappy product...
Many of the people held there are simply too dangerous to let go.
What court did state that they are dangerous? What institution has proved it beyond reasonable doubt? The military says so? Come on, they have to find WMD's first before I even consider trusting them.
Many of the others who aren't have no where to go -- their home countries won't accept them.
I see it now -- Gitmo is all about charity, you simply give shelter to some poor homeless people. You have opened my eyes!
Why bother? If I need to install the very same copy of my OS to a different PC, I'll frigging *copy* it and still get all the updates, bells and whistles, no strings attached! Genuine Advantage who?..
The very reason I have switched my family PCs to Linux -- my parents and my aunt got dial-up and they really don't need more (broadband is expensive where they live and all they need Internet for is VoIP, instant messaging and e-mail wich occasional surfing). As I live abroad, I can visit them (and bring updates) twice a year tops. They are much better with Linux in the meantime. Besides, I can still hand-pick and install most needed security downloads via ssh. Works flawlessly so far.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally love the presentation mode in Impress where you have your slides on projector and slides thumbs (so you can see the next slide coming) along with notes on your laptop screen. And it shows you the time you spent presenting -- priceless during university seminars. Didn't know it was there, now I can't live without it. Don't care if PowerPoint has similar features -- it has to run on my Linux first.
With automatic cease-fire on 31.12 in every leap year.
How are the chances that a PC in store has Vista compared to Linux? 100 to 1? 1000? ;)
As EEE shows us -- sell 40% of PCs with Linux and 40% will buy Linux
You should've read Halloween documents -- MS does feel threated by Linux, it did even in 1998. The proposed solution was to deliberately cripple standards (sounds familiar?). You may also read some documents from Iowa case, especially about EDGI group with its "under no circumstances lose to Linux!".
Probably. Probably not. Google is already trying to make OEM's to pre-install Chrome. Some will agree for sure. More would agree if IE weren't there by default. That is what I mean by unfair.
IE is always there. It is a reason enough for many -- it is OEM that need to provide support for installed programs. And two browsers cost more than one to support, so why bother adding a second app which does basically the same? It's not about choice, it's about fair choice. IE or IE + Firefox or IE + Chrome or IE + Opera or IE + ... isn't a fair one.
Yes, but will a person without Internet access know to run
ftp pub.mozilla.org/? What if the URI changes? Besides, Windows's built-in FTP sucks.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to open up IE, point it at getfirefox.com, download the package and install it with a few deft finger presses. I don't fancy the idea of doing it via FTP, which is slow, buggy and inconvenient.
Yawn... OEM will install the browser of your choice if you buy a new PC. MS might provide a link to IE for boxed installs. The point is that IE has to be optional as any other browser is.
Well, they could start making cross-browser or even cross-platform applications. Everyone will benefit from that in the long term :)
Ever heard of OEM's? They will pre-install some browser (otherwise no one will buy from them). As for retail -- I don't mind MS including a shortcut to download and install IE -- as long as there is an opportunity not to install it at all. Besides, very few use retails anyway and they are most likely tech savvy and can use USB stick or CD or ftp to get a decent browser.
As far as I am concerned, they can make an "install IE" desktop shortcut in retail version. And before you start asking "what's the difference then" -- you will have a choice what browser to install in the first place. As you're probably computer savvy if you use retail version, you'll have dozens of ways to install an alternative browser (ftp, CD, usb stick etc.). It's all about choice which you don't have at the moment. And please don't insult us both with starting "just don't use it" again.
Although this too will fail once the EU decides that Microsoft's inclusion of an FTP client is anti-competitive and asks for it to be removed too.
Not unless MS decides to make an incompatible FTP implementation.
None of those is making the development or use of competing products harder. If MS Paint would use incompatible jpeg format implementation or if solitaire would somehow prevent that cards display correctly on other solitaires -- that'd be the same. Your comparison is just moot.
As for other operating systems -- none of them is a monopoly so a decision to bundle a browser won't affect entire market.
I must admit, it is cleverly done. Put me in front of a Windows machine with default settings and I'd probably select the topmost option.
Still, it's an epic fail to enable such autostart of random programs from USB stick. It is sacrificing essential security for questionable convenience.
This nasty virus has caused me to be up working overtime for the past two weeks.
Well one hint to finding the assholes who wrote this virus is the fact that the virus willingly ignores computers originating within the Ukraine.
That narrows it down to about 80 million people. ;-)
Ukraine has about 46 million people. And the situation is already being dealt with -- Russia has stopped to supply them with gas.
Choice may exist, but fair choice doesn't.
You really should've read the original complaint. Vital part of it is that Microsoft should cease its embrace extend extinguish tactics and start following standards.
Car analogies aside, let me explain how bundling IE harms the competition:
First you have to keep in mind that Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OS market, so its actions can have vast effect on this and related markets. One of the markets is browser market. As IE is bundled with Windows and Windows is the dominant OS it is easy for web developers (and some software developers too) to assume that PC=IE. And you cannot shift the blame for IE-only sites and apps to devs alone as they choose to use Microsoft's incompatible implementations -- they have basically two choices -- support IE or be standard-compliant (which will most likely break things in IE).
Now, we all remember about Microsoft's dominance in OS market, don't we? A developer which is usually under time-pressure is more likely to ignore the standards knowing that there will be IE on the PC for sure. If you make it according to standards you can at most assume that people *might* have another browser or *might* download it. IE is simply there. And developers who make their apps IE-only is exactly what Microsoft wants as it helps to lock user further to Windows.
That is the point where unfair competition lies. This is how Microsoft is using its desktop OS monopoly to gain share in browser market to strengthen their OS monopoly even further.
Unbundling is simply needed to put IE on par with its competitors.
Important part of the antitrust claim is Embrace, Extend and Extinguish tactics of Microsoft. One may argue that they aren't forcing anyone to use their non-standard implementations, but in fact that's exactly what they do. Remember, they have an OS monopoly, so every decision they make may affect entire markets (which might include browser market).
IE is bundled with Windows = almost all PC's come with IE. So many devs will simply ignore standards -- why bother? And developers who make their apps IE-only is exactly what Microsoft wants.
You cannot put all the blame to devs in that case -- they want their sites and sites to run on most PCs. But there are two ways of achieving this -- support IE or be standard-compliant. And latter option might (and will) break things on IE which means more work for you. What would you choose if you're a developer under constant time pressure? They are basically bullied into supporting monopoly. And that's a bad thing.
The proper protest would be to cease using their software and tell them why did you stop doing it. Anything else is just a cheap excuse.
I don't like Microsoft and the only MS-branded thing I use is my USB mouse. I also opted for money refund of pre-installed Vista on my laptop, making myself clear why I wouldn't use it.
Such a thing might be hard for you to do -- but no protest is ever easy.
There is nothing but grey area . Let me paint a few shades:
1. What is the market Opera is vying for? Is it the 'Windows PC' browser market? Is it the 'PC' browser market? Is it just the 'browser market' (OS/Architecture be damned)?
It is the browser market (OS/Architecture be damned).
Opera (on the desktop) is only available for windows. So I could argue that Opera is in the 'Windows PC' browser market.
Really? The fact that you didn't even bother to visit Opera's homepage before making such claims says it all. Because (sit down, kid, it'll be a shock for you) Opera is availible for Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, QNX, OS/2 and BeOS.
<obligatory car analogy>
You expect any car you buy to have upholstered seats. This does mean that custom car upholstry people lose business. But you can't rule that car companies have to stop providing upholstry -- even though there is undeniable proof that this hurts the aftermarket upholstry people. Even if there was one car company with 90% market control such a ruling would have no basis.
</obligatory car analogy>
You're better with analogies than you are with facts.
I'd be pretty pissed of if I could buy a car with exactly one upholstery color and shape and if the seats would be deliberately made incompatible with third-party upholstery. Besides, I expect to be able to choose what upholstery I want before I buy a car, not after. And if my only choice is to put my upholstery above the one that is provided, it would piss me off to.
Remember IE for mac? Microsoft has stopped making it because they where unable to compete with bundled Safari. So it does prevent competition, they say it themselves. Besides, thanks to this bundling software and web developers assume that PC=IE (which is true because of OS monopoly) and build their apps accordingly. We now have tons of IE-only apps which would be cross-browser (and to some extend cross-platform) otherwise. Still don't see how this actively prevents user from using other browsers and even operating systems? These illegal practices of abusing the OS monopoly to gain browser monopoly (and to lock users even further into Windows) are now challenged in the court.
I use a belkin home router and it is awful. I have a high-speed internet connection and if I try to download something via wireless it gets blocked and I need to restart the router. Turning firewall off didn't help. Very crappy product...
Many of the people held there are simply too dangerous to let go.
What court did state that they are dangerous? What institution has proved it beyond reasonable doubt? The military says so? Come on, they have to find WMD's first before I even consider trusting them.
Many of the others who aren't have no where to go -- their home countries won't accept them.
I see it now -- Gitmo is all about charity, you simply give shelter to some poor homeless people. You have opened my eyes!
Of course he would. And then EU Antitrust Commission would make the very same decision.
Why bother? If I need to install the very same copy of my OS to a different PC, I'll frigging *copy* it and still get all the updates, bells and whistles, no strings attached!
Genuine Advantage who?..
The very reason I have switched my family PCs to Linux -- my parents and my aunt got dial-up and they really don't need more (broadband is expensive where they live and all they need Internet for is VoIP, instant messaging and e-mail wich occasional surfing). As I live abroad, I can visit them (and bring updates) twice a year tops. They are much better with Linux in the meantime. Besides, I can still hand-pick and install most needed security downloads via ssh. Works flawlessly so far.
This issue was very frustrating in XP at work (I don't use windows at home). Was hoping they'll fix this issue someday.