the stupid preface "Microsoft's Home Of Tomorrow Has No Bathroom" has completely taken away any chance of there being useful conversation on this topic now. way to go morons. leave it to the slashdot crowd to completely fuck up a good thing with their incessant bitching and ranting.
So? I'm waiting for the part where youre going to tell me they forced consumers to use IE. One could argue they were just trying to make Windows more user friendly by providing a browser with the OS. Today with the internet as popular as it is we would think it was ridiculous if an OS didnt come with a web browser so maybe Microsoft just had the foresight to include it and say that you cant it out because its a basic function of the OS, like a file browser or text word editor - something that if not included takes something away from the basic items that an OS should include. Have I explained this well enough for you? hope so.
Well, if you buy a factory-built GM car, you do get whatever cheap radio it comes with, but GM doesn't prevent you from buying and installing a different one, do they? A good dealer might even do the work for you if it meant getting the sale.
Microsoft never forced anyone to use IE. You could install Netscape if you wanted to. But they were still found to be leveraging their popularity in a monopolistic way by including IE.
What if Linux were the monopoly operating system out there? What if it had a 95% market share and Microsoft/Apple had the other 5%? All you pro-linux people would of course say that it is because linux is the superior OS, its the easiest and most productive for consumers and all that. So what if Microsoft went to court to force linux to include.Net support?
You fools never think about the reversed situations. You only like it when the courts are used against your competetion and then you somehow rationalize it in your little minds to make yourselves feel better.
Get a clue and join reality.
Should AOL cds have to include a copy of every other little ISP's installation software? Isnt AOL leveraging their monopoly and cash reserves to squeeze out other ISPs by shipping out millions of their cds?
Should GM have to include Sony radio/cd players in their cars? Isnt GM forcing consumers to use their GM radios when they buy a car? Why shouldnt Sony be given an equal chance to have that consumer use a Sony radio? Should we include radios from every manufacturer in new cars and let the consumer choose which they want to use?
Slashdot Mirror
the stupid preface "Microsoft's Home Of Tomorrow Has No Bathroom" has completely taken away any chance of there being useful conversation on this topic now. way to go morons. leave it to the slashdot crowd to completely fuck up a good thing with their incessant bitching and ranting.
So? I'm waiting for the part where youre going to tell me they forced consumers to use IE. One could argue they were just trying to make Windows more user friendly by providing a browser with the OS. Today with the internet as popular as it is we would think it was ridiculous if an OS didnt come with a web browser so maybe Microsoft just had the foresight to include it and say that you cant it out because its a basic function of the OS, like a file browser or text word editor - something that if not included takes something away from the basic items that an OS should include. Have I explained this well enough for you? hope so.
Michael Robertson is known to be an arrogant prick, this is not at all surprising coming from him.
Microsoft's excellent relations with developers are ALOT of the reason they are so successful.
thats all there is to it.
Well, if you buy a factory-built GM car, you do get whatever cheap radio
it comes with, but GM doesn't prevent you from buying and installing a different
one, do they? A good dealer might even do the work for you if it meant getting
the sale.
Microsoft never forced anyone to use IE. You could install Netscape if you
wanted to. But they were still found to be leveraging their popularity in a
monopolistic way by including IE.
What if Linux were the monopoly operating system out there? What if it had a 95% market share and Microsoft/Apple had the other 5%? All you pro-linux people would of course say that it is because linux is the superior OS, its the easiest and most productive for consumers and all that. So what if Microsoft went to court to force linux to include .Net support?
You fools never think about the reversed situations. You only like it when the courts are used against your competetion and then you somehow rationalize it in your little minds to make yourselves feel better.
Get a clue and join reality.
Should AOL cds have to include a copy of every other little ISP's installation software? Isnt AOL leveraging their monopoly and cash reserves to squeeze out other ISPs by shipping out millions of their cds?
Should GM have to include Sony radio/cd players in their cars? Isnt GM forcing consumers to use their GM radios when they buy a car? Why shouldnt Sony be given an equal chance to have that consumer use a Sony radio? Should we include radios from every manufacturer in new cars and let the consumer choose which they want to use?