True, Netscape was way behind when the aol purchase came down. But under aol, netscape rotted for too long during the very time when they should have at least made an attempt to innovate.
I'm not saying MS didn't take advantage of their position to levereage the browser, they did, and went from zero to 60 in ten seconds. Taking over from Netscape -- who, after Mosaic, owned the browser market -- wasn't done just by unfair practices. Considering how utterly crappy IE 2.0 was, one must give some due credit to the anonymous coders who brought IE to its present state for the glory of Gates. And Netscape's missteps (including the departure from "pure browser" with Communicator) helped.
Oh, yes, the proposal for free Linux for every box that MS paid for. Don't you think an independent institution is a slightly better idea than all these carve-up-the-market suggestions?
MS didn't out-market netscape, and they didn't out-innovate them, they out-spent them.
I agree with almost all of what you say, but there's no question that AOL's purchase of Netscape led to a prolonged stay in limbo, during which time MS did indeed out-innovate Netscape (4.0-4.7) and solidified their lead.
If IE were an independent product (meaning not made by MS) it would have been stillborn long ago, and everyone would be using Netscape or Opera
That is arguable. The first few iterations of IE were pretty bad, but they were not included as part of W95; the leveraging of the browser did not really start until the advent of Win98 (late W95 versions did include it as an install option, but it was an "extra."). IE 4 was a great improvement over the past, non-OS versions, though arguably not a "finished" product -- prone to lots of hardware, driver and bios conflicts on its introduction, particularly on the systems of ceratin proprietary OEMs (Compaq, HP). On more than a few W95 systems, the only "fix" for IE 4 errors was to upgrade to W98. (So the IE 4 "preview" release was actually "leverage" for the new OS, rather than the other way around.)
But my point is, it was not MS's monopoly that allowed them to continue development prior to IE's inclusion in the operating system. IE was a give-away and a loser, and they turned it to a winner with their deep pockets (last time I looked, it's not illegal to have money).
By the time of OS integration, when IE took control of the browser market, it had improved sufficiently to be a real competitor to Netscape. The integration into the OS helped speed their take-over of the browser, but that wouldn't have happened without a product that could compete.
If the browser in W98 was as bad as the earlier versions, then consumers would still be using Opera and Netscape. Just as I will continue using Nero, unless Windows XP provides more versatile cd-burning options than are now built-in.
I also have sought out jobs where I would not be forced to use microsoft crap as well. Difficult, but possible. Today I just got a new job. Guess what. I don't have to use microsoft there either.
Once your obsession starts to affect your life, it
seems more like a phobia/personality disorder than "brand disloyalty."
It matters to the extent that, with Apple a vociferous opponent, this may lead to the creation of an independent institution, hopefully provided with steep discounts from any software or hardware manufacturer willing to participate, jump-started by Microsoft's obligatory.
As to your header: Apple chose to include itself, and the media and guvmnt chose to listen. I don't know that Red Hat issued any press releases on this issue, but I am sure if Bob Young or Matthew Szulik choose to raise their voices on this issue, they would be heard. Even if they don't, an equitable educational institution would certainly include Linux options.
Depends on how you look at this. 99% of windows 98 SE were just stability and other OS enhancements. We shouldn't have to pay to have software bugs fixed.
And when SE was released, Microsoft's "Windows Update" site pointed out which updates would provide the functional equivalent of SE, with the exception of a couple of features like "Internet Connection Sharing," which is not a bug fix.
The document you link was published on July 3, 1997 (last updated August 8 2001). The likelihood that the same issue exists in the same form in win 2k is quite unlikely, please do find a reference for it, else I would tend to discount your beliefe that it's the same issue.
However Microsoft FORCES people to upgrade Windows so they can earn more money.
How, exactly?
If you are running win95 and Office 97, what can MS possibly do to "force" you to upgrade?
The fact that supporting an antiquated OS is no longer cost-effective doesn't "force" anything, as there's nothing that can't be fixed by a format and reinstall, assuming your install disks and hardware are in proper shape.
The only thing that I can guess you mean to say is that you are blaming MS for your desire to use various features and programs that MS introduced with their more recent offerings.
It is definitely "legal," as violating a software license is not per se "illegal" or "criminal" (though software theft/bootlegging is "criminal").
Software people (that is, owners of intellectual property) are trying very hard to blur the boundaries between civil and legal violations (ie, the DMCA). It is very important for us to maintain the distinction.
The server will be flooded from now to Jan1. People will want to just chat on it "one more time"
An influx of former users coming in to type a bit of ascii (which I think is unlikely to happen in large numbers anyway) would not likely strain the bandwidth of a server that's been dealing with years of deliberate DoS floods.
It's been a long time since I've been on Compuserve, but, as I recall, CIS's software is required to navigate all its proprietary content (forums, etcetera). Back in the day, CIS's Internet gateway was a narrow one, and required the proprietary forums software.
Nowadays, you may be able to navigate the Internet through Compuserve with standard software, but the Internet is not Compuserve, unless they've moved all their proprietary content into html (which I doubt).
Games also make you stupid. Check out the addicted high-schooler's web essay:
Hello, I to suffer from an addiction to computer games, namly EVERQUEST. To tell u the truth, i just deleted the game now(03/05/01 11:20 est). I feel this sence of empty ness, this feeling is just tearing me up inside and i know that it is my withdrawl pains.
Within some cases, games can actually cause you to discover some hidden talents. In my case, it was StarCraft. To quote a Marine, "Your a f-ing genius with tactics!".
I may be a little confused about what, exactly, consitutes "AT&T Broadband." Since Media One and Road Runner are not in there, I figured ATT@Home was not.
I gather that AT&T Digital Cable customers are under that umbrella; and these would be the people provided by AT&T@home -- ne?
I was thinking that was a separate entity, but, on reflection, it seems that they would already have been in that mix.
still, $100 per user when the cust pays a $50 monthly fee seems radically slim. Moot now, as ATT has withdrawn.
I believe you're right about Panasonic, but I don't know how advantageous the deal was for Replay, I suspect not very. They were anxious to catch up with TiVO's numbers. TiVo, with its paid subscription and lack of commercial skip, is the lesser machine, but it came in at a purchase point of $200 less, so it made the sales.
A less casual reading of the patent shows you're right...I'm still surprised that no one has put together a VCR+ type device controlled by clicks from a publicly-available TV schedule web-page, and made bucks selling it. It would be nice if you could use the VCR+ codes (which you can't, without a license), as doing this based on programming times and channels would be problematical...
I assumed that was the nature of the sub services provided by TiVo and Replay, though I've never seen either, and further assumed that this patent covered that sort of thing. So, has this type of device been patented? If not, let's take out an "open patent." In fact, maybe a thinktank should get together, think of all the "obvious" stuff, and create "open patents" for them all.
Unfair, since ReplayTV actually disappeared from the market for a time, suddenly popping up as SonicBlue.
No, they just stopped making consumer products in a decision to pursue the ever-elusiv "settop box" market. Rio/Sonic Blue saw fit to return to hardware, because they are a hardware-oriented outfit. The original Replay hadn't the manufacturing contacts/resources.
I am actually glad Replay has the Patent. I used to fear that MS would "own" the "click a tv schedule and program your TV" market.
That's true. But the one thing these capture cards have over the TiVos and Replays; you can use a variety of capture software, and choose your own codecs. I'm in love with AVI I/O. When archiving my favorite, Cowboy Bebop, in compact Divx format, I can use an animation-friendly 15 fps which lets me pump up the per-frame bandwidth. Looks great, fits several eps per CD!
First, it doesn't allow you to record on one channel and watch another, a trivial point, but a major incovenience.
Your TV set has a tuner, and your vcr has a tuner; that's why you can watch and record...
The ATI has a tuner. Your TV set has a tuner. Why, in this case, would you be unable to watch and record? I use Nvidia's Personal Cinema and do this all the time.
it will not let you pause live tv, in fact it writes nothing to the hard drive unless I ask it to. And lastly, (as I understand it not every PVR does this) it lacks a 30 second/ skip ahead button.
Both features are present in the Personal Cinema and accompanying software. ATI's latest (Radeon 8500 "DV") iteration claims the same features and more. TiVo does not have 30-second skip, most attribute this lack to heavy investment from the TV Networks.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, "The Lion & Lamb Project is an initiative of the Tides Center."
A perusal of the Tides Center website shows it to be a bunch of secular social engineers working for "positive social change."
I'm not saying MS didn't take advantage of their position to levereage the browser, they did, and went from zero to 60 in ten seconds. Taking over from Netscape -- who, after Mosaic, owned the browser market -- wasn't done just by unfair practices. Considering how utterly crappy IE 2.0 was, one must give some due credit to the anonymous coders who brought IE to its present state for the glory of Gates. And Netscape's missteps (including the departure from "pure browser" with Communicator) helped.
Oh. Yeah. Right.
Oh, yes, the proposal for free Linux for every box that MS paid for. Don't you think an independent institution is a slightly better idea than all these carve-up-the-market suggestions?
MS didn't out-market netscape, and they didn't out-innovate them, they out-spent them.
I agree with almost all of what you say, but there's no question that AOL's purchase of Netscape led to a prolonged stay in limbo, during which time MS did indeed out-innovate Netscape (4.0-4.7) and solidified their lead.
That is arguable. The first few iterations of IE were pretty bad, but they were not included as part of W95; the leveraging of the browser did not really start until the advent of Win98 (late W95 versions did include it as an install option, but it was an "extra."). IE 4 was a great improvement over the past, non-OS versions, though arguably not a "finished" product -- prone to lots of hardware, driver and bios conflicts on its introduction, particularly on the systems of ceratin proprietary OEMs (Compaq, HP). On more than a few W95 systems, the only "fix" for IE 4 errors was to upgrade to W98. (So the IE 4 "preview" release was actually "leverage" for the new OS, rather than the other way around.)
But my point is, it was not MS's monopoly that allowed them to continue development prior to IE's inclusion in the operating system. IE was a give-away and a loser, and they turned it to a winner with their deep pockets (last time I looked, it's not illegal to have money).
By the time of OS integration, when IE took control of the browser market, it had improved sufficiently to be a real competitor to Netscape. The integration into the OS helped speed their take-over of the browser, but that wouldn't have happened without a product that could compete.
If the browser in W98 was as bad as the earlier versions, then consumers would still be using Opera and Netscape. Just as I will continue using Nero, unless Windows XP provides more versatile cd-burning options than are now built-in.
I also have sought out jobs where I would not be forced to use microsoft crap as well. Difficult, but possible. Today I just got a new job. Guess what. I don't have to use microsoft there either.
Once your obsession starts to affect your life, it seems more like a phobia/personality disorder than "brand disloyalty."
Bill gates alone was worth over 100 billion dollars
The operative term is was.
It matters to the extent that, with Apple a vociferous opponent, this may lead to the creation of an independent institution, hopefully provided with steep discounts from any software or hardware manufacturer willing to participate, jump-started by Microsoft's obligatory.
As to your header: Apple chose to include itself, and the media and guvmnt chose to listen. I don't know that Red Hat issued any press releases on this issue, but I am sure if Bob Young or Matthew Szulik choose to raise their voices on this issue, they would be heard. Even if they don't, an equitable educational institution would certainly include Linux options.
Depends on how you look at this. 99% of windows 98 SE were just stability and other OS enhancements. We shouldn't have to pay to have software bugs fixed.
And when SE was released, Microsoft's "Windows Update" site pointed out which updates would provide the functional equivalent of SE, with the exception of a couple of features like "Internet Connection Sharing," which is not a bug fix.
And this is Microsoft's fault because.......?
The document you link was published on July 3, 1997 (last updated August 8 2001). The likelihood that the same issue exists in the same form in win 2k is quite unlikely, please do find a reference for it, else I would tend to discount your beliefe that it's the same issue.
It is not, however, infallable
When and if the Pope endorses any OS, We'll let you know.
However Microsoft FORCES people to upgrade Windows so they can earn more money.
How, exactly?
If you are running win95 and Office 97, what can MS possibly do to "force" you to upgrade?
The fact that supporting an antiquated OS is no longer cost-effective doesn't "force" anything, as there's nothing that can't be fixed by a format and reinstall, assuming your install disks and hardware are in proper shape.
The only thing that I can guess you mean to say is that you are blaming MS for your desire to use various features and programs that MS introduced with their more recent offerings.
If you mean something else, please clarify.
It is definitely "legal," as violating a software license is not per se "illegal" or "criminal" (though software theft/bootlegging is "criminal").
Software people (that is, owners of intellectual property) are trying very hard to blur the boundaries between civil and legal violations (ie, the DMCA). It is very important for us to maintain the distinction.
The server will be flooded from now to Jan1. People will want to just chat on it "one more time"
An influx of former users coming in to type a bit of ascii (which I think is unlikely to happen in large numbers anyway) would not likely strain the bandwidth of a server that's been dealing with years of deliberate DoS floods.
It's been a long time since I've been on Compuserve, but, as I recall, CIS's software is required to navigate all its proprietary content (forums, etcetera). Back in the day, CIS's Internet gateway was a narrow one, and required the proprietary forums software.
Nowadays, you may be able to navigate the Internet through Compuserve with standard software, but the Internet is not Compuserve, unless they've moved all their proprietary content into html (which I doubt).
Hello, I to suffer from an addiction to computer games, namly EVERQUEST. To tell u the truth, i just deleted the game now(03/05/01 11:20 est). I feel this sence of empty ness, this feeling is just tearing me up inside and i know that it is my withdrawl pains.
Within some cases, games can actually cause you to discover some hidden talents. In my case, it was StarCraft. To quote a Marine, "Your a f-ing genius with tactics!".
So, you're now a Professional Tactician?
I gather that AT&T Digital Cable customers are under that umbrella; and these would be the people provided by AT&T@home -- ne?
I was thinking that was a separate entity, but, on reflection, it seems that they would already have been in that mix.
still, $100 per user when the cust pays a $50 monthly fee seems radically slim. Moot now, as ATT has withdrawn.
A less casual reading of the patent shows you're right...I'm still surprised that no one has put together a VCR+ type device controlled by clicks from a publicly-available TV schedule web-page, and made bucks selling it. It would be nice if you could use the VCR+ codes (which you can't, without a license), as doing this based on programming times and channels would be problematical...
I assumed that was the nature of the sub services provided by TiVo and Replay, though I've never seen either, and further assumed that this patent covered that sort of thing. So, has this type of device been patented? If not, let's take out an "open patent." In fact, maybe a thinktank should get together, think of all the "obvious" stuff, and create "open patents" for them all.
No, they just stopped making consumer products in a decision to pursue the ever-elusiv "settop box" market. Rio/Sonic Blue saw fit to return to hardware, because they are a hardware-oriented outfit. The original Replay hadn't the manufacturing contacts/resources.
I am actually glad Replay has the Patent. I used to fear that MS would "own" the "click a tv schedule and program your TV" market.
Try that with TiVo.
Your TV set has a tuner, and your vcr has a tuner; that's why you can watch and record...
The ATI has a tuner. Your TV set has a tuner. Why, in this case, would you be unable to watch and record? I use Nvidia's Personal Cinema and do this all the time.
it will not let you pause live tv, in fact it writes nothing to the hard drive unless I ask it to. And lastly, (as I understand it not every PVR does this) it lacks a 30 second/ skip ahead button.
Both features are present in the Personal Cinema and accompanying software. ATI's latest (Radeon 8500 "DV") iteration claims the same features and more. TiVo does not have 30-second skip, most attribute this lack to heavy investment from the TV Networks.