Everybody in the PC industry builds commodity hardware, running an OS they don't control, and tries to compete based on marketing and lowest-cost production.
Imagine if they offered an ADDITIONAL OS on the computers, one that does great things with music and video! And imagine further that the OS manufacturer had offered to give their OS for FREE to any large manufacturer that did this!
In a normal marketplace the computer maker would junp on that opportunity. But when Be offered this, not one computer maker did it. (Well, Hitachi tried...)
An additional OS in a dual-boot configuration would allow a computer maker to advertise that they offer customers more than all the other computers, which are all "Wintel" boxes, and are all the same. It would "differentiate" that computer from all the others.
This would be an obvious marketing advantage. Yet not a single computer manufacturer does this.
You can not buy a computer that has Windows and another OS installed.
This is proof that Microsot is using its monopoly power to stop competition.
But not DUAL-BOOT. Never DUAL-BOOT systems, so REGULAR computer users who start out with a Windows system can discover the alternatives. Microsoft will not allow that.
BeOS certainly wouldn't have "lousy hardware support" if it came installed on the computer. Duh! And if it came on computers, there would have been a LOT more development going on. Even as it was there were a number of apps, but if it came on ANY computer there would have been a MARKET an developers would be able to make money.
Here's why BeOS was a great business proposition for the OEMs:
Computer makers all sell the same thing - "Wintel" boxes. The sell a box with a hard drive, a processor, memory, power supply, etc... plus Windows. So how do they compete against all the OTHER computer makers? Maybe a little better price, maybe a better looking case - not much else.
If the computer maker could advertise that THIS computer ALSO comes with the Media Operating System it would be a great "differentiator". Sony tries now to say it sells "multimedia" computers, for example, to differentiate itself from the others, and it gets a higher price because of this. Imagine the boost a company would get from having BeOS available, and all the music and video apps that it had.
That's what Hitachi tried to do and that's why Microsoft stopped them.
Lotus, Wordperfect and co were both sitting on the fence waiting to see whose GUI O/S would win the battle.
This is bullsh*t. Lotus and WordPerfect were doing everything they could to get their apps working but for SOME reason the API info they were given by Microsoft just didn't seem to be right!
Word and Excel took over the market because Microsoft illegally used their monoloply power to force their apps onto the customers. With Lotus and WordPerfect they did it by keeping many API calls secret.
Then, for good measure, the Windows license forbade the OEMs from shipping with anythingbut Microsoft apps.
Why did they STOP SELLING BeOS when they "changed focus"? They didn't have to stop selling BeOS. They have BeOS 6 in the can.
Look at their statements - they are a public company. BeOS was bringing in almost all the money they needed, and sales were increasing rapidly when they decided to stop selling it. AND they had a number of developers with products that were just coming to market.
What were they thinking?
They would still be in business now if they had continued selling BeOS -AND- gone after the internet appliance market.
Stockholders will divide up whatever comes from the Microsoft lawsuit. Even if Microsoft gives them $10 million to go away that would double the share price.
But Be has a strong case so something in the $X00 million range is quite possible.
Regardless of whichever conspiracy theory to which you subscribe
Cute. But it is a FACT, not a "throey," that Microsoft continues to prevent computer manufacturers from selling computers that will boot into anything other than WIndows.
And, I think you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying out cute stuff like saying that people who understand the facts of Microsoft's illegal activities are "conspiracy theorists."
But in Canada you get health insurance from the government. We don't get health insurance here in the U.S. at all if we are unemployed. Can't even buy it if you have a pre-existing condition. You're fucked. And if you CAN buy it it's over $400 a month for you and spouse.
In California unemployment is only $230 per week, and it has run out for me and most people I know anyway. Everyone is spending their retirement money now.
There have been thousands of studies on this: taxes + regulation = total gov burden. The higher the total gov burden, the lower the economic growth.
Those are slogans, not "studies".
Here's a simple study for you to try. Go look up the periods if highest taxes on the rich and corporations and place that over a chart of economic growth rates. You are in for a big surprise.
After you see the results of that simple study - ask youself WHO benefits from feeding the public slogans saying less public oversight of businesses is good for them.
regulations requiring more efficient cars have caused the SUV boom
Did you actually think this made sense when you wrote it? WHo feed you these slogans?
Mostly, though the regulations requiring more efficient cars have caused the SUV boom and gotten thousands killed driving tiny subcompacts that crumple like tinfoil in a serious crash.
I guess you missed Frontline last night, about how many people are dying in SUV rollovers.
The auto companies could buld safer cars. But let's not start another topic. They fought seat belts, they fought air bags... called it "government regulation" and spent lots of money contributing to politicians who fed slogans to YOU.
A nation has a problem when more than 10% of it's GNP is tied up in government. Sure government spends the money it gets. But it is economically more efficient to allow private industry to provide services to the people.
Opps, you acidentally forgot to include anything at all to back up these Republican Party slogans.
When land is owned publicly, it is treated badly. When you want to find the worst perpetrators of the environment, you'll find commercial businesses polluting on public land that they lease.
If this is your premise, give it up. The worst pollution is on land that the oil and chemical companies OWN.
You can be sure the anti-business enviro's are going to claim the benefit of every doubt.
Which "enviro's" are anti-fuel cell? Fuel cells are a business. Which ones are anti-solar? Solar is a business. Which ones are anti-buidling retrofitting? Building retrofitting is a business.
Maybe the "enviro's" are anti-certain kinds of business practices that are bringing in a ton of money to certain campaign contributors. Maybe the "enviro's" are anti-dump crap in our water and air because it's cheaper than safely disposing of it.
But the waste disposal companies that safely dispose of the toxins are also BUSINESSES.
What you seem to be complaining about is WHICH businesses are getting the busines. And unless you actually own an oil company you might want to think about where YOUR interests lie, instead of the interests of whoever has been feeding you these slogans.
Regulations have costs. Lower economic growth translates into less science, medicine, culture, opportunity for the less fortunate of the world.
Instead of mindlessly repeating Republican Party slogans, how about explaining how regulations lead to lower economic growth?
Regulations lead to lower profits for some campaign contributors, like Enron.
But please explain how having more energy efficiency LOWERS economic growth? Sure, it brings in less money to oil companies. But if we are spending less on gas, and less to heat and cool buildings, and less to power our industry, and less to purchase oil from the Middle East, how does that LOWER economic growth???
cost of taking action, whether or not global warming is real: slowed economic growth, or perhaps contraction.
This is just silly. Oil companies might sell less oil, and they are throwing a ton of cash into our country's political debate - Enron for example - trying to convince people it will hurt the economy when really it only hurts THEM.
It shouldn't take a lot of deep thinking to realize that if we retrofit buildings and build more efficient cars it HELPS the economy. That's called ENERGY EFFICIENCY. That means things COST LESS TO PRODUCE. It's called INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY.
And since we buy so much oil from other countries, it HELPS our balance of trade.
I could go on. This idea that helping the environment hurts the economy - how much money have the oil companies put into spreading that idea?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a trialversion at http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10016-100-853 9292.html?tag=st.dl.10001-103-1.lst-7-1.8539292
Everybody in the PC industry builds commodity hardware, running an OS they don't control, and tries to compete based on marketing and lowest-cost production.
Imagine if they offered an ADDITIONAL OS on the computers, one that does great things with music and video! And imagine further that the OS manufacturer had offered to give their OS for FREE to any large manufacturer that did this!
In a normal marketplace the computer maker would junp on that opportunity. But when Be offered this, not one computer maker did it. (Well, Hitachi tried...)
An additional OS in a dual-boot configuration would allow a computer maker to advertise that they offer customers more than all the other computers, which are all "Wintel" boxes, and are all the same. It would "differentiate" that computer from all the others.
This would be an obvious marketing advantage. Yet not a single computer manufacturer does this.
You can not buy a computer that has Windows and another OS installed.
This is proof that Microsot is using its monopoly power to stop competition.
But not DUAL-BOOT. Never DUAL-BOOT systems, so REGULAR computer users who start out with a Windows system can discover the alternatives. Microsoft will not allow that.
BeOS certainly wouldn't have "lousy hardware support" if it came installed on the computer. Duh! And if it came on computers, there would have been a LOT more development going on. Even as it was there were a number of apps, but if it came on ANY computer there would have been a MARKET an developers would be able to make money.
Here's why BeOS was a great business proposition for the OEMs:
Computer makers all sell the same thing - "Wintel" boxes. The sell a box with a hard drive, a processor, memory, power supply, etc... plus Windows. So how do they compete against all the OTHER computer makers? Maybe a little better price, maybe a better looking case - not much else.
If the computer maker could advertise that THIS computer ALSO comes with the Media Operating System it would be a great "differentiator". Sony tries now to say it sells "multimedia" computers, for example, to differentiate itself from the others, and it gets a higher price because of this. Imagine the boost a company would get from having BeOS available, and all the music and video apps that it had.
That's what Hitachi tried to do and that's why Microsoft stopped them.
You mean upgrading a 16 bit API to a 32 bit API is now illegal?
It would be helpful if people who posted had SOME idea of what they were talking about.
What Microsoft did was keep many API calls secret. So programs like WordPerfect and Lotus 123 wouldn't work.
Lotus, Wordperfect and co were both sitting on the fence waiting to see whose GUI O/S would win the battle.
This is bullsh*t. Lotus and WordPerfect were doing everything they could to get their apps working but for SOME reason the API info they were given by Microsoft just didn't seem to be right!
Word and Excel took over the market because Microsoft illegally used their monoloply power to force their apps onto the customers. With Lotus and WordPerfect they did it by keeping many API calls secret.
Then, for good measure, the Windows license forbade the OEMs from shipping with anythingbut Microsoft apps.
Number of BeOS apps on store shelves = 0
I live in the Bay area. Best Buy had BeOS and a few apps on their shelves. Fry's had a bunch of BeOS apps. So did Micro Center.
Why did they STOP SELLING BeOS when they "changed focus"? They didn't have to stop selling BeOS. They have BeOS 6 in the can.
Look at their statements - they are a public company. BeOS was bringing in almost all the money they needed, and sales were increasing rapidly when they decided to stop selling it. AND they had a number of developers with products that were just coming to market.
What were they thinking?
They would still be in business now if they had continued selling BeOS -AND- gone after the internet appliance market.
Stockholders will divide up whatever comes from the Microsoft lawsuit. Even if Microsoft gives them $10 million to go away that would double the share price.
But Be has a strong case so something in the $X00 million range is quite possible.
Regardless of whichever conspiracy theory to which you subscribe
Cute. But it is a FACT, not a "throey," that Microsoft continues to prevent computer manufacturers from selling computers that will boot into anything other than WIndows.
And, I think you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying out cute stuff like saying that people who understand the facts of Microsoft's illegal activities are "conspiracy theorists."
That's because they CAN'T!
Microsoft PREVENTS THEM from doing so.
Some people will never come out of denial.
YOU CAN NOT BUY A COMPUTER THAT HAS WINDOWS AND ANOTHER OS INSTALLED. CAN. NOT.
WHAT marketplace? With an illegal monopoly like Microsoft INTERFERING with the marketplace we have no way of knowing what would have happened.
If BeOS came installed on a machine driver support wouldn't be an issue, would it?
THIS is how Microsoft killed Be. By preventing them from getting on any machines they killed the OS.
But in Canada you get health insurance from the government. We don't get health insurance here in the U.S. at all if we are unemployed. Can't even buy it if you have a pre-existing condition. You're fucked. And if you CAN buy it it's over $400 a month for you and spouse.
Unemployment insurance costs the employer something like $16 per month. Give it a rest.
In California unemployment is only $230 per week, and it has run out for me and most people I know anyway. Everyone is spending their retirement money now.
There have been thousands of studies on this: taxes + regulation = total gov burden. The higher the total gov burden, the lower the economic growth.
Those are slogans, not "studies".
Here's a simple study for you to try. Go look up the periods if highest taxes on the rich and corporations and place that over a chart of economic growth rates. You are in for a big surprise.
After you see the results of that simple study - ask youself WHO benefits from feeding the public slogans saying less public oversight of businesses is good for them.
regulations requiring more efficient cars have caused the SUV boom
Did you actually think this made sense when you wrote it? WHo feed you these slogans?
Mostly, though the regulations requiring more efficient cars have caused the SUV boom and gotten thousands killed driving tiny subcompacts that crumple like tinfoil in a serious crash.
I guess you missed Frontline last night, about how many people are dying in SUV rollovers.
The auto companies could buld safer cars. But let's not start another topic. They fought seat belts, they fought air bags... called it "government regulation" and spent lots of money contributing to politicians who fed slogans to YOU.
A nation has a problem when more than 10% of it's GNP is tied up in government. Sure government spends the money it gets. But it is economically more efficient to allow private industry to provide services to the people.
Opps, you acidentally forgot to include anything at all to back up these Republican Party slogans.
When land is owned publicly, it is treated badly. When you want to find the worst perpetrators of the environment, you'll find commercial businesses polluting on public land that they lease.
If this is your premise, give it up. The worst pollution is on land that the oil and chemical companies OWN.
You can be sure the anti-business enviro's are going to claim the benefit of every doubt.
Which "enviro's" are anti-fuel cell? Fuel cells are a business. Which ones are anti-solar? Solar is a business. Which ones are anti-buidling retrofitting? Building retrofitting is a business.
Maybe the "enviro's" are anti-certain kinds of business practices that are bringing in a ton of money to certain campaign contributors. Maybe the "enviro's" are anti-dump crap in our water and air because it's cheaper than safely disposing of it.
But the waste disposal companies that safely dispose of the toxins are also BUSINESSES.
What you seem to be complaining about is WHICH businesses are getting the busines. And unless you actually own an oil company you might want to think about where YOUR interests lie, instead of the interests of whoever has been feeding you these slogans.
Regulations have costs. Lower economic growth translates into less science, medicine, culture, opportunity for the less fortunate of the world.
Instead of mindlessly repeating Republican Party slogans, how about explaining how regulations lead to lower economic growth?
Regulations lead to lower profits for some campaign contributors, like Enron.
But please explain how having more energy efficiency LOWERS economic growth? Sure, it brings in less money to oil companies. But if we are spending less on gas, and less to heat and cool buildings, and less to power our industry, and less to purchase oil from the Middle East, how does that LOWER economic growth???
How does increased energy efficiency harm the economy?
How does a car that gets more miles per gallon hurt the economy?
How does a building that uses less energy for heating and cooling harm the economy?
How does using a neon lighbulb, using half as much electricity, harm the economy?
And especially how do these things have "a negative impact on the standard of living of many people now living in extreme poverty?"
Does your statement even make any sense at all?
cost of taking action, whether or not global warming is real: slowed economic growth, or perhaps contraction.
This is just silly. Oil companies might sell less oil, and they are throwing a ton of cash into our country's political debate - Enron for example - trying to convince people it will hurt the economy when really it only hurts THEM.
It shouldn't take a lot of deep thinking to realize that if we retrofit buildings and build more efficient cars it HELPS the economy. That's called ENERGY EFFICIENCY. That means things COST LESS TO PRODUCE. It's called INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY.
And since we buy so much oil from other countries, it HELPS our balance of trade.
I could go on. This idea that helping the environment hurts the economy - how much money have the oil companies put into spreading that idea?