I don't agree with everything you said, but I can appreciate someone who makes valid points. I mistook you for the typical denizen of these boards, i.e.; a kid who says, 'Linux rules, MS drools'. Obviously you're not. I also crafted an incredibly pithy response for the past hour in response to your last message. The irony is, my IE crashed when I went to post it. Haha. Anyway, the gist of it is, I don't want to fight with you about this anymore. I can respect your position as I hope you can respect mine.
Original is italicized, reply is not, I'll be rebutting in bold.
When you consider everything MS has done to improve computing, no one would be happy to hear this verdict.
Quite the contrary. When you consider everything Microsoft has done *to* the computing industry, lots of people are going to be ecstatic over this ruling.
Yeah, it's awful how MS helped build it into a trillion dollar society-changing phenomenon not seen since the advent of the printed word.
Microsoft brought the computer to the masses, enhancing productivity and the usability of PCs.
It's not under question on whether Microsoft made Computerland "fun and easy", but it's a matter of HOW they got there. They strangled competition, and stifled any chances of anything else rising up into the market.
Oh really? So how do you strangle competition before you hold a supposed monopoly? Hmmm, could it be by making a better product that people choose to buy? That sounds like regular competition to me, not strangling. And I didn't realize that Linux couldn't rise into the market. I thought most MS bashers held that it was.
They actualy made it so EASY to use that even my 6 year old sister figured out how to use Win95 in a few hours.
Sit her in front of a Mac, and see if the same thing doesn't happen. Then take her and sit her in front of X. Graphical interfaces aren't that tough to figure out. (Oh, and don't be so quick to thank Microsoft on that. Thank Xerox and Apple.)
You have a point about the graphical interface being easy to use and not a MS invention. But I bet that same 6 year old could set up the computer, too. According to some people on here, that isn't what computing is supposed to be. It's supposed to be hard. Well, Linux is definitely helping in that regard.
Do you even consider how many corporations rely on MS products for all of their operations?
And you don't think that's sad? Even in the slightest?
No. Why would anyone think that's sad? Is it sad that the Edsel went out of business and a lot of people drive Chevy's? People use what works and what's easy. That's how MS got market share from Unix in the first place.
Their success would be impossible if the only available tools they had was a "superior OS" which they had to learn a ~200 page manual before being able to use effectively.
So? You think that's such a horrible atrocity to actually have to LEARN something? Many companies send their employees to schools and pay about $3000 for classes and materials for certifications that are essentially meaningless. If you were a company, wouldn't you rather spend $80 on that ~200 page manual?
Learning is good. MS makes it easy. Being a business owner, I say that if people can retain information from a $3000 class better than a $80 book, I need to send them to the class. What's easier to remember: lame-ass PowerPoint presentations or pounds of dry text with words like 'grep' and 'fstab'? Maybe you overestimate people.
About this browser thing.. imagine you were totally clueless about computers, and just booted to your OS. The first thing many in this age would want to do is hop on the Web..
Five years ago, this was not the case. Seven years ago, 87% of the population didn't know what the Internet WAS. This was the time period when I got my hands on the IBM-PC. These days, it's a shame that the Internet has become the "be all and do all" of computing.
Jesus, you sound like an old man. "My car gets 40 rods to the hogs-head, and that's the way I likes it!" Who gives a shit what it was like 5 or 7 years ago? Whether you like it or not, the Internet is the be-all end-all for most people in computing right now. That's how the majority of people getting into it are finding out about Linux in the first place. You should be happy.
but oh no! theres no browser!
Microsoft wasn't forced to weave Internet Explorer so tightly into Windows. That move was to squeeze Netscape out of the market.
No, MS wasn't forced to do anything, and won't be, at least not until the government tells them how to run their business. MS chose to integrate their browser. As they should be able to. It's THEIR PRODUCT. Netscape was on it's way out, anyway. Funny, I thought they were the ones with the browser "monopoly" at one time.
Integrating IE to Windows is FAR from "abuse of their monopoly powers,"
HOW do you come to THAT conclusion? Microsoft Windows runs on +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS. Netscape made a browser for the Internet. Microsoft said "WOAH. They're charging $40 for this thing. Let's make our own browser, and package it with Windows." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer. Then, Microsoft said "We don't want Netscape cutting in on our action. Let's make Internet Explorer FREE, and integrate it real tight with Windows so users are FORCED to use it." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer, have the option to download it for free, and are stuck with using it. And you think this is "just a way to help people out:"? This is doing more harm than help, my friend.
You live in a fantasy land. The number I saw was more in the range of 80%, but that's not important. I'd love to know how MS forces people to use their browser. I have IE and NS on this 98 box right now. I use both so I can design web pages effectively. But I prefer IE because it's a better product. I wish they made a version for my Linux box. How can you make an argument against downloading IE for free? Isn't that what's so great about Linux? You don't like free?
TO HELP THE CONSUMER.
Microsoft has proven long ago that they're in this business for self-interest. If they really wanted to help the consumer, they would make it a point to create better avenues for choice. (The sad fact is, almost NO company is truly out to benefit the consumer. Microsoft is no exception.
THANK GOD. Any business that's wants to make money, is in it for self-interest. Altruism doesn't pay the bills. The only way MS should ever help the consumer, is to make a better product than it's competitors. Then the customer can choose for himself what to buy, depending on how MS's competitors answer that challenge. What is sad is that some of them choose to compete, and some of them choose to complain.
e
Re:This whole thing makes me sick . . .
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Hahaha! Thank god there are some intelligent people on here. The original post is on point. I'm in a very similar situation. I run a dual boot of RH 6.1 and Win98. I've finally gotten Linux running so that it can do what I want, but man, what a time consuming, aggravating, pain in the ass it was. And then to be forced to use Netscape on it, bah! What a cludgy piece of shit Navigator is. Whether MS tied IE illegally (which they didn't; it's THEIR product, they can do what they want) into the desktop or not, it was only a matter of time before the consumer chose the better product, which happens to be IE. IE has more features and is definitely faster. Poor Netscape couldn't compete against this vastly superior product, so they went and cried to their mommy (the government). Well, I hope you MS bashers are happy now. You supported this circus. e
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree with everything you said, but I can appreciate someone who makes valid points. I mistook you for the typical denizen of these boards, i.e.; a kid who says, 'Linux rules, MS drools'. Obviously you're not. I also crafted an incredibly pithy response for the past hour in response to your last message. The irony is, my IE crashed when I went to post it. Haha. Anyway, the gist of it is, I don't want to fight with you about this anymore. I can respect your position as I hope you can respect mine.
Now let's go get that beer.
e
When you consider everything MS has done to improve computing, no one would be happy to hear this verdict.
Quite the contrary. When you consider everything Microsoft has done *to* the computing industry, lots of people are going to be ecstatic over this ruling.
Yeah, it's awful how MS helped build it into a trillion dollar society-changing phenomenon not seen since the advent of the printed word.
Microsoft brought the computer to the masses, enhancing productivity and the usability of PCs.
It's not under question on whether Microsoft made Computerland "fun and easy", but it's a matter of HOW they got there. They strangled competition, and stifled any chances of anything else rising up into the market.
Oh really? So how do you strangle competition before you hold a supposed monopoly? Hmmm, could it be by making a better product that people choose to buy? That sounds like regular competition to me, not strangling. And I didn't realize that Linux couldn't rise into the market. I thought most MS bashers held that it was.
They actualy made it so EASY to use that even my 6 year old sister figured out how to use Win95 in a few hours.
Sit her in front of a Mac, and see if the same thing doesn't happen. Then take her and sit her in front of X. Graphical interfaces aren't that tough to figure out. (Oh, and don't be so quick to thank Microsoft on that. Thank Xerox and Apple.)
You have a point about the graphical interface being easy to use and not a MS invention. But I bet that same 6 year old could set up the computer, too. According to some people on here, that isn't what computing is supposed to be. It's supposed to be hard. Well, Linux is definitely helping in that regard.
Do you even consider how many corporations rely on MS products for all of their operations?
And you don't think that's sad? Even in the slightest?
No. Why would anyone think that's sad? Is it sad that the Edsel went out of business and a lot of people drive Chevy's? People use what works and what's easy. That's how MS got market share from Unix in the first place.
Their success would be impossible if the only available tools they had was a "superior OS" which they had to learn a ~200 page manual before being able to use effectively.
So? You think that's such a horrible atrocity to actually have to LEARN something? Many companies send their employees to schools and pay about $3000 for classes and materials for certifications that are essentially meaningless. If you were a company, wouldn't you rather spend $80 on that ~200 page manual?
Learning is good. MS makes it easy. Being a business owner, I say that if people can retain information from a $3000 class better than a $80 book, I need to send them to the class. What's easier to remember: lame-ass PowerPoint presentations or pounds of dry text with words like 'grep' and 'fstab'? Maybe you overestimate people.
About this browser thing.. imagine you were totally clueless about computers, and just booted to your OS. The first thing many in this age would want to do is hop on the Web..
Five years ago, this was not the case. Seven years ago, 87% of the population didn't know what the Internet WAS. This was the time period when I got my hands on the IBM-PC. These days, it's a shame that the Internet has become the "be all and do all" of computing.
Jesus, you sound like an old man. "My car gets 40 rods to the hogs-head, and that's the way I likes it!" Who gives a shit what it was like 5 or 7 years ago? Whether you like it or not, the Internet is the be-all end-all for most people in computing right now. That's how the majority of people getting into it are finding out about Linux in the first place. You should be happy.
but oh no! theres no browser!
Microsoft wasn't forced to weave Internet Explorer so tightly into Windows. That move was to squeeze Netscape out of the market.
No, MS wasn't forced to do anything, and won't be, at least not until the government tells them how to run their business. MS chose to integrate their browser. As they should be able to. It's THEIR PRODUCT. Netscape was on it's way out, anyway. Funny, I thought they were the ones with the browser "monopoly" at one time.
Integrating IE to Windows is FAR from "abuse of their monopoly powers,"
HOW do you come to THAT conclusion? Microsoft Windows runs on +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS. Netscape made a browser for the Internet. Microsoft said "WOAH. They're charging $40 for this thing. Let's make our own browser, and package it with Windows." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer. Then, Microsoft said "We don't want Netscape cutting in on our action. Let's make Internet Explorer FREE, and integrate it real tight with Windows so users are FORCED to use it." BOOM. Now, +/-95% of ALL COMPUTERS now come with Internet Explorer, have the option to download it for free, and are stuck with using it. And you think this is "just a way to help people out:"? This is doing more harm than help, my friend.
You live in a fantasy land. The number I saw was more in the range of 80%, but that's not important. I'd love to know how MS forces people to use their browser. I have IE and NS on this 98 box right now. I use both so I can design web pages effectively. But I prefer IE because it's a better product. I wish they made a version for my Linux box. How can you make an argument against downloading IE for free? Isn't that what's so great about Linux? You don't like free?
TO HELP THE CONSUMER.
Microsoft has proven long ago that they're in this business for self-interest. If they really wanted to help the consumer, they would make it a point to create better avenues for choice. (The sad fact is, almost NO company is truly out to benefit the consumer. Microsoft is no exception.
THANK GOD. Any business that's wants to make money, is in it for self-interest. Altruism doesn't pay the bills. The only way MS should ever help the consumer, is to make a better product than it's competitors. Then the customer can choose for himself what to buy, depending on how MS's competitors answer that challenge. What is sad is that some of them choose to compete, and some of them choose to complain.
e
Hahaha! Thank god there are some intelligent people on here. The original post is on point. I'm in a very similar situation. I run a dual boot of RH 6.1 and Win98. I've finally gotten Linux running so that it can do what I want, but man, what a time consuming, aggravating, pain in the ass it was. And then to be forced to use Netscape on it, bah! What a cludgy piece of shit Navigator is. Whether MS tied IE illegally (which they didn't; it's THEIR product, they can do what they want) into the desktop or not, it was only a matter of time before the consumer chose the better product, which happens to be IE. IE has more features and is definitely faster. Poor Netscape couldn't compete against this vastly superior product, so they went and cried to their mommy (the government). Well, I hope you MS bashers are happy now. You supported this circus.
e