I haven't used OSX much, but the only reason is because it won't work on the x86 hardware that I already own.
I do use Mozilla, and I think it is in many ways much better than IE. I like the tabbed browsing feature and the automatic popup blocking (though IE does this when you have the google toolbar).
I hate to say it, but by the time IE "beat" Netscape, it had been superior for several versions. Back at IE1, IE was garbage, same with 2.0. It wasn't until 3.0 until the two were roughly tied, but Netscape still had the edge. Netscape 4.0, however was extremely bloated and buggy. IE4 was bloated but it actually worked pretty well. By the time Microsoft released IE5, enough people realized this and Netscape's numbers had begun to rapidly decline.
Netscape made some stupid decisions:
decided not to support vbscript
decided not to support PNG graphics
didn't fix software bugs
decided not to fully support CSS (web development books from the 4.0 era SLAM Netscape and praise IE)
All of these factors combined, not Microsoft's slow and steady ability to improve a lousy product (1.0) and make it a good one (6.0) are responsible for Netscape's decline.
I never even heard anyone use the phrase "internet explorer" until just a couple of years ago. Before that every web browser was "Netscape". Netscape shot itself in the foot, Enron style, and the blame lies only with Netscape.
Why is replacement necessary? Today OEMs can include any additional software, as well as make the non-MS applications the default applications. OEMs can even hide the MS applications if they want.
I don't approve of fraud. I do have a lot of faith in the power of human ingenuity, though.
I recall the day when I realized that Microsoft was taking the WMP business seriously. I had always installed RealPlayer on my machine (the free version) and I decided to compare Windows Media to Real Media side by side for the same clips.
Windows Media has been better quality for quite some time now. Real has a tinny audio quality that I find very annoying.
Real let the technology edge slip, and so people quit downloading their player. Sure, it coincided with the entry of Microsoft into the player market, but people were in the habit of downloading Real Player until, like me, many people realized that it wasn't #1 anymore and that a superior player was already included with the OS.
Also, GM, Toyota, DCX, and Ford routinely embrace, extend, and rebrand each others products. Nobody has a problem with this.
That may be true, but I still don't think it's fair. Microsoft created proprietary approaches that it is able to sell. Why should others be given the IP for free?
It's as if, for example, Honda demanded to see all of the detailed product specs on Nissan fuel injectors, because well, too many people are buying Nissans.
See how rediculous it sounds? If Nissan (continuing the example) has a fuel injector that is superior enough to attract that much business, then it deserves the business. This just places a higher incentive on innovators to come up with something even better.
Uh, I do have a choice about what Media player I use, as well as which Operating System I use.
I use WMP, iTunes, and VideoLan for playing media. I don't use RealPlayer, because of the annoying pop-up adware that it displays.
I use Windows and Linux.
Nobody has taken my freedom from me. Linux is months away from being a viable desktop alternative. You are telling me that in a culture where nearly every computer user can download Napster within a few months, people can't agree to send documents as RTF?
You don't give people enough credit.
We do NOT need the government "helping" us find good software to use.
IBM and Sun and Novell are all trying to innovate a competetive OS to combat Windows on the desktop.
If you don't believe me, download the latest Ximian, Mono, etc., and think about what the world will be like in 6 months.
Government intervention would be nice if there were actually a problem, but up until recently the problem has only been that people were intimidated by Microsoft and used Microsoft's success as an excuse not to innovate.
Finally, Novell realized that Miguel and his group offered a very strong alternative. Sun realized this too. IBM is soon going to look at the Desktop market as well.
Once a few fortune 500 companies make OpenOffice a standard, for example, the document standard will be RTF, and yes they'll still need to have a few copies of MS Office around to translate the occasional file, but they will make it work.
You really don't have any faith in the human ability to innovate. We don't need a government handout here. In fact, if I were Sun I'd have a hard time sleeping at night after bringing such a lawsuit.
Everyone kind of mutters this but offers no proof. Right now the market price for multimedia software is $0. I use three programs that cost that much: WMP, VideoLan, and iTunes. I like all of them equally well (well, iTunes' UI is annoying).
Uh, Microsoft is reaping the benefits of its distribution channel. It could sell that channel as it used to by including AOL with Windows, or it can choose to use it for its own purposes.
I'm sure if someone offered enough money, nearly any program could be made available with Windows. Also, a good portion of Windows is actually rebranded products built by other companies, who are paid royalties. The disc defragmenter is one particular piece that comes to mind.
You are assuming that Joe Typical User would ever decide to try burning a CD or playing an MP3 if the default player weren't installed and fully operational.
Microsoft opens up a lot of doors in end-users' minds by including high quality freeware with Windows. Eventually, it's unlikely Microsoft will be able to keep up with this in all areas, and other companies will step in. Of course, Microsoft will continue to specialize on the items that it chooses to and values most.
You mention a hypothetical situation in which Microsoft singles out Dell by raising prices in response to a decision made by Dell to offer machines preloaded with Linux. That just wouldn't happen. If it did, it would be mean, but not illegal. Nobody said Microsoft has to have the same pricing for all OEMs. Businesses always negotiate preferred pricing.
Also, if Dell decides not to offer Linux or linux supported hardware, it either does so out of ignorance to the increased sales volume it's missing out on, or out of a conscious decision to maximize profits.
In one case, there's room for market entry (hardly a sign of monopoly abuse) and in the other case, there's simply not a good business case.
Dell chooses what hardware to include in its laptops. Why is it choosing hardware which is supported by MS and not Linux?
Because it makes more money doing that. Why should Dell take on a money losing business idea just because it involves Linux? Clearly, consumers demand the latest and greatest hardware, and Dell delivers it, WITH an OS that works with it.
If Microsoft is so bad, then all the easier for someone to create technology to unseat Microsoft's dominance. The natural pattern of things would be for Microsoft to get so lazy that someone (the next Bill Gates) steps in and creates superior options for consumers.
If we put a stop to Microsoft, it will limp along rather than creating the situation that inspires the next Bill to innovate.
Ok, so you want to continue to extract remedies ad infinitum? There was a settlement which included a modification of those parts of Microsoft's business. Why dredge it up again? I agree with you about Microsoft's practices prior to the first trial.
Uh, the US survives in spite of the protectionism, price controls, etc.
Infrastructure projects of the past were a way around a lack of creativity in acheiving the desired result. Many of these projects (such as the monopoly on last mile copper pots lines) are a clear mess at present, and were arguably a bad idea.
It's easy to glorify government intervention, because it seems grand and patriotic. These days, companies know to look to exploit business opportunities and don't require government bribes in order to do so.
There are still a lot of messes (hidden taxes imposed by regulation to favor the few at the expense of the many), but we are making slow progress.
I would rather be able to choose what software I use without the 'aid' of the government.
Also, if you think socialism is so great, are you really prepared to start thinking of examples?
Microsoft and Dell have agreed on the following pricing agreement for Windows. If Dell agrees to purhcase one unit for every machine sold, then the price is x. If Dell doesn't, then the price is x+n. It's a simple bit of mathematics for Dell to determine which is a better deal.
Dell also would have to modify its manufacturing processes in order to explicitely offer a machine without Windows. Doing so isn't profitable, which is why most machines come pre-loaded.
In the case of newer Dell laptops, much of the hardware is not currently supported under any OS except Windows, so what would really be the point of installing an OS that would make the hardware seem broken to all but an expert user?
I think the mistake is exactly the opposite: Considering governments to be well-oiled machines that we control rather than fuzzy amoebae that just like to grow...
The scenario you describe is rediculous. Nothing has gone up in price. If anything, prices have gone down. According to some reaports, the TCO for linux is higher than for Microsoft products. Microsoft happens to offer service and support, but so does IBM when it sells Linux. It's reasonable to considser the price roughly the same. In terms of software price to performance, prices have never been lower in the history of the world.
If prices actually were increasing, then one could argue that Microsoft's dominance in the market constituted a problem. As it stands, it will take a serious competetor (or clever alliances between other existing companies, few of which have happened) to unseat Microsoft.
Microsoft has reformed its business practices since the first trial.
I want someone to beat Microsoft. I just want it to happen because there's a new level of quality (or affordability), not because the courts punish Microsoft for success.
But first you have to show how the market is broken. Microsoft continues to innovate and produce better products. Nobody complained when Microsoft shipped with Sound Recorder, but WMP is suddenly a problem just because it stinks less.
Consumers have never been better off. Media player software costs $0. I use VideoLan, iTunes, and WMP.
Microsoft doesn't make much money on its OS business, which is why it continues to branch into other areas. It's incredble that Microsoft has been able to do this so successfully and for so long.
Microsoft doesn't do that. It simply gives hardware OEMs a discount if they buy one copy of Windows for every PC they ship. It does not have to be preinstalled. It's just a different pricing model. It saves hardware OEMs money or they wouldn't do it.
Uh, Linux most certainly is a business. It succeeds in many business scenarios, and costs much more than Microsoft products (if you believe Microsoft's TCO numbers).
Microsoft's TCO numbers probably exaggerate things a bit, but the overall TCO is at least farily comparable.
So what is the problem? Why over the past 5 years would IBM and Sun have invested so heavily in Linux if not for business reasons?
IBM sells primarily consulting, and Sun sells a lot of hardware + Java stuff.
You should start an OS business. If you're smart enough you'll kick Microsoft's butt. It's about intelligence here not monopolies. Also, when you kick Microsoft's butt, you'll deserve every penny you've obtained in the process.
They're bad if there is actually a monopoly that harms consumers. Innovation and competition are both alive and well. I use iTunes, VideoLan, and WMP for media, all of which cost me $0. What do you use? Why don't you think there's competition?
Uh, so Dell is missing out on a hot business opportunity by not marketing Linux desktop PCs?
No.
Dell is missing out on a hot business opportunity because it doesn't sell laptops w/o Windows pre-installed?
No. As it happens, many Dell laptop hardware features are not supported by Linux yet. Why would Dell want to sell hardware that didn't work in its out of the box configuration?
You are blaming Dell, HP, IBM, eMachines, etc., for not being smart enough to distribute Linux on their machines, and trying to blame Microsoft too. It just doesn't hold water. They are all in business for maximal profit, and if they could improve upon that by selling desktop linux, they surely would.
Microsoft has already paid its penalty for monopoly abuses, and has modified its business practices.
Windows XP competes against earlier versions of Windows, including Win98, Win95, Win3.1, WinNT3, WinNT4, etc.
If Microsoft has a monopoly, why does it continue to innovate new products at a cost of billions of dollars?
The presence of Windows 98 as you point out, is evidence that Microsoft faces stiff competition from its own older products, including End of Life'd products.
You can buy computers preloaded with Linux. IBM sells and markets them. Dell will sell you machines with no OS on them, or with Linux (if you send in an image and use the White Box program).
Slashdot Mirror
You dispute the Microsoft TCO claims?
I do use Mozilla, and I think it is in many ways much better than IE. I like the tabbed browsing feature and the automatic popup blocking (though IE does this when you have the google toolbar).
I hate to say it, but by the time IE "beat" Netscape, it had been superior for several versions. Back at IE1, IE was garbage, same with 2.0. It wasn't until 3.0 until the two were roughly tied, but Netscape still had the edge. Netscape 4.0, however was extremely bloated and buggy. IE4 was bloated but it actually worked pretty well. By the time Microsoft released IE5, enough people realized this and Netscape's numbers had begun to rapidly decline.
Netscape made some stupid decisions:
decided not to support vbscript
decided not to support PNG graphics
didn't fix software bugs
decided not to fully support CSS (web development books from the 4.0 era SLAM Netscape and praise IE)
All of these factors combined, not Microsoft's slow and steady ability to improve a lousy product (1.0) and make it a good one (6.0) are responsible for Netscape's decline.
I never even heard anyone use the phrase "internet explorer" until just a couple of years ago. Before that every web browser was "Netscape". Netscape shot itself in the foot, Enron style, and the blame lies only with Netscape.
Why is replacement necessary? Today OEMs can include any additional software, as well as make the non-MS applications the default applications. OEMs can even hide the MS applications if they want.
I don't approve of fraud. I do have a lot of faith in the power of human ingenuity, though.
I recall the day when I realized that Microsoft was taking the WMP business seriously. I had always installed RealPlayer on my machine (the free version) and I decided to compare Windows Media to Real Media side by side for the same clips.
Windows Media has been better quality for quite some time now. Real has a tinny audio quality that I find very annoying.
Real let the technology edge slip, and so people quit downloading their player. Sure, it coincided with the entry of Microsoft into the player market, but people were in the habit of downloading Real Player until, like me, many people realized that it wasn't #1 anymore and that a superior player was already included with the OS.
Also, GM, Toyota, DCX, and Ford routinely embrace, extend, and rebrand each others products. Nobody has a problem with this.
That may be true, but I still don't think it's fair. Microsoft created proprietary approaches that it is able to sell. Why should others be given the IP for free?
It's as if, for example, Honda demanded to see all of the detailed product specs on Nissan fuel injectors, because well, too many people are buying Nissans.
See how rediculous it sounds? If Nissan (continuing the example) has a fuel injector that is superior enough to attract that much business, then it deserves the business. This just places a higher incentive on innovators to come up with something even better.
Uh, I do have a choice about what Media player I use, as well as which Operating System I use.
I use WMP, iTunes, and VideoLan for playing media. I don't use RealPlayer, because of the annoying pop-up adware that it displays.
I use Windows and Linux.
Nobody has taken my freedom from me. Linux is months away from being a viable desktop alternative. You are telling me that in a culture where nearly every computer user can download Napster within a few months, people can't agree to send documents as RTF?
You don't give people enough credit.
We do NOT need the government "helping" us find good software to use.
IBM and Sun and Novell are all trying to innovate a competetive OS to combat Windows on the desktop.
If you don't believe me, download the latest Ximian, Mono, etc., and think about what the world will be like in 6 months.
Government intervention would be nice if there were actually a problem, but up until recently the problem has only been that people were intimidated by Microsoft and used Microsoft's success as an excuse not to innovate.
Finally, Novell realized that Miguel and his group offered a very strong alternative. Sun realized this too. IBM is soon going to look at the Desktop market as well.
Once a few fortune 500 companies make OpenOffice a standard, for example, the document standard will be RTF, and yes they'll still need to have a few copies of MS Office around to translate the occasional file, but they will make it work.
You really don't have any faith in the human ability to innovate. We don't need a government handout here. In fact, if I were Sun I'd have a hard time sleeping at night after bringing such a lawsuit.
I can buy that. My Dell isn't (yet) working with Speedstep, but I hope it will be soon.
That isn't really a problem then, is it? I mean, if Dell makes a good business decision not to offer linux, then how is that Microsoft's fault?
How is the freedom of individuals at stake?
Everyone kind of mutters this but offers no proof. Right now the market price for multimedia software is $0. I use three programs that cost that much: WMP, VideoLan, and iTunes. I like all of them equally well (well, iTunes' UI is annoying).
How are consumers being harmed?
Uh, Microsoft is reaping the benefits of its distribution channel. It could sell that channel as it used to by including AOL with Windows, or it can choose to use it for its own purposes.
I'm sure if someone offered enough money, nearly any program could be made available with Windows. Also, a good portion of Windows is actually rebranded products built by other companies, who are paid royalties. The disc defragmenter is one particular piece that comes to mind.
You are assuming that Joe Typical User would ever decide to try burning a CD or playing an MP3 if the default player weren't installed and fully operational.
Microsoft opens up a lot of doors in end-users' minds by including high quality freeware with Windows. Eventually, it's unlikely Microsoft will be able to keep up with this in all areas, and other companies will step in. Of course, Microsoft will continue to specialize on the items that it chooses to and values most.
What you are doing is appropriate.
You mention a hypothetical situation in which Microsoft singles out Dell by raising prices in response to a decision made by Dell to offer machines preloaded with Linux. That just wouldn't happen. If it did, it would be mean, but not illegal. Nobody said Microsoft has to have the same pricing for all OEMs. Businesses always negotiate preferred pricing.
Also, if Dell decides not to offer Linux or linux supported hardware, it either does so out of ignorance to the increased sales volume it's missing out on, or out of a conscious decision to maximize profits.
In one case, there's room for market entry (hardly a sign of monopoly abuse) and in the other case, there's simply not a good business case.
Dell chooses what hardware to include in its laptops. Why is it choosing hardware which is supported by MS and not Linux?
Because it makes more money doing that. Why should Dell take on a money losing business idea just because it involves Linux? Clearly, consumers demand the latest and greatest hardware, and Dell delivers it, WITH an OS that works with it.
Would anyone buy that?
If so, then start your own Hardware OEM that sells it.
Why should Dell do it if Dell is too stupid to recognize the opportunity?
If Microsoft is so bad, then all the easier for someone to create technology to unseat Microsoft's dominance. The natural pattern of things would be for Microsoft to get so lazy that someone (the next Bill Gates) steps in and creates superior options for consumers.
If we put a stop to Microsoft, it will limp along rather than creating the situation that inspires the next Bill to innovate.
Excuse me if I didn't notice how your comment(s) conveyed any expertise.
I'm neither, actually. But I don't want Microsoft to stop bundling useful software, because then I'd have to go to the trouble of downloading it.
Ok, so you want to continue to extract remedies ad infinitum? There was a settlement which included a modification of those parts of Microsoft's business. Why dredge it up again? I agree with you about Microsoft's practices prior to the first trial.
Uh, the US survives in spite of the protectionism, price controls, etc.
Infrastructure projects of the past were a way around a lack of creativity in acheiving the desired result. Many of these projects (such as the monopoly on last mile copper pots lines) are a clear mess at present, and were arguably a bad idea.
It's easy to glorify government intervention, because it seems grand and patriotic. These days, companies know to look to exploit business opportunities and don't require government bribes in order to do so.
There are still a lot of messes (hidden taxes imposed by regulation to favor the few at the expense of the many), but we are making slow progress.
I would rather be able to choose what software I use without the 'aid' of the government.
Also, if you think socialism is so great, are you really prepared to start thinking of examples?
Microsoft and Dell have agreed on the following pricing agreement for Windows. If Dell agrees to purhcase one unit for every machine sold, then the price is x. If Dell doesn't, then the price is x+n. It's a simple bit of mathematics for Dell to determine which is a better deal.
Dell also would have to modify its manufacturing processes in order to explicitely offer a machine without Windows. Doing so isn't profitable, which is why most machines come pre-loaded.
In the case of newer Dell laptops, much of the hardware is not currently supported under any OS except Windows, so what would really be the point of installing an OS that would make the hardware seem broken to all but an expert user?
That's an ammusing comment. I must admit.
I think the mistake is exactly the opposite: Considering governments to be well-oiled machines that we control rather than fuzzy amoebae that just like to grow...
The scenario you describe is rediculous. Nothing has gone up in price. If anything, prices have gone down. According to some reaports, the TCO for linux is higher than for Microsoft products. Microsoft happens to offer service and support, but so does IBM when it sells Linux. It's reasonable to considser the price roughly the same. In terms of software price to performance, prices have never been lower in the history of the world.
If prices actually were increasing, then one could argue that Microsoft's dominance in the market constituted a problem. As it stands, it will take a serious competetor (or clever alliances between other existing companies, few of which have happened) to unseat Microsoft.
Microsoft has reformed its business practices since the first trial.
I want someone to beat Microsoft. I just want it to happen because there's a new level of quality (or affordability), not because the courts punish Microsoft for success.
But first you have to show how the market is broken. Microsoft continues to innovate and produce better products. Nobody complained when Microsoft shipped with Sound Recorder, but WMP is suddenly a problem just because it stinks less.
Consumers have never been better off. Media player software costs $0. I use VideoLan, iTunes, and WMP.
Microsoft doesn't make much money on its OS business, which is why it continues to branch into other areas. It's incredble that Microsoft has been able to do this so successfully and for so long.
Microsoft doesn't do that. It simply gives hardware OEMs a discount if they buy one copy of Windows for every PC they ship. It does not have to be preinstalled. It's just a different pricing model. It saves hardware OEMs money or they wouldn't do it.
Uh, Linux most certainly is a business. It succeeds in many business scenarios, and costs much more than Microsoft products (if you believe Microsoft's TCO numbers).
Microsoft's TCO numbers probably exaggerate things a bit, but the overall TCO is at least farily comparable.
So what is the problem? Why over the past 5 years would IBM and Sun have invested so heavily in Linux if not for business reasons?
IBM sells primarily consulting, and Sun sells a lot of hardware + Java stuff.
You should start an OS business. If you're smart enough you'll kick Microsoft's butt. It's about intelligence here not monopolies. Also, when you kick Microsoft's butt, you'll deserve every penny you've obtained in the process.
They're bad if there is actually a monopoly that harms consumers. Innovation and competition are both alive and well. I use iTunes, VideoLan, and WMP for media, all of which cost me $0. What do you use? Why don't you think there's competition?
Uh, so Dell is missing out on a hot business opportunity by not marketing Linux desktop PCs?
No.
Dell is missing out on a hot business opportunity because it doesn't sell laptops w/o Windows pre-installed?
No. As it happens, many Dell laptop hardware features are not supported by Linux yet. Why would Dell want to sell hardware that didn't work in its out of the box configuration?
You are blaming Dell, HP, IBM, eMachines, etc., for not being smart enough to distribute Linux on their machines, and trying to blame Microsoft too. It just doesn't hold water. They are all in business for maximal profit, and if they could improve upon that by selling desktop linux, they surely would.
Microsoft has already paid its penalty for monopoly abuses, and has modified its business practices.
Windows XP competes against earlier versions of Windows, including Win98, Win95, Win3.1, WinNT3, WinNT4, etc.
If Microsoft has a monopoly, why does it continue to innovate new products at a cost of billions of dollars?
The presence of Windows 98 as you point out, is evidence that Microsoft faces stiff competition from its own older products, including End of Life'd products.
You can buy computers preloaded with Linux. IBM sells and markets them. Dell will sell you machines with no OS on them, or with Linux (if you send in an image and use the White Box program).
QED