That would have been done a long time ago if Microsoft hadn't used its monopoly to make sure no major hardware vendor would dare to do it.
And that's why Apple is doing so well right now - without Windows. Come on. Their OEM's licenses where draconian but Dell didn't care about BeOS or even Linux on the consumer desktop anyway. The real argument is about the browser and how the OEM's where forced to ignore Netscape (even though Netscape 4.x sucked but that's subjective).
I was once in favour of some sort of moderate compromise.
Right. I mean, the OEM should be able to completely change the GUI to windows. Who needs a Start button anyway? Same with stores that sell Apple computers. Who needs this Finder menu here anyway?
Quite frankly, that is NOT a moderate compromise. This is MS's OS, not the OEM's. Sure, the OEM's should be able to replace the IE icon with a Netscape Icon on the desktop, but not screw with the UI.
My biggest gripe about Gamespot (other then large flash ads that make browsing a bit slow) is their screenshots. They have by far the largest screenshot collection but NOT THE BEST. Their screenshots are virually worthless, because they are compressed to the point where they just look horrible. If I'm paying for reviews I want crisp and high-rez screenshots (read: FiringSquad style).
It is possible to write a program which knows only the rules of the game, and teaches itself how to play. This requires the programmer to be talented at writing machine learning code, but not necessarily talented at the game of chess.
This is an insightful and interesting point, however, it does not pertain to the "chess computers" at hand. Although these machines may "learn" chess styles as they go, they are programmed with huge opening and closing databases, human created strategies, and have the power to brute force.
the folks at Redmond hardly have a reputation for making things that work well.
This is BS. I make my living as a developer on Windows servers. Our servers have incredible uptime. Remember, MS's problem is security, _NOT_ stability. Also, I've had my XBox at a "LAN party" where it was essentially hammered on for 12 hours straight. This is on the network. The bottom line is, for the past few months that I've owned my XBox, I've yet to have it crash. If only my PS1 would have the same uptime.
But games that are available on all platforms like Spiderman have been rated the best (mainly for graphics and sound, but sometimes playability as well) on the Xbox. So yes, I can play the same game on the PS2, just as I can play Unreal 2 on a Geforce 1 without all the detail on. Which would you rather have for the same dollar? A Geforce 3 or a Geforce 1?
A) Windows is extremely modular. Just look at COM (even though it's not my favorite thing). Also, if you follow.NET, it will be even easier to create modular code. Also, see Windows Embedded.
B) Programmers commonly only look at things from a strictly technical standpoint. It's also possible that they make a 1.4MB floppy version of Windows, but it would be impossible to do so from a product design standpoint, because the market demands more features then 1.4MB can provide. MS decided that using DHTML as a standard GUI (like the Help system, SQLBol, etc.) was more efficient. They also felt that the "explorer interface" for browsing folders and directory would benefit from DHTML (for example, you can write custom code to preview pictures in a particular folder via JScript). Finally, they allow 3rd party software developers to incorporate the browser engine to perform similar tasks.
You also have to consider the business factors. This is not a matter of changing the default background from green to blue. We are talking about critical functionality, and possibly the most commonly used piece of software by the average computer user. Because of this, MS would definitely have increased support costs, testing costs, while having less control over quality if it was forced to allow any browser take the position of IE. This does NOT mean that you can't have alternative browsers (I ahve 4 browsers on my system). Alternative browsers can cooexist, they just can't completly replace IE. Many tout their little "IE removing utilities" which do little more then remove the IE icon from your desktop. Trust me, IE is still on your machine in some form or another.
To close, this has nothing to do with "poor software design" but rather "what's practical for their product". I think that an OEM should be able to remove the IE icon from the desktop and replace it with an Opera icon (for example). This leaves MS's product intact, while allowing the OEM to package their own browser.
Internet explorer in consumer-choice-friendly theory should allow me to remove it and put something else in its place if I like (just like my car allows me to change out the CD player for a tape deck), but MS says that's "impossible".
You have flawed logic. According to your analogy, it's like saying, "I don't like the engine you put in your car, I want an engine from your competitor". The dealer won't do it - it may even be physically impossible. Also, MS is not saying that I can't install an aftermarket part. I'm running Windows with IE, Opera, Mozilla, AND NS6.0. Finally, the reason you can't "remove" IE is because many critical functions of Windows (Help, Office, and third party apps) integrate IE into their software. Even programs that "claim" to remove IE are not removing the core browser engine.
Right on. To add, you can also choose different hardware (As you mentioned, VW and Fords are completely different platforms), and go with a solution from Apple (for example). Although everything is proprietary to Apple, it is still a choice (and becoming a pretty compelling one of late).
When the automotive industry in agreement with the petrolium industry decide that no car on the market will have an aerodynamic efficiency above a certain figure,
Karl Barth, a radical Christian Theologen, contends that the heart of Communism is closer to what Christ's heart was and that Capitalism's "spirit" is almost the antethesis. I haven't studied him much (yet), however, I don't believe that he "believes in" either system, rather, he debunks the whole "capitalism is the only christian way" that fundamentalists preach.
It's great to see your post. Personally, I think that the Simpsons is way more educational then TBN, because it actually Critiques the church (in normally very correct ways). And even I, a.NET developer with an XBox, am getting interested in the Darwin kernel.
X-box disappoints. Pocket PC sales disappoint. They can't get out of their corner..NET is a vague buzzword with no meat yet, and not many people fooled so far.
The Xbox is awesome. True, the PS2 has a far superior game library, but it's also in it's second generation and second year of release, and wasn't released during a very poor point in the world economy.
Pocket PC sales do not dissapoint. The last time I checked, they've been giving Palm a run for their money. Palm has been very static, while PocketPC 2002 is actually very slick.
YOU may not understand.NET, but many developers do. Many non-religious, objective professionals claim that it's an incredible development platform (and some say that it's too bad that MS was the creator of it). Let's not forget many of the Fortune 100, Government, and small-medium sized business that have chosen.NET as their platform of choice for future projects.
Exactly. Considering that it's only in it's "version 1" (kinda), think of where this OS can go - especially with support from the community (at the kernal level), with the commercial support from Apple (dev API's, GUI, etc.).
Schools pay top dollar for books, desks, etc. What right do they have to steal from Microsoft? Microsoft offers their software to schools for literally pennies on the dollar (even cheaper then the prices you see at "student discount" stores). If schools determine that Linux or FreeBSD (or Lindows!) is a better alternative, then they should switch, not steal.
That's not the point. Relative to Netscape, they have done a lot better. This is because they have made a better product. Also, as much as I like Opera, I still prefer the way IE renders pages overall (esp. how it handles CSS). My main contention is that if Netscape had a decent product that there would be better competition. Now that MS is forced to allow OEM's to put alternative browsers (and other programs) on the desktop, hopefully Opera will do even better. So yes, MS's monopoly is a factor, I'm just saying that Netscape sucked and it would have died one way or another, while superior products ARE surviving in the current marketplace.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about how people can be so unobjectively anti-MS (or pro-GPL). Personally, I like Open Source. I love what Apple has done. 2 years ago you could ask me and I would have said that I hated Apple - their hardware, and their software, and their fruityness! But, they've changed and made some awesome technology. So now I'm looking for a cheap G3 ~400 (got one?) to put OS X on. The author of the article was making unfounded statements like the GPL zealot he is. I think myself and many others that question the GPL would have taken the rest of his article much more seriously if it wasn't for this - that's all I'm trying to say.
I agree with most of your numebered points except for number 5.
5. Because MS was giving IE away for free (which has now been ruled illegal) this destroyed Netscape's revenue stream which essentially prohibited their future development.
Netscape (which I used since 2.x) was free for educational and non commercial use. I personally did not know any (small) bussiness that paid for Netscape either. It came on most everyone's machines and/or you could just download it for free off of ftp.netscape.com. You might call this piracy, but I don't think people honestly understood that it wasn't a free browser. If this was their major revenue stream, they had a very poor business model and/or execution of said model. Finally, why isn't Opera dead? Netscape had 90%+ of the marketshare, Opera had zero, so Opera has an uphill battle, yet they are doing better then Netscape. Maybe because it's a better browser?
This is just a silly, nerdy, and short-sighted technicality. First, I'm comparing IE4.x, not 6. 6 is OK but I'm likeing Opera more and more each day. Second, an RFC is NOT a standard. Third, I could just restate and say IE4 is "better at web browsing" then Netscape Communicator - the same point is being made either way.
A blatant lie!. Netscape 3.0 was much better then IE 3.0.
I agree. Netscape Communicator was Netscape 4.0. I was a die hard Netscape user until Communicator came out.
Nesscape 4.0 was better then IE 4.0.
Netscape was objectively slower. IE 4.0 was a bit buggy but a couple of point releases later it was easily as stable, if not more stable then Netscape. Netscape supported proprietary crap like the infamous LAYER tag, while IE supported the logical and W3C accepted "DHTML" standards. IE also had far better CSS support.
By that time Netscape's air supply had been cut off and they could not afford to put too much money into further developing it.
Yet, Opera, who's "air supply" is theoretically also cut off by MS's integration of the browser, is doing very well. It's faster then IE, it renders almost as well as IE, and is way more customizeable (pop-up stopper, more privacy settings, etc.). Sounds like they're innovating just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
That would have been done a long time ago if Microsoft hadn't used its monopoly to make sure no major hardware vendor would dare to do it.
And that's why Apple is doing so well right now - without Windows. Come on. Their OEM's licenses where draconian but Dell didn't care about BeOS or even Linux on the consumer desktop anyway. The real argument is about the browser and how the OEM's where forced to ignore Netscape (even though Netscape 4.x sucked but that's subjective).
I was once in favour of some sort of moderate compromise.
Right. I mean, the OEM should be able to completely change the GUI to windows. Who needs a Start button anyway? Same with stores that sell Apple computers. Who needs this Finder menu here anyway?
Quite frankly, that is NOT a moderate compromise. This is MS's OS, not the OEM's. Sure, the OEM's should be able to replace the IE icon with a Netscape Icon on the desktop, but not screw with the UI.
My biggest gripe about Gamespot (other then large flash ads that make browsing a bit slow) is their screenshots. They have by far the largest screenshot collection but NOT THE BEST. Their screenshots are virually worthless, because they are compressed to the point where they just look horrible. If I'm paying for reviews I want crisp and high-rez screenshots (read: FiringSquad style).
It is possible to write a program which knows only the rules of the game, and teaches itself how to play. This requires the programmer to be talented at writing machine learning code, but not necessarily talented at the game of chess.
This is an insightful and interesting point, however, it does not pertain to the "chess computers" at hand. Although these machines may "learn" chess styles as they go, they are programmed with huge opening and closing databases, human created strategies, and have the power to brute force.
This is just my own experiences but...
the folks at Redmond hardly have a reputation for making things that work well.
This is BS. I make my living as a developer on Windows servers. Our servers have incredible uptime. Remember, MS's problem is security, _NOT_ stability. Also, I've had my XBox at a "LAN party" where it was essentially hammered on for 12 hours straight. This is on the network. The bottom line is, for the past few months that I've owned my XBox, I've yet to have it crash. If only my PS1 would have the same uptime.
But games that are available on all platforms like Spiderman have been rated the best (mainly for graphics and sound, but sometimes playability as well) on the Xbox. So yes, I can play the same game on the PS2, just as I can play Unreal 2 on a Geforce 1 without all the detail on. Which would you rather have for the same dollar? A Geforce 3 or a Geforce 1?
A) Windows is extremely modular. Just look at COM (even though it's not my favorite thing). Also, if you follow .NET, it will be even easier to create modular code. Also, see Windows Embedded.
B) Programmers commonly only look at things from a strictly technical standpoint. It's also possible that they make a 1.4MB floppy version of Windows, but it would be impossible to do so from a product design standpoint, because the market demands more features then 1.4MB can provide. MS decided that using DHTML as a standard GUI (like the Help system, SQLBol, etc.) was more efficient. They also felt that the "explorer interface" for browsing folders and directory would benefit from DHTML (for example, you can write custom code to preview pictures in a particular folder via JScript). Finally, they allow 3rd party software developers to incorporate the browser engine to perform similar tasks.
You also have to consider the business factors. This is not a matter of changing the default background from green to blue. We are talking about critical functionality, and possibly the most commonly used piece of software by the average computer user. Because of this, MS would definitely have increased support costs, testing costs, while having less control over quality if it was forced to allow any browser take the position of IE. This does NOT mean that you can't have alternative browsers (I ahve 4 browsers on my system). Alternative browsers can cooexist, they just can't completly replace IE. Many tout their little "IE removing utilities" which do little more then remove the IE icon from your desktop. Trust me, IE is still on your machine in some form or another.
To close, this has nothing to do with "poor software design" but rather "what's practical for their product". I think that an OEM should be able to remove the IE icon from the desktop and replace it with an Opera icon (for example). This leaves MS's product intact, while allowing the OEM to package their own browser.
Internet explorer in consumer-choice-friendly theory should allow me to remove it and put something else in its place if I like (just like my car allows me to change out the CD player for a tape deck), but MS says that's "impossible".
You have flawed logic. According to your analogy, it's like saying, "I don't like the engine you put in your car, I want an engine from your competitor". The dealer won't do it - it may even be physically impossible. Also, MS is not saying that I can't install an aftermarket part. I'm running Windows with IE, Opera, Mozilla, AND NS6.0. Finally, the reason you can't "remove" IE is because many critical functions of Windows (Help, Office, and third party apps) integrate IE into their software. Even programs that "claim" to remove IE are not removing the core browser engine.
Right on. To add, you can also choose different hardware (As you mentioned, VW and Fords are completely different platforms), and go with a solution from Apple (for example). Although everything is proprietary to Apple, it is still a choice (and becoming a pretty compelling one of late).
When the automotive industry in agreement with the petrolium industry decide that no car on the market will have an aerodynamic efficiency above a certain figure,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Have you not SEEN the latest SUV's on the road?
I'm curious, does anyone know how Blizzard profits from Battle.net?
Actually, you got across almost exactly what I was trying to articulate. Although you did trivialize the issues, I think you made a valid summary.
<META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">
The site is a PARODY!
Karl Barth, a radical Christian Theologen, contends that the heart of Communism is closer to what Christ's heart was and that Capitalism's "spirit" is almost the antethesis. I haven't studied him much (yet), however, I don't believe that he "believes in" either system, rather, he debunks the whole "capitalism is the only christian way" that fundamentalists preach.
It's great to see your post. Personally, I think that the Simpsons is way more educational then TBN, because it actually Critiques the church (in normally very correct ways). And even I, a .NET developer with an XBox, am getting interested in the Darwin kernel.
X-box disappoints. Pocket PC sales disappoint. They can't get out of their corner. .NET is a vague buzzword with no meat yet, and not many people fooled so far.
.NET, but many developers do. Many non-religious, objective professionals claim that it's an incredible development platform (and some say that it's too bad that MS was the creator of it). Let's not forget many of the Fortune 100, Government, and small-medium sized business that have chosen .NET as their platform of choice for future projects.
The Xbox is awesome. True, the PS2 has a far superior game library, but it's also in it's second generation and second year of release, and wasn't released during a very poor point in the world economy.
Pocket PC sales do not dissapoint. The last time I checked, they've been giving Palm a run for their money. Palm has been very static, while PocketPC 2002 is actually very slick.
YOU may not understand
you mean like Mac OS X?
Exactly. Considering that it's only in it's "version 1" (kinda), think of where this OS can go - especially with support from the community (at the kernal level), with the commercial support from Apple (dev API's, GUI, etc.).
Great moderating. Stop moderating based on opinion, rather, based on the quality fo the post. Encourage discussion.
Schools pay top dollar for books, desks, etc. What right do they have to steal from Microsoft? Microsoft offers their software to schools for literally pennies on the dollar (even cheaper then the prices you see at "student discount" stores). If schools determine that Linux or FreeBSD (or Lindows!) is a better alternative, then they should switch, not steal.
That's not the point. Relative to Netscape, they have done a lot better. This is because they have made a better product. Also, as much as I like Opera, I still prefer the way IE renders pages overall (esp. how it handles CSS). My main contention is that if Netscape had a decent product that there would be better competition. Now that MS is forced to allow OEM's to put alternative browsers (and other programs) on the desktop, hopefully Opera will do even better. So yes, MS's monopoly is a factor, I'm just saying that Netscape sucked and it would have died one way or another, while superior products ARE surviving in the current marketplace.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about how people can be so unobjectively anti-MS (or pro-GPL). Personally, I like Open Source. I love what Apple has done. 2 years ago you could ask me and I would have said that I hated Apple - their hardware, and their software, and their fruityness! But, they've changed and made some awesome technology. So now I'm looking for a cheap G3 ~400 (got one?) to put OS X on. The author of the article was making unfounded statements like the GPL zealot he is. I think myself and many others that question the GPL would have taken the rest of his article much more seriously if it wasn't for this - that's all I'm trying to say.
I agree with most of your numebered points except for number 5.
5. Because MS was giving IE away for free (which has now been ruled illegal) this destroyed Netscape's revenue stream which essentially prohibited their future development.
Netscape (which I used since 2.x) was free for educational and non commercial use. I personally did not know any (small) bussiness that paid for Netscape either. It came on most everyone's machines and/or you could just download it for free off of ftp.netscape.com. You might call this piracy, but I don't think people honestly understood that it wasn't a free browser. If this was their major revenue stream, they had a very poor business model and/or execution of said model. Finally, why isn't Opera dead? Netscape had 90%+ of the marketshare, Opera had zero, so Opera has an uphill battle, yet they are doing better then Netscape. Maybe because it's a better browser?
This is just a silly, nerdy, and short-sighted technicality. First, I'm comparing IE4.x, not 6. 6 is OK but I'm likeing Opera more and more each day. Second, an RFC is NOT a standard. Third, I could just restate and say IE4 is "better at web browsing" then Netscape Communicator - the same point is being made either way.
A blatant lie!. Netscape 3.0 was much better then IE 3.0.
I agree. Netscape Communicator was Netscape 4.0. I was a die hard Netscape user until Communicator came out.
Nesscape 4.0 was better then IE 4.0.
Netscape was objectively slower. IE 4.0 was a bit buggy but a couple of point releases later it was easily as stable, if not more stable then Netscape. Netscape supported proprietary crap like the infamous LAYER tag, while IE supported the logical and W3C accepted "DHTML" standards. IE also had far better CSS support.
By that time Netscape's air supply had been cut off and they could not afford to put too much money into further developing it.
Yet, Opera, who's "air supply" is theoretically also cut off by MS's integration of the browser, is doing very well. It's faster then IE, it renders almost as well as IE, and is way more customizeable (pop-up stopper, more privacy settings, etc.). Sounds like they're innovating just fine.