Says who? The way I understand it, the original name for XBox was DirectX Box, and it is my understanding that games targetting DirectX can be ported to Xbox and Xbox360 with little or no modification -- just a recompile.
If that's not leveraging their OS monopoly, I don't know what is.
Also, I believe it's only a matter of time before Xbox360 begins to dominate more in the gaming console market. No one, including Sony, saw Wii coming, and Sony can't manage to keep dominating the rest of the market PS3 much longer at the prices they insist on charging.
If they want material evidence, they just need to look at every other market Microsoft has been in and see how they've managed to leverage their OS and office suite monopoly to dominate it.
i still can't buy a PC without windows on it (unless it's a mac) that has to be much more anticompetitive.
Sure you can. Dell sells PCs with Ubuntu, and PCs sans OS (N-series). HP sells machines that can be preloaded with FreeDOS or SUSE Linux.
Most small OEMs offer PCs with either no OS or FreeDOS and some will install just about any OS you request. There is even one small OEM that I know that sells nothing but machines pre-loaded with Linux.
Not only that, but compare the power consumption when the disk is completely idle. Or at least when the computer isn't requesting any information from the disk.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that with HDDs, the system can auto-power them down when they're idle, but with SSDs, this can't be done as easily due to the nature of SSDs?
Microsoft was the geeks' darling 15 years ago. Is it going to take us another 15 years to realize that Google is just another Big Corp that will bite, scratch and steal its way into a position where it can dictate our lifestyles to suit its profit agenda?
Speak for yourself. I knew Microsoft was evil 15 years ago (1993) just as I know it now.
I don't shop at Walmart, my food comes mostly from local organic farmers
Sure about that? If you shop at, say Whole Foods Market, for instance, most of the organic produce they sell is produced by Big Agra, not local farms.
As for Walmart, while I don't like some of their business practices, some of their other business practices are actually okay. For example, they have very good non-discriminatory hiring practices in place and they give lots of money to community non-profit organizations and schools and support higher education through scholarships. So they're not all bad. But, in the end, Walmart has the lowest prices on most of the stuff I buy, so I shop at Walmart -- mostly because it helps me save money so that I can afford to do things like donate to those charitable organizations you mention.
In the end, we all our make choices. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't as smart, intelligent or well-educated as you and I, and they don't care about anything but themselves.
Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising.
That's a red herring. They are still the market leader in desktop operating systems and, at the end of the day, they intend to leverage that to knock Google out of business because Google has been threatening their core business, especially with Google Apps.
Microsoft going after Google isn't about Microsoft expanding its market, it's about removing a potential threat to their core OS and office suite usiness.
I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies. If you don't like how a company acts, buy some stock and get your friends and family and cohorts to do the same, then go in and work to change it.
Just because a company is publicly traded, that doesn't excuse them from monopolistic practices, sir.
Nobody I know -- even die-hard Windows fans -- likes how Microsoft acts in the business world. That doesn't stop them from buying their products, though.
None of the people I know who trade stocks trade based on the ethics of a company, either. All of them care only about shareholder value and potential shareholder value. It's all about the dinero.
The problem you have, Mr. Dada, is that you tend to assume that people care about how a company acts enough to influence their choices. But people choose based on what's best for their own livelihood (as well they should). They also don't often choose what's best for their own livelihood in the long run, but tend to look at the short-term. And in the short-term, companies maintaining a monopoly always seem to have the most shareholder value.
And, in the end, public shareholder don't always get a vote anyway. Most of the voting shares of Google are held by Sergei and Larry and guys like that. All the rest of the shareholders don't get much of a say.
Strange how when Microsoft offered a deal to outright buy Yahoo, DoJ remained silent, but when Yahoo and Google want to team up, they're all over them.
<sarcasm>But there wouldn't be anything shady going on at the Justice Department, oh, no. You can trust those guys.</sarcasm>
Exactly. This is just scaremongering. In the end, we have literally TONS of copper and zinc, and most of it is trivial to extract for recycling. If there becomes a large enough demand for it, the U.S. Mint might very well stop making pennies out of zinc, or stop making them altogether, leaving tons of zinc available for recycling. Then there's gazillions of miles of copper cable, copper pipes and tubing, etc. Much of it is already being recycled, in fact.
Add in the copper and zinc that can be pulled out of recycled electronics, old Duracell batteries (just kidding, there!), dismantled military hardware, etc., etc., plus copper deposits that haven't been found yet....Heck, not even 1% of the ocean floor has been explored.
Slashdot Mirror
No problem. EC2 is unhackable!
ppppppffffffffffffffft. Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.Yeah, but then it wouldn't have had my joke in it, that you obviously missed. You do know what a milquetoast is, right?
"Funny" doesn't give karma, insightful does. That's why you sometimes see Funny posts moderated insightful.
Says who? The way I understand it, the original name for XBox was DirectX Box, and it is my understanding that games targetting DirectX can be ported to Xbox and Xbox360 with little or no modification -- just a recompile.
If that's not leveraging their OS monopoly, I don't know what is.
I, for one, welcome our new optimizing, embedded program compiling AI overlords!
Yeah, I think MachIne Learning for Quick Target Optimization And Speed Technology would have been a much better forward acronym.
Pretty accurate, yes.
Also, I believe it's only a matter of time before Xbox360 begins to dominate more in the gaming console market. No one, including Sony, saw Wii coming, and Sony can't manage to keep dominating the rest of the market PS3 much longer at the prices they insist on charging.
I'll leave the reast as an exercise to the reader, but the biggest one...well, two words: Internet Explorer.
Well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise to the reader, but as for the biggest one, two words: Internet Explorer.
If they want material evidence, they just need to look at every other market Microsoft has been in and see how they've managed to leverage their OS and office suite monopoly to dominate it.
Sure you can. Dell sells PCs with Ubuntu, and PCs sans OS (N-series). HP sells machines that can be preloaded with FreeDOS or SUSE Linux.
Most small OEMs offer PCs with either no OS or FreeDOS and some will install just about any OS you request. There is even one small OEM that I know that sells nothing but machines pre-loaded with Linux.
In Europe and the rest of the world, they don't pay for incoming texts or even incoming calls.
They already do.
On the plus side, the price of cell phones are either free or heavily subsidized by the carriers here.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that with HDDs, the system can auto-power them down when they're idle, but with SSDs, this can't be done as easily due to the nature of SSDs?
Shouldn't you guys stop answering questions with a question?
Speak for yourself. I knew Microsoft was evil 15 years ago (1993) just as I know it now.
Sure about that? If you shop at, say Whole Foods Market, for instance, most of the organic produce they sell is produced by Big Agra, not local farms.
As for Walmart, while I don't like some of their business practices, some of their other business practices are actually okay. For example, they have very good non-discriminatory hiring practices in place and they give lots of money to community non-profit organizations and schools and support higher education through scholarships. So they're not all bad. But, in the end, Walmart has the lowest prices on most of the stuff I buy, so I shop at Walmart -- mostly because it helps me save money so that I can afford to do things like donate to those charitable organizations you mention.
In the end, we all our make choices. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't as smart, intelligent or well-educated as you and I, and they don't care about anything but themselves.
That's a red herring. They are still the market leader in desktop operating systems and, at the end of the day, they intend to leverage that to knock Google out of business because Google has been threatening their core business, especially with Google Apps.
Microsoft going after Google isn't about Microsoft expanding its market, it's about removing a potential threat to their core OS and office suite usiness.
Wrong Shady.
Very insightful. It's just like "Who Moved My Cheese?".
Just because a company is publicly traded, that doesn't excuse them from monopolistic practices, sir.
Nobody I know -- even die-hard Windows fans -- likes how Microsoft acts in the business world. That doesn't stop them from buying their products, though.
None of the people I know who trade stocks trade based on the ethics of a company, either. All of them care only about shareholder value and potential shareholder value. It's all about the dinero.
The problem you have, Mr. Dada, is that you tend to assume that people care about how a company acts enough to influence their choices. But people choose based on what's best for their own livelihood (as well they should). They also don't often choose what's best for their own livelihood in the long run, but tend to look at the short-term. And in the short-term, companies maintaining a monopoly always seem to have the most shareholder value.
And, in the end, public shareholder don't always get a vote anyway. Most of the voting shares of Google are held by Sergei and Larry and guys like that. All the rest of the shareholders don't get much of a say.
Strange how when Microsoft offered a deal to outright buy Yahoo, DoJ remained silent, but when Yahoo and Google want to team up, they're all over them.
<sarcasm>But there wouldn't be anything shady going on at the Justice Department, oh, no. You can trust those guys.</sarcasm>
Exactly. This is just scaremongering. In the end, we have literally TONS of copper and zinc, and most of it is trivial to extract for recycling. If there becomes a large enough demand for it, the U.S. Mint might very well stop making pennies out of zinc, or stop making them altogether, leaving tons of zinc available for recycling. Then there's gazillions of miles of copper cable, copper pipes and tubing, etc. Much of it is already being recycled, in fact.
Add in the copper and zinc that can be pulled out of recycled electronics, old Duracell batteries (just kidding, there!), dismantled military hardware, etc., etc., plus copper deposits that haven't been found yet....Heck, not even 1% of the ocean floor has been explored.
Really. These people lack imagination.
Jeep isn't a car company. It's currently a subsidiary of Chrysler. (Before that, it was part of American Motors)
wooooooooosh