A. is not completely true. it was something like 90% compatible, but there were lots of apps that had trouble. ODBC based apps, Win32s based ones, OLE based ones, etc..
A1 is also not completely true. It supported Win32s to some degree, but not the full Win32 (the s stands for "subset") and to say that it supported it "well" is mistating things.
Now to say that it ran Windows apps BETTER depends entire on your definition of BETTER. Could it run them in such a way that when one app crashed it didn't effect others? Sure, but it used far more resources (at a time when memory was not cheap) and ran them slower. A prime example was to run Doom (either in a Dos box or using the Windows client). It was stuttery and jittery and basically sucked.
C is outright false. What you're likely confused about is that MS, during a specific beta version, enabled code that caused an error message to occur when Windows was run on DR-DOS. The message did not occur in retail versions, and no other code was added (at least that anyone is aware of) to cause incompatibility problems.
DR-DOS itself had several bugs that made it not completely compatible with Windows, and Novell (then owner of DR-DOS) issued patches to fix them.
So perhaps, before you go accusing people of not checking their facts and spouting mindelss fanboy-isms, you should check your own.
Certain kinds of drivers are not compatible between systems. Video drivers are a good example, because the video subsystem has changed so much from version to version. More generic drivers, however, have been largely compatible from 98 on up. WDM Sound drivers, for example, are often compatible.
Some vendors go out of their way to make their versions incompatible (largely because they take advantage of other featuers that are unique to those versions)
I think Microsoft is in "Pay them off and make them go away" mode.
One thing to consider is that once they've settled with everyone, nobody can come back after them again (at least for their previous actions). They're basically buying off all their problems.
I don't want to diminish the evil doings of Microsoft (or any other similar company) but you might want to get your definitions straight.
First, Microsoft was sued in civil court. Thus, the use of the term "convicted" is nebulous at best. A "convict" is someone convicted of a criminal offense, which cannot occur in civil court.
Second, Judge Jacksons's Findings of Law (what would be equivelent to a conviction in criminal court) were thrown out and it was sent back to the lower court, where the case was settled... effectively negating any possible (even nebulous) claim of "convicted" you could use.
It's true the findings of fact remain, in which Jackson claims that MS has monopoly power (and is thus a Monopolist).
I don't want to beat this to death, but let's be accurate here. Microsoft is not a "convicted" monopolist for three reasons. 1) It was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal Monopoly suit. 2) The Findings of Law were overturned. 3) Microsoft did not acquire it's monopoly illegally (or at least the DOJ went out of it's way to not imply that it did).
And, while they haven't been found "guilty", the findings of fact are there for any number of civil (and potentially criminal) suits.
I should point out that you've shown the criminal definition of Monopoly. The DOJ did not file a criminal case against MS, but rather a civil one. Thus, even if the DOJ had won (rather than settled) it would not have applied to the definitions you've listed.
Microsoft was sued for abuse of monopoly power, not for being a monopoly.
Actually, it should use LESS cycles than current themes because it will be hardware accelerated. Sure, it will use more GPU cycles, but if you're not playing a game or rendering, you aren't using them.
Konfab is very similar to AD, but that's not really what I was talking about. The Konfab widgets look almost identical to the Dashboard ones. The functionality of the widgets is very similar. And the way they're written and designed is similar.
If they didn't look almost identical, act very similarly, and provide the same functionality, I might agree.. but there's just too much the same.
You don't have to install a program to run one. Any program can pop up a dialog identical to the system dialog and fool users into grabbing information.
Your arguments are largely pointless in the context of the discussion. Freebsd is Unix. That's not Innovative.
The iApps may be nice for some users, but the vast majority of PC's are sold for business use and have no business being there on business PC's, much less paying for them. People complain all the time about how little software is included with Windows, but they miss the point that this is for a reason (several, actually) and good ones at that. Apart from the Monopoly issues... you're not paying for a bunch of apps you're not going to use, and you can buy them if you DO want them.
Also, Lack of a given stupid feature is not innovation either.
Also, don't get too high and mighty about security. MacOS is a security time-bomb waiting to go off. The moronic concept of poping up a window to enter your administrator password is a trojan writers dream to steal passwords and root boxes. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of WHEN the first trojans start taking advantage of this.
End users have gotten so used to entering their administrative password every time it asks for them, they've stopped thinking about it. This will be bad. Very bad.
Not to mention, Apple stole the entire Dashboard concept from Konfabulator. A program that's been around for a few years.
Worse, Apple screwed it up. Konfabulator works great because it puts widgets on the desktop behind the applications. This allows you to organize your desktop so you can always see your widgets, or use a second monitor to display them. Dashboard loses most of it's true usefulness by forcing you to press a key combination to to see the damn widgets.
I want my weather widget to be visisble, so I can SEE if it it's raining, or if there is a weather alert. I want my stock ticker to be visible so I can SEE when it drops below or climbs above various things.
You're certainly correct about the components in a system. However, the CPU is a different story.
Why do you think every manufacturer using Intel puts an Intel Inside sticker, and a Windows Compatible sticker on their cases?
Intel has spent a lot of money on brand recognition. All people know is that they should have a Pentium. They don't know why. They have just heard people talk and seen commercials and know that's what they should have. You hear them use the word "Pentium" or "Intel" completely wrong all the time, such as "I have 80 Megabytes of memory (referring to their disk drive, which is actually 80GB and storage), and Pentiums inside".
Like it or not, Intel has created a brand image, and people DO ask for it even when they don't know what it is.
You seem to live in a fantasy world where unpromoted "technically superior" products win in the market place.
The fact is, most consumers are not literate enough about CPU's to know or care. They know what's blasted at them through the TV, radio, and magazines. "What's this ay-thee-on" thingie? I want Intel Inside. It's got a catchy dah-dee-dah tune."
Like it or not, mindshare sells products. And if you don't get your product in the publics mindshare, the public doesn't buy. The public doesn't buy, and the OEM's don't buy.
No, you can't lower your price as much as you want. At some point, it's called "dumping" and is illegal.
Anti-trust laws are not simply any one aspect, they cover a broad range of actions, and almost every one of them is legal for a small company to do (if they can) and are considered "competitive" when they do.
It doesn't work that way. It's a catch-22. Companies won't sign big contracts with you if you can't produce enough chips, and you can't produce enough chips without the revenue from big contracts.
On top of that, it's not like they can just throw money at the problem. Fabs take 18-36 months to bring online from planning to opening the doors. If you sign a big contract with AMD, are you going to wait 2-3 YEARS for them to get around to fulfilling it? No.
You might argue that they can outsource their chips to other companies, like IBM, excep they're already doing that and finding more sources might be problematic. These CPU's are using VERY high end precesses. Your typical fab can't do 90nm parts.
I'm not saying that capability is the only reason they're having problems, but I'd certainly say it's a big reason.
The very act of competing is anti-competitive. Everything you do is an attempt to convince the consumer to buy your product and not your competitors. Further, many acts that are 'anti-competitive' for big players are perfectly legal for small ones.
The problem is that "anti-competitive" if an arbitrary label, and the laws are even more vague. A company has an obligation to its stockholders to do everything legally possible to make money. The question is, where does the "legal" line get drawn? Many companies, unsurprisingly, have a hard time knowing where that limit is.
I don't disagree at all that Intel shouldn't be smacked down for violating the law, though I'm not so quick to assume that there's always a deliberate cause and effect.
AMD is responsible for promoting their brand image OUTSIDE of sales channels. Further, just about *EVERY* mom and pop place I know of sells AMD systems, so I don't buy your Mom and Pop argument. That's where AMD's sales largely come from. Even if true, brand recognition is achieved outside your sales channel so that customers recognize the brand when they're IN the sales channel, so that argument isn't really valid either.
I blame AMD for most of their own problems. If they promoted themselves more, then customers would be demanding their products, and then companies like Dell would be supplying them, regardless of what Intel wanted.
Not really. AMD only has so much capability, just like IBM does. One of the reasons Apple is moving to Intel is because IBM simply can't meet their needs, contract or not.
Simply having a contract doesn't magically make fab capacity appear.
It always amuses me when I see this kind of flip-flop.
If the argument were "poor college student pirates Windows because Bill gates has more than enough money" then everyone would be on the poor college students side.
Yeah yeah, Newline isn't poor, and they did sign a contract. I am just amused by the argument, that's all.
While i'm not arguing that, my point is that it's a bit of a stretch to call Intel a monopoly when their competition is quite strong and doing well.
Does Intel have a strong market power? Sure. Are they using that illegally? Quite possibly. However, I think there's more at work here than simply shady dealings by Intel. I think a lot of factors come into play when an OEM chooses a chip vendor... such as Market Image, ability to meet demand, cost of retooling, etc..
Intel spends a *LOT* of money on the "Intel Inside" and Pentium image. AMD spends very little and is not well known outside techie circles. That "Intel Inside" sticker does mean something to a lot of people, even if they don't know WHAT it means. It's brand recognition.
What AMD wants is their foot in the door, so they can prove how good they are. Unfortunately, brand image is AMD's responsibility, not Intel's. If they spent the kind of money Intel does on Blueman Group ads alone, they could probably get a much larger share.
They made 1.97 Billion in gross profit last year. with a net income of 28.64 Million. Their last quarter doesn't look too good, but most companies have strong and weak quarters in a year.
Oh, certainly, when you get up in the higher end 3rd party boards, prices tend to be premium anyways and you're not going to see much of a difference.
But when you're taking about OEM systems that generally are not "performance" oriented, very penny counts. I used retail boards as yardstick because OEM prices are not readily available. In general, though, AMD chipsets are more expensive than their Intel counterparts.
While Intel processors are typically more expensive, the chipsets to support them are generally cheaper than AMD chipsets. This usually means a cheaper overall system than an AMD one, despite AMD chipsets having less support logic needed.
For example, the cheapest Athlon 64 motherboard out there is $54 while the cheapest P4 motherboard is $12. The cheapest dual opteron board is $175 and the cheapest dual Xeon board is $73.
While I don't doubt that Intel does every trick in the book to keep their profit margins up. I have to wonder exactly how "hurt" AMD is. They are a profitable company and sell a significant number of systems. There are tons of motherboard and system makers supporting them, though not generally the really big ones.
You have to wonder how much of that is because of Intel "strong arming" and how much it is that manufacturers are more comfortable with Intel's product supply capability.
I know if I were shipping a million or more computers a year, I probably wouldn't choose AMD, simply because they have a history of not being able to meet demand.
Slashdot Mirror
A. is not completely true. it was something like 90% compatible, but there were lots of apps that had trouble. ODBC based apps, Win32s based ones, OLE based ones, etc..
A1 is also not completely true. It supported Win32s to some degree, but not the full Win32 (the s stands for "subset") and to say that it supported it "well" is mistating things.
Now to say that it ran Windows apps BETTER depends entire on your definition of BETTER. Could it run them in such a way that when one app crashed it didn't effect others? Sure, but it used far more resources (at a time when memory was not cheap) and ran them slower. A prime example was to run Doom (either in a Dos box or using the Windows client). It was stuttery and jittery and basically sucked.
C is outright false. What you're likely confused about is that MS, during a specific beta version, enabled code that caused an error message to occur when Windows was run on DR-DOS. The message did not occur in retail versions, and no other code was added (at least that anyone is aware of) to cause incompatibility problems.
DR-DOS itself had several bugs that made it not completely compatible with Windows, and Novell (then owner of DR-DOS) issued patches to fix them.
So perhaps, before you go accusing people of not checking their facts and spouting mindelss fanboy-isms, you should check your own.
Certain kinds of drivers are not compatible between systems. Video drivers are a good example, because the video subsystem has changed so much from version to version. More generic drivers, however, have been largely compatible from 98 on up. WDM Sound drivers, for example, are often compatible.
Some vendors go out of their way to make their versions incompatible (largely because they take advantage of other featuers that are unique to those versions)
I think Microsoft is in "Pay them off and make them go away" mode.
One thing to consider is that once they've settled with everyone, nobody can come back after them again (at least for their previous actions). They're basically buying off all their problems.
I don't want to diminish the evil doings of Microsoft (or any other similar company) but you might want to get your definitions straight.
First, Microsoft was sued in civil court. Thus, the use of the term "convicted" is nebulous at best. A "convict" is someone convicted of a criminal offense, which cannot occur in civil court.
Second, Judge Jacksons's Findings of Law (what would be equivelent to a conviction in criminal court) were thrown out and it was sent back to the lower court, where the case was settled... effectively negating any possible (even nebulous) claim of "convicted" you could use.
It's true the findings of fact remain, in which Jackson claims that MS has monopoly power (and is thus a Monopolist).
I don't want to beat this to death, but let's be accurate here. Microsoft is not a "convicted" monopolist for three reasons. 1) It was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal Monopoly suit. 2) The Findings of Law were overturned. 3) Microsoft did not acquire it's monopoly illegally (or at least the DOJ went out of it's way to not imply that it did).
And, while they haven't been found "guilty", the findings of fact are there for any number of civil (and potentially criminal) suits.
I should point out that you've shown the criminal definition of Monopoly. The DOJ did not file a criminal case against MS, but rather a civil one. Thus, even if the DOJ had won (rather than settled) it would not have applied to the definitions you've listed.
Microsoft was sued for abuse of monopoly power, not for being a monopoly.
Actually, it should use LESS cycles than current themes because it will be hardware accelerated. Sure, it will use more GPU cycles, but if you're not playing a game or rendering, you aren't using them.
Konfab is very similar to AD, but that's not really what I was talking about. The Konfab widgets look almost identical to the Dashboard ones. The functionality of the widgets is very similar. And the way they're written and designed is similar.
If they didn't look almost identical, act very similarly, and provide the same functionality, I might agree.. but there's just too much the same.
You don't have to install a program to run one. Any program can pop up a dialog identical to the system dialog and fool users into grabbing information.
Your arguments are largely pointless in the context of the discussion. Freebsd is Unix. That's not Innovative.
The iApps may be nice for some users, but the vast majority of PC's are sold for business use and have no business being there on business PC's, much less paying for them. People complain all the time about how little software is included with Windows, but they miss the point that this is for a reason (several, actually) and good ones at that. Apart from the Monopoly issues... you're not paying for a bunch of apps you're not going to use, and you can buy them if you DO want them.
Also, Lack of a given stupid feature is not innovation either.
Also, don't get too high and mighty about security. MacOS is a security time-bomb waiting to go off. The moronic concept of poping up a window to enter your administrator password is a trojan writers dream to steal passwords and root boxes. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of WHEN the first trojans start taking advantage of this.
End users have gotten so used to entering their administrative password every time it asks for them, they've stopped thinking about it. This will be bad. Very bad.
Not to mention, Apple stole the entire Dashboard concept from Konfabulator. A program that's been around for a few years.
Worse, Apple screwed it up. Konfabulator works great because it puts widgets on the desktop behind the applications. This allows you to organize your desktop so you can always see your widgets, or use a second monitor to display them. Dashboard loses most of it's true usefulness by forcing you to press a key combination to to see the damn widgets.
I want my weather widget to be visisble, so I can SEE if it it's raining, or if there is a weather alert. I want my stock ticker to be visible so I can SEE when it drops below or climbs above various things.
Bah, dashboard is almost, but not quite, useless.
Did you actually read the story on the 140 pound catfish? It appears not.
You're certainly correct about the components in a system. However, the CPU is a different story.
Why do you think every manufacturer using Intel puts an Intel Inside sticker, and a Windows Compatible sticker on their cases?
Intel has spent a lot of money on brand recognition. All people know is that they should have a Pentium. They don't know why. They have just heard people talk and seen commercials and know that's what they should have. You hear them use the word "Pentium" or "Intel" completely wrong all the time, such as "I have 80 Megabytes of memory (referring to their disk drive, which is actually 80GB and storage), and Pentiums inside".
Like it or not, Intel has created a brand image, and people DO ask for it even when they don't know what it is.
You seem to live in a fantasy world where unpromoted "technically superior" products win in the market place.
The fact is, most consumers are not literate enough about CPU's to know or care. They know what's blasted at them through the TV, radio, and magazines. "What's this ay-thee-on" thingie? I want Intel Inside. It's got a catchy dah-dee-dah tune."
Like it or not, mindshare sells products. And if you don't get your product in the publics mindshare, the public doesn't buy. The public doesn't buy, and the OEM's don't buy.
No, you can't lower your price as much as you want. At some point, it's called "dumping" and is illegal.
Anti-trust laws are not simply any one aspect, they cover a broad range of actions, and almost every one of them is legal for a small company to do (if they can) and are considered "competitive" when they do.
You're intentionally mis-interpreting my comments. Taken in the context of my complete statement, it makes more sense.
My argument was that anti-trust laws are vague, and using them you can define competition as being anti-competitive.
Part of competition is price. I lower my price to compete with you. At some point, this competitive practice becomes anti-competitive.
Do you get my drift now?
It doesn't work that way. It's a catch-22. Companies won't sign big contracts with you if you can't produce enough chips, and you can't produce enough chips without the revenue from big contracts.
On top of that, it's not like they can just throw money at the problem. Fabs take 18-36 months to bring online from planning to opening the doors. If you sign a big contract with AMD, are you going to wait 2-3 YEARS for them to get around to fulfilling it? No.
You might argue that they can outsource their chips to other companies, like IBM, excep they're already doing that and finding more sources might be problematic. These CPU's are using VERY high end precesses. Your typical fab can't do 90nm parts.
I'm not saying that capability is the only reason they're having problems, but I'd certainly say it's a big reason.
The very act of competing is anti-competitive. Everything you do is an attempt to convince the consumer to buy your product and not your competitors. Further, many acts that are 'anti-competitive' for big players are perfectly legal for small ones.
The problem is that "anti-competitive" if an arbitrary label, and the laws are even more vague. A company has an obligation to its stockholders to do everything legally possible to make money. The question is, where does the "legal" line get drawn? Many companies, unsurprisingly, have a hard time knowing where that limit is.
I don't disagree at all that Intel shouldn't be smacked down for violating the law, though I'm not so quick to assume that there's always a deliberate cause and effect.
AMD is responsible for promoting their brand image OUTSIDE of sales channels. Further, just about *EVERY* mom and pop place I know of sells AMD systems, so I don't buy your Mom and Pop argument. That's where AMD's sales largely come from. Even if true, brand recognition is achieved outside your sales channel so that customers recognize the brand when they're IN the sales channel, so that argument isn't really valid either.
I blame AMD for most of their own problems. If they promoted themselves more, then customers would be demanding their products, and then companies like Dell would be supplying them, regardless of what Intel wanted.
Not really. AMD only has so much capability, just like IBM does. One of the reasons Apple is moving to Intel is because IBM simply can't meet their needs, contract or not.
Simply having a contract doesn't magically make fab capacity appear.
It always amuses me when I see this kind of flip-flop.
If the argument were "poor college student pirates Windows because Bill gates has more than enough money" then everyone would be on the poor college students side.
Yeah yeah, Newline isn't poor, and they did sign a contract. I am just amused by the argument, that's all.
While i'm not arguing that, my point is that it's a bit of a stretch to call Intel a monopoly when their competition is quite strong and doing well.
Does Intel have a strong market power? Sure. Are they using that illegally? Quite possibly. However, I think there's more at work here than simply shady dealings by Intel. I think a lot of factors come into play when an OEM chooses a chip vendor... such as Market Image, ability to meet demand, cost of retooling, etc..
Intel spends a *LOT* of money on the "Intel Inside" and Pentium image. AMD spends very little and is not well known outside techie circles. That "Intel Inside" sticker does mean something to a lot of people, even if they don't know WHAT it means. It's brand recognition.
What AMD wants is their foot in the door, so they can prove how good they are. Unfortunately, brand image is AMD's responsibility, not Intel's. If they spent the kind of money Intel does on Blueman Group ads alone, they could probably get a much larger share.
According to their stock charts, they are:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AMD
They made 1.97 Billion in gross profit last year. with a net income of 28.64 Million. Their last quarter doesn't look too good, but most companies have strong and weak quarters in a year.
Oh, certainly, when you get up in the higher end 3rd party boards, prices tend to be premium anyways and you're not going to see much of a difference.
But when you're taking about OEM systems that generally are not "performance" oriented, very penny counts. I used retail boards as yardstick because OEM prices are not readily available. In general, though, AMD chipsets are more expensive than their Intel counterparts.
While Intel processors are typically more expensive, the chipsets to support them are generally cheaper than AMD chipsets. This usually means a cheaper overall system than an AMD one, despite AMD chipsets having less support logic needed.
For example, the cheapest Athlon 64 motherboard out there is $54 while the cheapest P4 motherboard is $12. The cheapest dual opteron board is $175 and the cheapest dual Xeon board is $73.
While I don't doubt that Intel does every trick in the book to keep their profit margins up. I have to wonder exactly how "hurt" AMD is. They are a profitable company and sell a significant number of systems. There are tons of motherboard and system makers supporting them, though not generally the really big ones.
You have to wonder how much of that is because of Intel "strong arming" and how much it is that manufacturers are more comfortable with Intel's product supply capability.
I know if I were shipping a million or more computers a year, I probably wouldn't choose AMD, simply because they have a history of not being able to meet demand.