I understand what you're saying, and my argument isn't about the cost of the browser or the OS. Some applications use the rendering engine and other parts of IE to perform needed tasks in said application. Why should Microsoft have to build a separate component to do this when they can just use the ones in IE?
Once IE is installed on the machine, it can be completely hidden from the user and just thought of as Internet technology components rather than a browser if you really need to. You can manage the default browser with a few registry keys and then IE won't even be seen.
Also, comparing to your car example, if I was to get Netscape with my computer instead I would amount that to buying a sports car and getting $20 worth of free diesel. To me Netscape is not a good browser, and this could very well be a point in -why- they lost market. If they had of spent the time to keep up with the flow (how long since a major update from Netscape????) instead of desparately throwing the source code into the wind, maybe I'd be using it today.
And still I say... if you don't like it... buy something else!
Breaking up the company sure wouldn't produce the benfits that many people (in the Linux world) think it would. Many people in the Linux community just want to see them fall for the fun of it, without thinking about the number of jobs they provide and the amount of wealth they bring to the US.
As for the "tying" of Internet Explorer, I still don't see the issue with this. It's YOUR choice to install another browser should you wish to do so, and many applications (Office 2000 for example) REQUIRE IE to be installed, so you end up with it anyway. One less rollout if you ask me....
At the end of this whole case, I still think that the larger point has been missed in that it's a people's choice as to what they put on their PC. Yes, Microsoft has a broad audience and large market share, but maybe... just maybe that's beause it's so easy to develop on and you're right, some people do like Micorosft products *God forbid*.
Microsoft may have pressured some companies, but what if those companies hadn't of given in to the offers of millions? I bet after enough of them pushed on, things may have been different.
In the end, it was all about the money. "We lost money" or "consumers lost money" or "Netscape lost money". This whole suit has attracted thousands of people that want to join in and sue for shit loads claiming they've been restricted.... from what I don't know, they chose the OS!
This may have been true in the past, but things are different now. Prior to today, you never would have worried too much about how your gaming console interacts with the Internet. Perhaps now is the time that we will see this change.
The X-Box could even go that step further and be a total media solution. Imagine for that low price, you can:
1) Shop on the Internet 2) Watch DVD movies (perhaps interactive titles.. think Starship Troopers where you can help blast the bugs!) 3) Download stuff from the net
We need to leave the old console paradigm behind, and open up to the possibilities of combining digital tools into compact devices. If I can buy this rather than a Playstation 2, a DVD player, and a "set top box", then I will. Hell, I bet this thing will store MP3/WMA as well, so I can ditch the CD stacker on the stereo too....
Well, isn't the next standard on the way? I refer you to a article that show us that DVD is nearly on the way out already anyway.
Question is, what sort of encryption/copy protection will we see on the new media? Will we see regions etc like DVD had, or will they drop it this time?
I agree, this man does not qualify as 'Average Joe' (no offense to any Joes out there). This guy knows what network hardware he has... does your secretary know that?
In my experience with customer support in the 'average' world, people don't even know what HTML is, and don't care about Postscript etc.
Whilst there are applications out there that can substitute the Windows desktop, to set up this environment initially still takes more than the 'average' user. Once the machine is set up, -then- perhaps a truly 'average' user could get away with it.
There is still work to be done in the base "ease of use and installation" category.
The actual fault is with the Index Service which is available with the Windows Option Pack on NT 4.0 and happens to also be included with Windows 2000. To me, this is not a fault with Windows 2000 but with an optional component.
Had Windows 2000 even been thought of yet, would people still be making such a fuss? Or are they simply out to bash the 'new product on the block' because it ships with a component that has an error.
You don't see people screaming about RedHat when the release a distro that contains and installs a buggy program by default. Hell, last time I installed RedHat it installed that crazy Gnome thing that has more bugs than an African river.
I guess I'm trying to say that this is simply being ridden for all people can get out of it in order to bash Windows 2000.
Yes, I noticed this as well... probably because I actually read the stories and did some investigation before I started commenting...
Every single time I see something about Microsoft's OSes on here, it is accompanied by post after post of "yeah...take that MS!" and "hahah...glad I'm on ". Is this really the attitude of the "OS of the Next Generation" ???? I hope not, because Linux will not become strong when it's major supporters behave this way. This is not a troll post, this is an advisory for an attitude adjustment.
Hoorah for the sensible people. After reading only about 1/8 of the comments posted here about this, I've seen far too many posts that simply knock this whole deal as being 'FUD'. Personally, I'm sick of seeing this being used as an excuse to discredit something Microsoft has said, cause guess what?... business users listen to sensible, well constructed arguments, not just screams of 'This isn't fair!' and 'This is all crap!'.
Quote from another post:
"Yes, it is a bizarre strategy to say things like "Linux has yet to post SPECWeb results", when "Linux" is really nothing more than a mailing list and some FTP mirrors."
My Enterprise clients would read this and never touch Linux.
The biggest problem Linux has at the moment is the 'tunnel-vision' mind set of 80% of it's followers. I'm using RedHat 6.0 and Gnome as my current home desktop, and I'm starting to really enjoy the features that this OS has to offer, but seriously guys, lets interoperate OSes, not try and kill each other.
Why make the statement about 'contributing to world domination', when this makes you sound terribly like Microsoft? I really don't understand how one can be against a certain train of thought, yet pronounce the same desire...
No matter how much I wish to see everyone putting the right OS in the right solution, there are still comments like this. When will people realise that the world needs more than one OS?
*Flame shield off*
Besides that, I can't wait to see better PnP in Linux...especially with the amount of PCI / USB devices that are reliant on this. PnP would boost even more interest in Linux in more situations, all that's needed then is a little more help from hardware makers.
"..less resources on reinventing the wheel and now has suddenly surpassed Red Hat and maybe even Windows in one fell swoop. "
Erm.. surpass Windows? Hellooooooo?! Anyone home? Can you count? The distribution of Caldera Linux would not come close to the volume of Windows...this is a silly thing to say.
I can't understand why everyone is baggin' RedHat! RedHat is one of the major reasons you have the support of people like Compaq, HP, Intel etc.. and they put in a lot of effort to produce an excellent distribution. You people that live by Linux are bagging RedHat for putting in heaps of extra effort and trying to make a little money out of it. I'm starting to get the impression that the average Linux advocate wants everything for free....
If you ask me, it's bloody Apple that started all this ultra-cool-neon-looking-transparency stuff. Now everything that comes out has to have some transparent part or it's just not 'cool'...
I reckon some fancy chrome would be better, like that groovy Nokia phone that came out...oh, and maybe some extra functionality would be good too....like a photon weapon.
I agree with you Tim on the issue of usability. Linux is a great OS, however the desktop add ons for Linux ie. XFree86 + window managers are not yet quite up to scratch for me to switch to Linux as a full time OS, nor for coporate deployments.
When I talk about consistency, I'm speaking about the ability to install an off-the-shelf package on every desktop in your organistation, and have no compatibilty issues with different drag-and-drop libs, different graphics libs etc.
It would seem at the moment that you can't choose Gnome or KDE or whatever as your preffered environment, and run every tool from it. As soon as there is some cross compatibilty here, it will definately attract more attention on the desktop front.
You are now the second or third person I have seen taking this in apparently the wrong context. Why are you all comparing different versions of the Windows OS, when they span some 10 years (or more) of development?
If you took a room full of Windows 98 machines, each with the user's own theme, appearance etc, and a room full of Linux users, each with their preffered window manager and theme and layout, who would win the consistency challenge? Windows.
I have tried Linux from RedHat 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2, with various Window managers and office programs...and I hate to say but at this stage it doesn't come close to the ease of deployment and management of Windows desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you're saying, and my argument isn't about the cost of the browser or the OS. Some applications use the rendering engine and other parts of IE to perform needed tasks in said application. Why should Microsoft have to build a separate component to do this when they can just use the ones in IE?
Once IE is installed on the machine, it can be completely hidden from the user and just thought of as Internet technology components rather than a browser if you really need to. You can manage the default browser with a few registry keys and then IE won't even be seen.
Also, comparing to your car example, if I was to get Netscape with my computer instead I would amount that to buying a sports car and getting $20 worth of free diesel. To me Netscape is not a good browser, and this could very well be a point in -why- they lost market. If they had of spent the time to keep up with the flow (how long since a major update from Netscape????) instead of desparately throwing the source code into the wind, maybe I'd be using it today.
And still I say... if you don't like it... buy something else!
Breaking up the company sure wouldn't produce the benfits that many people (in the Linux world) think it would. Many people in the Linux community just want to see them fall for the fun of it, without thinking about the number of jobs they provide and the amount of wealth they bring to the US.
As for the "tying" of Internet Explorer, I still don't see the issue with this. It's YOUR choice to install another browser should you wish to do so, and many applications (Office 2000 for example) REQUIRE IE to be installed, so you end up with it anyway. One less rollout if you ask me....
At the end of this whole case, I still think that the larger point has been missed in that it's a people's choice as to what they put on their PC. Yes, Microsoft has a broad audience and large market share, but maybe... just maybe that's beause it's so easy to develop on and you're right, some people do like Micorosft products *God forbid*.
Microsoft may have pressured some companies, but what if those companies hadn't of given in to the offers of millions? I bet after enough of them pushed on, things may have been different.
In the end, it was all about the money. "We lost money" or "consumers lost money" or "Netscape lost money". This whole suit has attracted thousands of people that want to join in and sue for shit loads claiming they've been restricted.... from what I don't know, they chose the OS!
Also, where's the typical Slashdot response about who paid for what? The first paragraph of the PDF file states that Novel "commisioned" the tests.
If history is a good teacher (and it is) then people will know that these reports are targeted for the people that know no better.
This may have been true in the past, but things are different now. Prior to today, you never would have worried too much about how your gaming console interacts with the Internet. Perhaps now is the time that we will see this change.
....
The X-Box could even go that step further and be a total media solution. Imagine for that low price, you can:
1) Shop on the Internet
2) Watch DVD movies (perhaps interactive titles.. think Starship Troopers where you can help blast the bugs!)
3) Download stuff from the net
We need to leave the old console paradigm behind, and open up to the possibilities of combining digital tools into compact devices. If I can buy this rather than a Playstation 2, a DVD player, and a "set top box", then I will. Hell, I bet this thing will store MP3/WMA as well, so I can ditch the CD stacker on the stereo too
Question is, what sort of encryption/copy protection will we see on the new media? Will we see regions etc like DVD had, or will they drop it this time?
I agree, this man does not qualify as 'Average Joe' (no offense to any Joes out there). This guy knows what network hardware he has ... does your secretary know that?
In my experience with customer support in the 'average' world, people don't even know what HTML is, and don't care about Postscript etc.
Whilst there are applications out there that can substitute the Windows desktop, to set up this environment initially still takes more than the 'average' user. Once the machine is set up, -then- perhaps a truly 'average' user could get away with it.
There is still work to be done in the base "ease of use and installation" category.
The actual fault is with the Index Service which is available with the Windows Option Pack on NT 4.0 and happens to also be included with Windows 2000. To me, this is not a fault with Windows 2000 but with an optional component.
Had Windows 2000 even been thought of yet, would people still be making such a fuss? Or are they simply out to bash the 'new product on the block' because it ships with a component that has an error.
You don't see people screaming about RedHat when the release a distro that contains and installs a buggy program by default. Hell, last time I installed RedHat it installed that crazy Gnome thing that has more bugs than an African river.
I guess I'm trying to say that this is simply being ridden for all people can get out of it in order to bash Windows 2000.
Yes, I noticed this as well... probably because I actually read the stories and did some investigation before I started commenting...
Every single time I see something about Microsoft's OSes on here, it is accompanied by post after post of "yeah...take that MS!" and "hahah...glad I'm on ". Is this really the attitude of the "OS of the Next Generation" ???? I hope not, because Linux will not become strong when it's major supporters behave this way. This is not a troll post, this is an advisory for an attitude adjustment.
Hoorah for the sensible people. After reading only about 1/8 of the comments posted here about this, I've seen far too many posts that simply knock this whole deal as being 'FUD'. Personally, I'm sick of seeing this being used as an excuse to discredit something Microsoft has said, cause guess what?... business users listen to sensible, well constructed arguments, not just screams of 'This isn't fair!' and 'This is all crap!'.
Quote from another post:
"Yes, it is a bizarre strategy to say things like "Linux has yet to post SPECWeb results", when "Linux" is really nothing more than a mailing list and some FTP mirrors."
My Enterprise clients would read this and never touch Linux.
The biggest problem Linux has at the moment is the 'tunnel-vision' mind set of 80% of it's followers. I'm using RedHat 6.0 and Gnome as my current home desktop, and I'm starting to really enjoy the features that this OS has to offer, but seriously guys, lets interoperate OSes, not try and kill each other.
Hmmmm.... ok, but I mean better hardware detection of such devices as well :)... Sorry for the confuzzlement.
*Flame shield on*
Why make the statement about 'contributing to world domination', when this makes you sound terribly like Microsoft? I really don't understand how one can be against a certain train of thought, yet pronounce the same desire...
No matter how much I wish to see everyone putting the right OS in the right solution, there are still comments like this. When will people realise that the world needs more than one OS?
*Flame shield off*
Besides that, I can't wait to see better PnP in Linux...especially with the amount of PCI / USB devices that are reliant on this. PnP would boost even more interest in Linux in more situations, all that's needed then is a little more help from hardware makers.
"..less resources on reinventing the wheel and now has suddenly surpassed Red Hat and maybe even Windows in one fell swoop. "
Erm.. surpass Windows? Hellooooooo?! Anyone home? Can you count? The distribution of Caldera Linux would not come close to the volume of Windows...this is a silly thing to say.
I can't understand why everyone is baggin' RedHat! RedHat is one of the major reasons you have the support of people like Compaq, HP, Intel etc.. and they put in a lot of effort to produce an excellent distribution. You people that live by Linux are bagging RedHat for putting in heaps of extra effort and trying to make a little money out of it. I'm starting to get the impression that the average Linux advocate wants everything for free....
If you ask me, it's bloody Apple that started all this ultra-cool-neon-looking-transparency stuff. Now everything that comes out has to have some transparent part or it's just not 'cool'...
I reckon some fancy chrome would be better, like that groovy Nokia phone that came out...oh, and maybe some extra functionality would be good too....like a photon weapon.
I get a 404 on this one....
I agree with you Tim on the issue of usability. Linux is a great OS, however the desktop add ons for Linux ie. XFree86 + window managers are not yet quite up to scratch for me to switch to Linux as a full time OS, nor for coporate deployments.
When I talk about consistency, I'm speaking about the ability to install an off-the-shelf package on every desktop in your organistation, and have no compatibilty issues with different drag-and-drop libs, different graphics libs etc.
It would seem at the moment that you can't choose Gnome or KDE or whatever as your preffered environment, and run every tool from it. As soon as there is some cross compatibilty here, it will definately attract more attention on the desktop front.
You are now the second or third person I have seen taking this in apparently the wrong context. Why are you all comparing different versions of the Windows OS, when they span some 10 years (or more) of development?
If you took a room full of Windows 98 machines, each with the user's own theme, appearance etc, and a room full of Linux users, each with their preffered window manager and theme and layout, who would win the consistency challenge? Windows.
I have tried Linux from RedHat 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2, with various Window managers and office programs...and I hate to say but at this stage it doesn't come close to the ease of deployment and management of Windows desktops.