You never had a claim, that's the problem. Microsoft never took anything from Netscape that they did not freely give away. The fact is that by the end 1998 after facing only a small amount of competition, Netscape rolled over and played dead despite having heavy market momentum and a leading share.
Whether or not Microsoft used heavy handed tactics is irrelevant, the problem is whether these tactics had any effectiveness. I claim they did not, that they were extraordinarily inept until the point Microsoft had a clearly superior product. Market share figures support this claim of mine.
It is *YOUR* burden to prove otherwise. Oh, and just so you don't forget... calling an opinion a fact does not make it so. (I notice you have been guilty of that twice now)
Marketshare figures and other relevant facts support my claim, not yours. This is the same problem the Justice Department faced, that while they had proof of actions being taken, they had no proof that these actions caused any harm.
By the time Microsoft made their deal with Spyglass, Netscape was already giving the browser away for free.
There are quotes from Marc Andreessen dating back to Netscape's IPO where he said they would be giving the browser away for free, because the real money was in the server space.
Thank you! I read that article many years ago, and have been searching for it over the past year to no avail.
Re:Netscape failed b/c MS abuses its power
on
Andreesen "Grows Up"
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"Microsoft stole the right to choose"
Given the history of events I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.
At the time Netscape had given up the browser market, turned everything over to Open Source and sold out to AOL who then abandoned the market completely... IE still had less than 50% of the marketshare.
It wasn't until the release of IE 5.0 that Microsoft surpassed Netscapes marketshare... and that wasn't until 1999, long after Netscape had given up.
So basically what you are saying is that it was monopolistic and illegal for Microsoft to compete in the market. You apparently don't want competition, is that it?
You know, every time I see stupid arguments such as yours it makes me furious.
"He was not trying to compete with microsoft when he made netscape either. "
You must suffer from selective memory. Whether or not Andreessen wanted to compete with Microsoft, the press was advertising Netscape as the Microsoft killerm, and Marc as the next Bill Gates when it went IPO.
The only quote I recall him making was something about the OS becoming irrelevant, which I'm sure appeared as a threat to Microsoft.
Re:Netscape failed b/c MS abuses its power
on
Andreesen "Grows Up"
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Translated your post reads:
Blah blah... blah blah blah... microsoft is evil blah blah... blah blah... blah blah blah... microsoft is evil... blah blah blah... blah
I'm curious, have you ever had an original critical thought in your life or do you just troll slashdot periodically looking for karma?
Obviously you have not been following the case. The non-settling states have used the input of Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc. to formulate their suggested remedies. This fact was presented weeks ago by Microsoft.
"The problem is not that MS Windows doesn't come with Netscape or Java or any other competition. "
No, pay attention...
The nine non-settling states were told by Sun to include a provision to force Microsoft to ship the Sun JVM with Windows. That's what is being referred to here.
The exclusive contracts business is part of the DOJ settlement.
"Can you substantiate this claim at all? Republicans don't like excessive government regulation of industry, which is exactly what the SSSCA does."
Sorry, that's another myth.
Most regulations, such as say telecom or auto industry, etc. all work to form a barrier of entry into the market. That is, in order to sell product you have to meet the regulatory requirements, which means you need some substantial capital initially.
Businesses tend to lobby against the regulations when the market is small and they see high growth potential(see Enron). But once the market matures, they lobby for regulations to keep competition out(see Telecom).
It's quite enlightening to watch C-Span, you should do it some day.
Oh, back to the Republicans. Again, follow the money... they are very much against regulations which are demanded by industries which support the Democrats financially, but are all for them when lobbied by their pet favorites.
Fox news is one of the most unethical, biased examples of crap journalism on the US airwaves. They have to keep telling you they are "fair and balanced" because if you had any criticle thinking skills you'd realize they were not.
I don't know if they were the first to talk about Condit, but they were certainly the last. Well after every other news agency realized there wasn't a story there, Fox News was still beating the horse. Right up until 9/11 they were giving hourly updates to let us know nothing had changed, but Fox News still thinks he is scum.
And don't even get me started on O'Reilly. He's not a journalist, he is a bully. Brings people on the show, makes wild accusations and then doesn't let them respond. If they don't accept his invite to the show, then he bashes them constantly claiming they are afraid of him.
What a joke. Fox News is just an extension of Fox with Cops, When Animals Attack, and Alien Autopsy.
Well you are mistaken on a great number of things.
The music and movie industry does tend to favor the Democrats because the party tends to favor the 1st amendment moreso. As such they lobby the Democrats more, and so it is not surprising to see legislation supporting their industry being proposed by Democrats.
It's not that the Republicans don't also support this legislation, they do. But they oppose the music and movie industry because they donate money to the Democrats.
Which explains this article. Fox News is heavily biased in favor of Republicans, thus they have placed a political slant on this to make it look like the Democrats are bad. It's an interesting tactic because I'm sure they favor the bill, but this way they can help the GOP get positive press on it's good merits, and turn the Dems into scapegoats for it's bad merits.
One of the points apparently made by the DOJ lawyers today is that while Microsoft engaged in actions which on the surface appared to be exclusionary, they(the DOJ) had a really hard time proving that there was actual damage caused by these actions.
Such is the case with BeOS. Even if Microsoft had had no provisions in any of their contracts, Be still would not have sold any product. There simply was never any demand for it. The best thing for Be to do would be to get over themselves and realize they made some mistakes, isntead of trying to blame anybody and everybody else.
That's the problem with this case. What Microsoft needs to do, however, is realize that these actions do nothing than just give them bad publicity. Stop being so bloody scared, stop overreacting, and just sell a good product.
I don't think this has anything to do with processors, but rather with the VIA chipsets.
I experienced the exact same problems you are talking about using a Tyan Trinity 400 motherboard with a Intel Pentium III 850Mhz processor. I fought with this issue for quite some time, and was never able to get any stability out of the machine. I had all of the PCI slots filled with expansion cards, and I believe this made the problem substantially worse.
I ended up replacing that motherboard with an Intel D815EPEA2U board, and have experienced zero problems. In fact this Intel board supports high IRQ settings as some of my cards are reporting being at IRQ 23, etc. Yes, now my computer simply rocks.
I also have an Intel SE440BX board in another computer, which is pretty solid but that one doesn't work with my Adaptec 2940(known issue) so I can't say it rocks.:)
Again, I think this is a VIA problem. This is one of the reasons why I am reluctant to buy AMD processors, although I have not heard if people experience similar problems with boards built upon the AMD 761 chipset, etc.
These products don't remove IE. They even admit it right here in this sentence...
"The MS HTML Engine (shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll) is left on the machine to provide needed functionality for other applications that render HMTL (e.g. Outlook Express) or that launch a mini-browsing window (e.g. Winamp's Mini Browser, Netmeeting's Online Directory)."
But they do exactly what I say Microsoft should do. Delete iexplore.exe, and tell the court "There, we removed it... happy now?"
Is it preferrable to have a shared formatting component, or for each individual application to write something custom? You'd be hard pressed to argue that using a shared component is not a better solution. Certainly not from a technical standpoint.
As far as the openness of the interfaces, that is a different argument. I agree, that should have been both the approach of the courts and Microsoft. "Look, if you really don't like this... here's the interfaces... here's how to link your own component in place"
Any P2P network has to have a point of insertion. In order for the P2P network to be successful, that point of insertion has to be well advertised. They can't shutdown a small loop of friends, but then a couple of dozen people aren't much of a threat to them so they probably don't care.
So all the RIAA(or whoever) has to do, is keep tabs on the IP addresses being advertised as connection points, and then simply call each individual ISP and have those connections shut down. If they have a lawsuit ruling to support this action, all the easier.
And lest you think moving to a third world country works... see the previous articles on Somolia's ISP shutdown, as well as the spam blocking of Chinese ISPs. All it would take is a ruling by some court in the United States or European Union, and those countries would be effectively cut off.
Let's look at this from another perspective, one a bit less ignorant.
Back 10 years ago or so it was very uncommon for Unix distributions to ship with TCP/IP implementations. They were frequently add-on pieces, usually costing a goodly sum of money. Most customers didn't want TCP/IP at the time because all of their users were connected to the Unix box using serial terminals.
Then things changed, and it became the norm to network your machines and so all Unix distributions began including TCP/IP by default.
Now let's say the government comes along and says "By integrating TCP/IP into your OS you have destroyed a market for third party network solutions. You must remove it."
Think about that one for a few hours. Is it possible? Would it be a good idea? Would you want this?
Slashdot Mirror
Go back, reread the articles, put on your critical thinking cap and try to explain to yourself what must have happened.
The article talks about a software problem, not an OS problem.
You never had a claim, that's the problem. Microsoft never took anything from Netscape that they did not freely give away. The fact is that by the end 1998 after facing only a small amount of competition, Netscape rolled over and played dead despite having heavy market momentum and a leading share.
Whether or not Microsoft used heavy handed tactics is irrelevant, the problem is whether these tactics had any effectiveness. I claim they did not, that they were extraordinarily inept until the point Microsoft had a clearly superior product. Market share figures support this claim of mine.
It is *YOUR* burden to prove otherwise. Oh, and just so you don't forget... calling an opinion a fact does not make it so. (I notice you have been guilty of that twice now)
Marketshare figures and other relevant facts support my claim, not yours. This is the same problem the Justice Department faced, that while they had proof of actions being taken, they had no proof that these actions caused any harm.
By the time Microsoft made their deal with Spyglass, Netscape was already giving the browser away for free.
There are quotes from Marc Andreessen dating back to Netscape's IPO where he said they would be giving the browser away for free, because the real money was in the server space.
You obviously don't remember what happened.
Thank you! I read that article many years ago, and have been searching for it over the past year to no avail.
"Microsoft stole the right to choose"
Given the history of events I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.
At the time Netscape had given up the browser market, turned everything over to Open Source and sold out to AOL who then abandoned the market completely... IE still had less than 50% of the marketshare.
It wasn't until the release of IE 5.0 that Microsoft surpassed Netscapes marketshare... and that wasn't until 1999, long after Netscape had given up.
So basically what you are saying is that it was monopolistic and illegal for Microsoft to compete in the market. You apparently don't want competition, is that it?
You know, every time I see stupid arguments such as yours it makes me furious.
I don't consider 50% to be a minority position.
You must have been thinking of Zeus and iPlanet.
"He was not trying to compete with microsoft when he made netscape either. "
You must suffer from selective memory. Whether or not Andreessen wanted to compete with Microsoft, the press was advertising Netscape as the Microsoft killerm, and Marc as the next Bill Gates when it went IPO.
The only quote I recall him making was something about the OS becoming irrelevant, which I'm sure appeared as a threat to Microsoft.
Translated your post reads:
Blah blah... blah blah blah... microsoft is evil blah blah... blah blah... blah blah blah... microsoft is evil... blah blah blah... blah
I'm curious, have you ever had an original critical thought in your life or do you just troll slashdot periodically looking for karma?
"MS effectively refuses to make JVMs for Windoze. "
It's Windows, BTW. When you spell it as Windoze you show your intellect to be that of a 5 year old.
Oh, also Sun told Microsoft they can't make JVMs, this was not Microsoft's decision effectively or not.
Obviously you have not been following the case. The non-settling states have used the input of Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc. to formulate their suggested remedies. This fact was presented weeks ago by Microsoft.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-833407.html
But who cares?
The only thing "illegal" about Microsoft's Java VM was that they included the Sun Java logo on it, when it didn't comply with Sun's specifications.
"The problem is not that MS Windows doesn't come with Netscape or Java or any other competition. "
No, pay attention...
The nine non-settling states were told by Sun to include a provision to force Microsoft to ship the Sun JVM with Windows. That's what is being referred to here.
The exclusive contracts business is part of the DOJ settlement.
If you are seriously claiming Fox News isn't worse scum than Condit you have some serious mental problems.
"Can you substantiate this claim at all? Republicans don't like excessive government regulation of industry, which is exactly what the SSSCA does."
Sorry, that's another myth.
Most regulations, such as say telecom or auto industry, etc. all work to form a barrier of entry into the market. That is, in order to sell product you have to meet the regulatory requirements, which means you need some substantial capital initially.
Businesses tend to lobby against the regulations when the market is small and they see high growth potential(see Enron). But once the market matures, they lobby for regulations to keep competition out(see Telecom).
It's quite enlightening to watch C-Span, you should do it some day.
Oh, back to the Republicans. Again, follow the money... they are very much against regulations which are demanded by industries which support the Democrats financially, but are all for them when lobbied by their pet favorites.
Oh please.
Fox news is one of the most unethical, biased examples of crap journalism on the US airwaves. They have to keep telling you they are "fair and balanced" because if you had any criticle thinking skills you'd realize they were not.
I don't know if they were the first to talk about Condit, but they were certainly the last. Well after every other news agency realized there wasn't a story there, Fox News was still beating the horse. Right up until 9/11 they were giving hourly updates to let us know nothing had changed, but Fox News still thinks he is scum.
And don't even get me started on O'Reilly. He's not a journalist, he is a bully. Brings people on the show, makes wild accusations and then doesn't let them respond. If they don't accept his invite to the show, then he bashes them constantly claiming they are afraid of him.
What a joke. Fox News is just an extension of Fox with Cops, When Animals Attack, and Alien Autopsy.
Well you are mistaken on a great number of things.
The music and movie industry does tend to favor the Democrats because the party tends to favor the 1st amendment moreso. As such they lobby the Democrats more, and so it is not surprising to see legislation supporting their industry being proposed by Democrats.
It's not that the Republicans don't also support this legislation, they do. But they oppose the music and movie industry because they donate money to the Democrats.
Which explains this article. Fox News is heavily biased in favor of Republicans, thus they have placed a political slant on this to make it look like the Democrats are bad. It's an interesting tactic because I'm sure they favor the bill, but this way they can help the GOP get positive press on it's good merits, and turn the Dems into scapegoats for it's bad merits.
It was even more narrow than that. It was IBM-PC x86 compatible computers which run Windows.
Linux and other operating systems were discounted in Jackson's findings of fact and regarded as being part of a separate market.
Actually the BeOS case is not at all obvious.
One of the points apparently made by the DOJ lawyers today is that while Microsoft engaged in actions which on the surface appared to be exclusionary, they(the DOJ) had a really hard time proving that there was actual damage caused by these actions.
Such is the case with BeOS. Even if Microsoft had had no provisions in any of their contracts, Be still would not have sold any product. There simply was never any demand for it. The best thing for Be to do would be to get over themselves and realize they made some mistakes, isntead of trying to blame anybody and everybody else.
That's the problem with this case. What Microsoft needs to do, however, is realize that these actions do nothing than just give them bad publicity. Stop being so bloody scared, stop overreacting, and just sell a good product.
"Now, if *I* were to commit perjury in a court of law *I'd* go to jail."
No you wouldn't. This is one of those myths still remaining from the failed Clinton coup. Perjury charges are very rare in real life.
I don't think this has anything to do with processors, but rather with the VIA chipsets.
:)
I experienced the exact same problems you are talking about using a Tyan Trinity 400 motherboard with a Intel Pentium III 850Mhz processor. I fought with this issue for quite some time, and was never able to get any stability out of the machine. I had all of the PCI slots filled with expansion cards, and I believe this made the problem substantially worse.
I ended up replacing that motherboard with an Intel D815EPEA2U board, and have experienced zero problems. In fact this Intel board supports high IRQ settings as some of my cards are reporting being at IRQ 23, etc. Yes, now my computer simply rocks.
I also have an Intel SE440BX board in another computer, which is pretty solid but that one doesn't work with my Adaptec 2940(known issue) so I can't say it rocks.
Again, I think this is a VIA problem. This is one of the reasons why I am reluctant to buy AMD processors, although I have not heard if people experience similar problems with boards built upon the AMD 761 chipset, etc.
These products don't remove IE. They even admit it right here in this sentence...
"The MS HTML Engine (shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll) is left on the machine to provide needed functionality for other applications that render HMTL (e.g. Outlook Express) or that launch a mini-browsing window (e.g. Winamp's Mini Browser, Netmeeting's Online Directory)."
But they do exactly what I say Microsoft should do. Delete iexplore.exe, and tell the court "There, we removed it... happy now?"
Now you are making value judgements.
Is it preferrable to have a shared formatting component, or for each individual application to write something custom? You'd be hard pressed to argue that using a shared component is not a better solution. Certainly not from a technical standpoint.
As far as the openness of the interfaces, that is a different argument. I agree, that should have been both the approach of the courts and Microsoft. "Look, if you really don't like this... here's the interfaces... here's how to link your own component in place"
It's not impossible... Just very costly.
Any P2P network has to have a point of insertion. In order for the P2P network to be successful, that point of insertion has to be well advertised. They can't shutdown a small loop of friends, but then a couple of dozen people aren't much of a threat to them so they probably don't care.
So all the RIAA(or whoever) has to do, is keep tabs on the IP addresses being advertised as connection points, and then simply call each individual ISP and have those connections shut down. If they have a lawsuit ruling to support this action, all the easier.
And lest you think moving to a third world country works... see the previous articles on Somolia's ISP shutdown, as well as the spam blocking of Chinese ISPs. All it would take is a ruling by some court in the United States or European Union, and those countries would be effectively cut off.
Costly, but don't think it is impossible.
That's not flawed logic at all... It's a very good question.
Let's look at this from another perspective, one a bit less ignorant.
Back 10 years ago or so it was very uncommon for Unix distributions to ship with TCP/IP implementations. They were frequently add-on pieces, usually costing a goodly sum of money. Most customers didn't want TCP/IP at the time because all of their users were connected to the Unix box using serial terminals.
Then things changed, and it became the norm to network your machines and so all Unix distributions began including TCP/IP by default.
Now let's say the government comes along and says "By integrating TCP/IP into your OS you have destroyed a market for third party network solutions. You must remove it."
Think about that one for a few hours. Is it possible? Would it be a good idea? Would you want this?
That is what Microsoft is claiming.