"He is saying that people here will think that Microsoft is violating anti-trust laws if/when Microsoft gets into the anti-virus market."
Yep, you got it.
"But he is crying about other people who do not trust Microsoft now because of Microsoft's past, documented, behaviour."
Wrong. I'm actually advocating people use their brains a bit, as opposed to just hating Microsoft because it's the cool thing to do.
"I don't think he's on their payroll, but maybe he is."
If I were on their payroll, I would be fired for several of the not-so-nice comments I've made about MS.
"I think he's just gotten his emotional self-worth tied up with defending Microsoft against the cynical masses on slashdot."
Nah.
"Or maybe he is simply against the cynicism of the masses on slashdot?"
Hmm... I think you're close on that one. If I could put my finger on it I'd give you a clearer picture of it.
"He is opposing the expression of knowledge gained from experience and the extrapolation of that knowledge."
Um, no. In general, I am against uninformed hatred. Imagine how you'd feel if I were modded up for saying "Pff Linux totally sucks. Nothing works on it. Its interface is horrible. And, it really isn't any more stable than Windows." Would you be a Linux 'shill' for defending it? Zealot? Linux apologist? Or would you be responding to my thoughtless idiocy that demonstrates that I had done no research at all? Think about it.
"It says 3D but it still has a flat, 2D LCD screen. I wish people would quit throwing that word around until we have a true 3D display."
It is true 3D. It produces exactly what your eyes percieve as 3D imagery. The term you're really looking for is 'volumetric'. When somebody offers a volumetric display, then you got what you're hoping for.
(Note: This is one of the least impressive nitpicks I've seen in a long time. It is three dimensional if it does video. x, y, t. If it was what he was looking for, it'd be x, y, z, t. 4D.:P)
"This is profoundly stupid because, ta dum, there's no market for it, and no prospect of a market for it."
Bullshit. The market is people who don't like having to make two trips to the store to rent a video. If one can buy a disc for as cheap as a rental at Blockbuster, and all one has to do is toss it in the trash when I'm done because it automatically times out, then that will be a preferable choice over renting from Blockbuster and having to make a seperate trip to return it. There's your market. Simple.
Whether it is successful or not is a seperate story. If they did it right, it could be quite successful. My gf and I regularly make a trip to Best Buy to buy movies for our library. There are a lot of movies we'd like to see, but $15-$20 is too much seeing as how we doubt we'll watch them more than once. I'm sure we'd raid the $5 self-expiring discs quite regularly. Blam, there is a blinking market.
So why would I want this and not the old DivX players? Simple: No special DVD player.
"You are already a shill for microsoft, a quick reading of your posts ought to make that crystal clear to anybody who bothers to read them."
Heh. No, I'm not, sorry. It doesn't appear as though you've followed my posts very carefully. You're not calling me one because I'm going out of my way to 'support' them. Rather, it's because I'm right in this particular case. (Notice that there's no real rebuttal here, just a little inaccurate name calling.)
"Why are we so soon to forget that the Game.Com had a touch screen four or five years ago? It's a great feature that worked well for the failed GCOM, it's just not inventive."
The Game.Com failed to be average in just about every aspect. The touch screen, for example, didn't allow for one to write on the screen like with a Palm Pilot. It had like a 16 by 16 grid that was sensitive to touch. Great for Wheel of Fortune, awful for air hockey. So is the DS non-innovative because of the Game.Com? Oh heck no. Besides the stylus actually being usable, it's on a seperate screen. Why does this matter? Because it's a portable console that can actually have an on-screen keyboard. Couple that with 802.11, and you've got yourself a hand-held console that can play a lot of the same games that PC gamers enjoy right now.
"I don't use OE so I don't know about the express version."
The Express version is scary. Not only are a bunch of things implemented in a half-assed way, but it also uses a different extension than OL2k does. If somebody forwards you an OE message as an attachment, it attaches a.EML file to the email and opens OE even if you have OL2k installed. Nasty security risk there, thank you very much M$. I'd recommend to ANYBODY to change the.EML extension to Notepad.
Outlook XP (haven't used 03 yet) was locked down pretty hard. Unfortunately, you had to edit the registry for somebody to send you a.EXE file. I don't mind them blocking.EXE files to begin with, but editing the registry to get it back? Son of a bitch.
Ah well. Them's the breaks. I really do enjoy how well Outlook interacts with PocketPC. The dude who posted this Ask Slashdot would love it if he tried it.
I wasn't excited about either system until Nintendo said two important things:
1.) 802.11 connectivity.
2.) Use the sylus + on-screen keyboard to chat.
Then it occured to me. I can play against peeps on the net from my couch. VERY cool. Sadly, I don't see the PSP being as exciting in the multi-player area.
The DS's interface leaves a lot of room for interesting stuff. PSP is more 'Been there, done that'. I can see the PSP being successful, but I think I'll have a lot more fun with the DS.
"When I was developing for Windows platform, I never needed any documentation other than MSDN. And if you want source code, you can download the SDKs for free."
Microsoft made their API easy to use + free. That's how they're dominating the market! Ready pitchforks!!"
"Since their existing monopoly is in the desktop market and not the server market, it stands to reason that they can't exactly leverage their desktop OS monopoly to create server application monopolies."
Ah... well okay I can understand why people thought I was trying to sneak in an unfair argument there. Thing is, the whole point I was making was that Microsoft can't just go buy or make a monopoly. They've tried VERY hard in the server market, and gee whiz, they just can't do it. They've done everything from make a better product to publishing lies about Linux, yet they still can't crack it.
It's easy to dismiss that argument as "well they don't have a monopoly there", but the truth is MS just plain cannot go make a monopoly somewhere unless they make a product the market agrees with. Getting back to my original argument, this means they can NOT put Norton out of business without making a superior product.
"Especially if that corporation doesn't give a shit about you, your life, your family, your freedom, your health or any other aspect of your life."
Name one that does.
"Why waste your time and energy defending a giant rich corporation from slashdoters?"
Actually, I wasn't. The point wasn't that MS was in the right, it was that no matter what they did, people here would bitch.
"What's in it for you?"
Nothing that makes it worthwhile.
"Why not go to a forum where people discuss washers and defend maytag. Maytag is a corporation too and I bet they need your help just as much as Microsoft does."
You want me to go somewhere else because I don't blindly hate Microsoft and every move they make? Come now, certainly you're more civilized than that. If you're telling me to leave because I've made undisputed observations, then isn't that a big flashing clue that maybe, just maybe, you're not well enough informed on the matter to justify hating MS?
"Exchange I can understand, but you show me a version of Windows 2000/XP that doesn't come prepackaged with IIS."
IIS that comes with 2k or XP only allows 10 connections. Though a fair shade better than GeoCities, you still can't use it for web serving. At best, it's a 'lite edition'.
"Make it easily and completely removable and publish the API."
Fair point, but I doubt that'd be enough this time around. The main reason being that the AV software out there today is specifically for Windows. MS has an inside advantage towards getting problems fixed.
"So far, they've only been ruled a monopoly in one market. The desktop x86 market (Windows). Like I said, you need to read more."
How does this contradict my point that Microsoft doesn't have monopolies everywhere?
"It was cute how you tried to toss in two server apps (IIS and Exchange). Hee hee.:D"
Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there.
"Oh well, you Microsoft apologists are all the same."
Uh okay. I suppose I should just drop everything, shake my pitchfork at MS at every turn, and badmouth every little thing they do? That way I could be cool just like everybody else here.
"why can't they just fix the problems in the operating system instead?"
Depends on what the AV software does. They already have automatic update, and new fixes are coming in all the time. I doubt MS'll remove that and have you use AV to get updates. Instead, the software is probably a bunch of rules, notification, and filters. If that is true, then it would have to be an app on top of Windows, as opposed to simply an "everything's fixed" deal.
"surely you weren't saying that anti-trust would be cried out if MS released a OS that resulted in no need for AV, were you?"
If Windows didn't need AV because they included an effective one, then yes. A lot of those dumbshits hang out here, too.
"Microsoft could include anti-virus software. They have in the past. And Microsoft could do it without hitting anti-trust laws."
Yeah? And how exactly?
"But when Microsoft SPECIFICALLY refers to killing another company's market by leveraging their monopoly, THAT is the problem."
If they could do that, then they'd have more than 3 apps that held monopoly status. Frontpage? Nope. IIS? Nope. Exchange? Nope. Media Player? Nope. Gee, I guess their monopoly isn't all that strong unless people actually want their stuff?
"If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?"
Are you serious? If MS did that, the anti-virus companies would cry "anti-trust!" You all demand better security from Microsoft, they try to provide it, and the pitchforks come out.
"So? The same thing that happened to WordPerfect is likely going to happen to NAV."
I got news for ya, bud, Microsoft can't just make a monopoly out of everything it touches. If NAV goes the way of WordPerfect, it's because the market said "We like this better", not "Microsoft put a gun to each and every one of our heads and forced us to buy!"
" it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security."
That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen.
"Is there any software outside of Microsoft's "it's a part of the OS" argument?"
Yes.
"Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, ather than including it in Windows."
Not in my view, no. My laptop floats between home and work. I have wireless at both home and work. I have long battery life on my laptop. At either place, I just pull it out and turn it on. It doesn't seem like much, but it's actually kind of a pain in the butt to go hook up ethernet/power cables. The convenience factor is there, not to mention that I can clear out of a room quickly.
Additionally, I had a PocketPC for a short time. I *really* enjoyed having that little guy on the wireless. This may sound silly, but using it for Instant Messaging was kind of fun. Not the most important thing in the world, but it is nice to be in contact with peeps without having a ringing phone or being anchored to my computer. If I had VoIP software, bonus!
It sounds like you already have a setup that works for you. It is not my intent to talk you into using wireless. As for being overhyped, no, sorry, don't agree with that. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in a couple of years from now, PDA + Wireless == the next great communications device.
Slashdot Mirror
"He is saying that people here will think that Microsoft is violating anti-trust laws if/when Microsoft gets into the anti-virus market."
Yep, you got it.
"But he is crying about other people who do not trust Microsoft now because of Microsoft's past, documented, behaviour."
Wrong. I'm actually advocating people use their brains a bit, as opposed to just hating Microsoft because it's the cool thing to do.
"I don't think he's on their payroll, but maybe he is."
If I were on their payroll, I would be fired for several of the not-so-nice comments I've made about MS.
"I think he's just gotten his emotional self-worth tied up with defending Microsoft against the cynical masses on slashdot."
Nah.
"Or maybe he is simply against the cynicism of the masses on slashdot?"
Hmm... I think you're close on that one. If I could put my finger on it I'd give you a clearer picture of it.
"He is opposing the expression of knowledge gained from experience and the extrapolation of that knowledge."
Um, no. In general, I am against uninformed hatred. Imagine how you'd feel if I were modded up for saying "Pff Linux totally sucks. Nothing works on it. Its interface is horrible. And, it really isn't any more stable than Windows." Would you be a Linux 'shill' for defending it? Zealot? Linux apologist? Or would you be responding to my thoughtless idiocy that demonstrates that I had done no research at all? Think about it.
Good evening.
"It says 3D but it still has a flat, 2D LCD screen. I wish people would quit throwing that word around until we have a true 3D display."
:P)
It is true 3D. It produces exactly what your eyes percieve as 3D imagery. The term you're really looking for is 'volumetric'. When somebody offers a volumetric display, then you got what you're hoping for.
(Note: This is one of the least impressive nitpicks I've seen in a long time. It is three dimensional if it does video. x, y, t. If it was what he was looking for, it'd be x, y, z, t. 4D.
"This is profoundly stupid because, ta dum, there's no market for it, and no prospect of a market for it."
Bullshit. The market is people who don't like having to make two trips to the store to rent a video. If one can buy a disc for as cheap as a rental at Blockbuster, and all one has to do is toss it in the trash when I'm done because it automatically times out, then that will be a preferable choice over renting from Blockbuster and having to make a seperate trip to return it.
There's your market. Simple.
Whether it is successful or not is a seperate story. If they did it right, it could be quite successful. My gf and I regularly make a trip to Best Buy to buy movies for our library. There are a lot of movies we'd like to see, but $15-$20 is too much seeing as how we doubt we'll watch them more than once. I'm sure we'd raid the $5 self-expiring discs quite regularly. Blam, there is a blinking market.
So why would I want this and not the old DivX players? Simple: No special DVD player.
"It should be this way with web-sites too."
He's right. We should all be developing with Flash!!
"You mean for ford or maytag?"
;)
Which one pays more?
"You are already a shill for microsoft, a quick reading of your posts ought to make that crystal clear to anybody who bothers to read them."
Heh. No, I'm not, sorry. It doesn't appear as though you've followed my posts very carefully. You're not calling me one because I'm going out of my way to 'support' them. Rather, it's because I'm right in this particular case. (Notice that there's no real rebuttal here, just a little inaccurate name calling.)
Nice try, though.
"Being a corporate shill is not easy but corporations need brave and hard working people like you to stick up for them."
:)
Okie doke. If I ever decide to be a shill, I'll keep that in mind. G'nite, sir.
"Why are we so soon to forget that the Game.Com had a touch screen four or five years ago? It's a great feature that worked well for the failed GCOM, it's just not inventive."
The Game.Com failed to be average in just about every aspect. The touch screen, for example, didn't allow for one to write on the screen like with a Palm Pilot. It had like a 16 by 16 grid that was sensitive to touch. Great for Wheel of Fortune, awful for air hockey.
So is the DS non-innovative because of the Game.Com? Oh heck no. Besides the stylus actually being usable, it's on a seperate screen. Why does this matter? Because it's a portable console that can actually have an on-screen keyboard. Couple that with 802.11, and you've got yourself a hand-held console that can play a lot of the same games that PC gamers enjoy right now.
"I don't use OE so I don't know about the express version."
.EML file to the email and opens OE even if you have OL2k installed. Nasty security risk there, thank you very much M$. I'd recommend to ANYBODY to change the .EML extension to Notepad.
.EXE file. I don't mind them blocking .EXE files to begin with, but editing the registry to get it back? Son of a bitch.
The Express version is scary. Not only are a bunch of things implemented in a half-assed way, but it also uses a different extension than OL2k does. If somebody forwards you an OE message as an attachment, it attaches a
Outlook XP (haven't used 03 yet) was locked down pretty hard. Unfortunately, you had to edit the registry for somebody to send you a
Ah well. Them's the breaks. I really do enjoy how well Outlook interacts with PocketPC. The dude who posted this Ask Slashdot would love it if he tried it.
I wasn't excited about either system until Nintendo said two important things:
1.) 802.11 connectivity.
2.) Use the sylus + on-screen keyboard to chat.
Then it occured to me. I can play against peeps on the net from my couch. VERY cool. Sadly, I don't see the PSP being as exciting in the multi-player area.
The DS's interface leaves a lot of room for interesting stuff. PSP is more 'Been there, done that'. I can see the PSP being successful, but I think I'll have a lot more fun with the DS.
"When I was developing for Windows platform, I never needed any documentation other than MSDN. And if you want source code, you can download the SDKs for free."
Microsoft made their API easy to use + free. That's how they're dominating the market! Ready pitchforks!!"
"Outlook is not a possibility for all of the usual reasons."
The 'usual reasons', for the most part, apply to Outlook Express and not Outlook 2000/XP.
"Since their existing monopoly is in the desktop market and not the server market, it stands to reason that they can't exactly leverage their desktop OS monopoly to create server application monopolies."
Ah... well okay I can understand why people thought I was trying to sneak in an unfair argument there. Thing is, the whole point I was making was that Microsoft can't just go buy or make a monopoly. They've tried VERY hard in the server market, and gee whiz, they just can't do it. They've done everything from make a better product to publishing lies about Linux, yet they still can't crack it.
It's easy to dismiss that argument as "well they don't have a monopoly there", but the truth is MS just plain cannot go make a monopoly somewhere unless they make a product the market agrees with. Getting back to my original argument, this means they can NOT put Norton out of business without making a superior product.
"Why limit yourself to shilling for just one corporation?"
Because I'd be modded as off-topic if I were defending Ford in this convo?
Heh, nice try though.
"Especially if that corporation doesn't give a shit about you, your life, your family, your freedom, your health or any other aspect of your life."
Name one that does.
"Why waste your time and energy defending a giant rich corporation from slashdoters?"
Actually, I wasn't. The point wasn't that MS was in the right, it was that no matter what they did, people here would bitch.
"What's in it for you?"
Nothing that makes it worthwhile.
"Why not go to a forum where people discuss washers and defend maytag. Maytag is a corporation too and I bet they need your help just as much as Microsoft does."
You want me to go somewhere else because I don't blindly hate Microsoft and every move they make? Come now, certainly you're more civilized than that. If you're telling me to leave because I've made undisputed observations, then isn't that a big flashing clue that maybe, just maybe, you're not well enough informed on the matter to justify hating MS?
"Exchange I can understand, but you show me a version of Windows 2000/XP that doesn't come prepackaged with IIS."
IIS that comes with 2k or XP only allows 10 connections. Though a fair shade better than GeoCities, you still can't use it for web serving. At best, it's a 'lite edition'.
"Make it easily and completely removable and publish the API."
:D"
Fair point, but I doubt that'd be enough this time around. The main reason being that the AV software out there today is specifically for Windows. MS has an inside advantage towards getting problems fixed.
"So far, they've only been ruled a monopoly in one market. The desktop x86 market (Windows). Like I said, you need to read more."
How does this contradict my point that Microsoft doesn't have monopolies everywhere?
"It was cute how you tried to toss in two server apps (IIS and Exchange). Hee hee.
Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there.
"Oh well, you Microsoft apologists are all the same."
Uh okay. I suppose I should just drop everything, shake my pitchfork at MS at every turn, and badmouth every little thing they do? That way I could be cool just like everybody else here.
"why can't they just fix the problems in the operating system instead?"
Depends on what the AV software does. They already have automatic update, and new fixes are coming in all the time. I doubt MS'll remove that and have you use AV to get updates. Instead, the software is probably a bunch of rules, notification, and filters. If that is true, then it would have to be an app on top of Windows, as opposed to simply an "everything's fixed" deal.
"surely you weren't saying that anti-trust would be cried out if MS released a OS that resulted in no need for AV, were you?"
If Windows didn't need AV because they included an effective one, then yes. A lot of those dumbshits hang out here, too.
" and puts a gun to the heads of all computer manufacturers,"
Yes, if that happens literally, it could work.
"or does what it did with Internet Explorer, and integrates it in the OS."
They aren't.
"Microsoft could include anti-virus software. They have in the past. And Microsoft could do it without hitting anti-trust laws."
Yeah? And how exactly?
"But when Microsoft SPECIFICALLY refers to killing another company's market by leveraging their monopoly, THAT is the problem."
If they could do that, then they'd have more than 3 apps that held monopoly status. Frontpage? Nope. IIS? Nope. Exchange? Nope. Media Player? Nope. Gee, I guess their monopoly isn't all that strong unless people actually want their stuff?
"If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?"
Are you serious? If MS did that, the anti-virus companies would cry "anti-trust!" You all demand better security from Microsoft, they try to provide it, and the pitchforks come out.
"So? The same thing that happened to WordPerfect is likely going to happen to NAV."
I got news for ya, bud, Microsoft can't just make a monopoly out of everything it touches. If NAV goes the way of WordPerfect, it's because the market said "We like this better", not "Microsoft put a gun to each and every one of our heads and forced us to buy!"
" it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security."
That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen.
"Is there any software outside of Microsoft's "it's a part of the OS" argument?"
Yes.
"Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, ather than including it in Windows."
" What's the point of a DVD-R if I can't play the PS2 games I use it to copy, that is legitimately backup for educational purposes!"
To save TV shows you recorded?
"or does wireless seem a bit overhyped?"
Not in my view, no. My laptop floats between home and work. I have wireless at both home and work. I have long battery life on my laptop. At either place, I just pull it out and turn it on. It doesn't seem like much, but it's actually kind of a pain in the butt to go hook up ethernet/power cables. The convenience factor is there, not to mention that I can clear out of a room quickly.
Additionally, I had a PocketPC for a short time. I *really* enjoyed having that little guy on the wireless. This may sound silly, but using it for Instant Messaging was kind of fun. Not the most important thing in the world, but it is nice to be in contact with peeps without having a ringing phone or being anchored to my computer. If I had VoIP software, bonus!
It sounds like you already have a setup that works for you. It is not my intent to talk you into using wireless. As for being overhyped, no, sorry, don't agree with that. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in a couple of years from now, PDA + Wireless == the next great communications device.