Lol. Not even close. Have you ever actually _used_ VS2010?
The advantage free tools have is they're free and they work cross platform. Don't start rewriting reality and claiming they're even close in terms of quality.
In Bizarro world, that's where... Microsoft is still taking in money hand over fist, well over twice as much as Apple for example.
Another question I'd have is why exactly does he think market cap means anything but that the capricious stock market buys into Apple's "magic"? Microsoft is still most certainly the largest software company in terms of manpower, software released, revenue, impact on the business market, etc... Apple's not even close.
Yeah, you know the "major effort" I went through to go from 3.5 to 4.0?
Right-Mouse Project -> Properties -> Target Framework -> [change from 3.5 to 4.0]
It took me 16 weeks of effort. Well, that's what I told my boss anyway. I mostly played Tetris and picked my nose during the main part of 15 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes.
Their own video tapes showed that it worked fine without IE.
No, it didn't. According to the article you linked, it showed no slowdown. If you know jack shit about Windows you know that many apps (MS and non-MS) depend in IE. So the whole trial was a farce, and as Microsoft said - removing IE was not an option, other than removing the icon or limited parts of it.
And as you say, the article is nonsense. Being able to update IE doesn't mean it's not a critical component. They can update the kernel too - "Oh noesies, the kernel must be extra fluff, they can take that out!". Pfft, rank idiocy.
This is neckbeard nonsense. An OS is a product sold to a consumer which lets them run applications and get work done. The Computer Science definition of "OS" is meaningless. You're comparing apples and oranges.
No, they did not. Considering with enough manpower and effort that pretty much any software project like that could eventually be done. What they did say was that tons of MS and non-MS software depends on IE being present. True then, true now. I'm not sure of the point of this article.
Exactly. This article is just silly. IE (the rendering engine portion) is still in Windows. They've just upgraded and updated it, and made certain parts of it more modular for removal for EU purposes. How exactly is the fact that they've managed to update IE (the RE) an argument that it's not part of Windows?
It's very simple. Lots of software (Microsoft and non-Microsoft) depends on portions of IE. Those portions have not gone away and won't for some time.
You seem to not grasp the difference a free market a controlled market. Maybe you should look into that sometime.
If there's one thing that annoys me, it's the "I'm really for free markets because I want to put all kinds of restrictions on it for its own good!" brigade. Spare me.
At least be honest and say you want a controlled market and that you value consumer rights over market freedom instead of trying to pretend to be a freer marketeer than thou.
The point of the free market is that individual actors acting in their own best interests will tend to find the best efficiencies. Once that market is controlled by outside parties, it becomes "less" free. See how that works?
You can pretend that a controlled market is a free market and wave your hands about pretending that market controllers are _really!_ the biggest pro-free market people, but pretty much anyone who thinks about it for 30 seconds will see how full of shit you are.
Wow, this sounds like _such_ a way to foster innovation, amirite? Hey, Innovaco, you can't invent a new mechanism to do that, we have this other one everyone else has been using for the last 10 years!
Wait, huh? So let's say Apple releases DynamoService, a new service that lets Apple fans provide pictures and feedback of them being extremely cool using their Apple products. They use a proprietary protocol.
I'm confused as to which part of this involves a "government-enforced monopoly". Copyright? No, Apple keeps the source under lock and key. Patent? Maybe DynamoService doesn't use anything patentable, and is just an obscure, highly complex protocol. Where exactly does the government rationally derive its justification for forcing Apple to document and publish (at some price the bureaucrats determine) their IP?
If even 20% of day to day "office" users of Windows switch to Linux or Apple, you would see a seismic shift in the OS and software markets. You're talking about a small number of mission critical software for which there is no analog, it's background noise in terms of any potential market share shift.
Uh oh, mod war! The dweebs who agree or disagree furiously exercising their kung-fu mod power to assert their deeply held convictions as some sort of proxy to the power they lack to make a woman look twice at them!
This place brings me endless hilarity from day to day, I truly love it.
[Shrug]. I guess pretending things are exactly the way you think they are is a nice gig if you can get it.
Go read the opening paragraph of Monopoly on Wikipedia. Now, you can take the easy way out and apply the "durr, Wikipedia" approach or you can just admit you're a jackass.
[A monopoly] exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Nope, Microsoft can not determine significantly the terms over which individuals have access to an operating system. Namely because there are free ones.
Now I'm bored, though. Your slavish reluctance to use your brain and instead argue through authority (durr, the DoJ at the time said they were a monopoly!) means you are a non-reflective jackass.
Well, as a fucking moron I'd point out that there is also mission critical software on Linux.
From there, I'd point out that very few machines are "mission critical" and that if all the non-"mission critical" users decided they liked Linux they could use Linux and drive Windows into obscurity.
I'll allow you takebacksies as I like the cut of your jib. You can take back your inane point and I'll pretend you didn't make it. If Windows was relegated to just the mission critical uses, it would be a minority OS, so clearly it's a meaningless point.
For the record, I don't think Apple is a monopoly, I just argue the point for clarity. If Microsoft is a monopoly because people love Windows, Apple is a monopoly because people love the iPhone and most of the money to made in mobile apps is on the iPhone market.
I would say neither is a monopoly. I prefer an old school approach - leave the market alone unless someone has a government granted monopoly or a monopoly on a finite resource. And unless it rises to the level of a cure for cancer or free power, I don't believe there is any case for monopolies based on intellectual property.
As of late last year, Apple's app store had ~$2.4 billion of dollars in sales, compared to about $60 million for Android.
If you want to make money off of selling apps for smartphones, how can you not see Apple's store as a monopoly? Any other way I can reach that huge market?
Sure, one could say just sell for Android/BB/Palm but then one could just tell Windows whiners to go buy and develop on Linux.
But this wasn't actually my point, now that I've rambled about it. The point is if your competitor can do it, so can you - monopoly or not. Antitrust law isn't meant to hamstring a monopoly, only prevent them from using their monopoly to do something their competitors can't. Their competitors can, and have, opened app stores.
Sure, depends on what you mean by a market. The iPhone itself is a minority in the "cell phone" market. It's still (I think) #1 in the "smartphone market", and it's absolutely certainly far and away the #1 (probably to the level of a monopoly some hippies use) in terms of market share for smart phone applications sales via its market.
Or maybe people..you know...like Windows? People can buy a 10 year old used Honda Civic for $2k, but they insist on sometimes buying $40k BMW's. BMW must have a monopoly and pricing power?
Ahh yes, the immutable definition of "monopoly", right? It's not like it would change in a heartbeat if a more right-leaning administration got elected and cleaned house in the DoJ, right? I can only assume you would instantly change your opinion because of that, right?
Your second point is counter to reality. If Dell's customers want Linux, they can get Linux. You seem to be implying a lie, namely that Microsoft somehow prevents Dell or other vendors from selling Linux on their machines. In fact this is the most trite of lies: the easily disproved one.
You can wave your hands about all you'd like and use your mysterious Johnny Trustbuster magic, but you won't change the fact that ultimately if end-users want Linux, end-users can buy Linux and change the OS market.
This isn't a case of monopoly, it's a case of the tragedy of the commons, at least in the view of those who don't like Windows.
To reply more thoroughly to your argument, what exactly do you think would happen if Microsoft added 25% to the price of Windows OS's? 50%? 100%? At each step up, Linux (and Apple, and other) market share would increase substantially.
I love developing in.NET on Windows, but shit if they started charging me more for OS's and tools I'd be fine moving over to Java on Linux.
The only thing holding people to Windows is impetus. The vast majority of people could switch to Linux or MacOS if they weren't lazy.
Queue, as in prepare the line of idiots tripping over each other to claim that Apple somehow has different rules because they're "not a monopoly", when by this loose definition they certainly are in the smartphone app market.
Queue, also, grammar correcting idiots who don't know how easy it is to wriggle out of your asinine pedantry.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol. Not even close. Have you ever actually _used_ VS2010?
The advantage free tools have is they're free and they work cross platform. Don't start rewriting reality and claiming they're even close in terms of quality.
In Bizarro world, that's where... Microsoft is still taking in money hand over fist, well over twice as much as Apple for example.
Another question I'd have is why exactly does he think market cap means anything but that the capricious stock market buys into Apple's "magic"? Microsoft is still most certainly the largest software company in terms of manpower, software released, revenue, impact on the business market, etc... Apple's not even close.
Yeah, you know the "major effort" I went through to go from 3.5 to 4.0?
Right-Mouse Project -> Properties -> Target Framework -> [change from 3.5 to 4.0]
It took me 16 weeks of effort. Well, that's what I told my boss anyway. I mostly played Tetris and picked my nose during the main part of 15 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes.
Wow, apparently fraud isn't illegal in the UK? You know, misrepresenting yourself and fraudulently claiming the person has a virus?
Their own video tapes showed that it worked fine without IE.
No, it didn't. According to the article you linked, it showed no slowdown. If you know jack shit about Windows you know that many apps (MS and non-MS) depend in IE. So the whole trial was a farce, and as Microsoft said - removing IE was not an option, other than removing the icon or limited parts of it.
And as you say, the article is nonsense. Being able to update IE doesn't mean it's not a critical component. They can update the kernel too - "Oh noesies, the kernel must be extra fluff, they can take that out!". Pfft, rank idiocy.
This is neckbeard nonsense. An OS is a product sold to a consumer which lets them run applications and get work done. The Computer Science definition of "OS" is meaningless. You're comparing apples and oranges.
No, they did not. Considering with enough manpower and effort that pretty much any software project like that could eventually be done. What they did say was that tons of MS and non-MS software depends on IE being present. True then, true now. I'm not sure of the point of this article.
Exactly. This article is just silly. IE (the rendering engine portion) is still in Windows. They've just upgraded and updated it, and made certain parts of it more modular for removal for EU purposes. How exactly is the fact that they've managed to update IE (the RE) an argument that it's not part of Windows?
It's very simple. Lots of software (Microsoft and non-Microsoft) depends on portions of IE. Those portions have not gone away and won't for some time.
Strawman. Microsoft never said it was not possible, as nothing of that sort is "impossible". It's just highly, highly problematic.
You seem to not grasp the difference a free market a controlled market. Maybe you should look into that sometime.
If there's one thing that annoys me, it's the "I'm really for free markets because I want to put all kinds of restrictions on it for its own good!" brigade. Spare me.
At least be honest and say you want a controlled market and that you value consumer rights over market freedom instead of trying to pretend to be a freer marketeer than thou.
The point of the free market is that individual actors acting in their own best interests will tend to find the best efficiencies. Once that market is controlled by outside parties, it becomes "less" free. See how that works?
You can pretend that a controlled market is a free market and wave your hands about pretending that market controllers are _really!_ the biggest pro-free market people, but pretty much anyone who thinks about it for 30 seconds will see how full of shit you are.
Wow, this sounds like _such_ a way to foster innovation, amirite? Hey, Innovaco, you can't invent a new mechanism to do that, we have this other one everyone else has been using for the last 10 years!
Your point is ridiculous.
Wait, huh? So let's say Apple releases DynamoService, a new service that lets Apple fans provide pictures and feedback of them being extremely cool using their Apple products. They use a proprietary protocol.
I'm confused as to which part of this involves a "government-enforced monopoly". Copyright? No, Apple keeps the source under lock and key. Patent? Maybe DynamoService doesn't use anything patentable, and is just an obscure, highly complex protocol. Where exactly does the government rationally derive its justification for forcing Apple to document and publish (at some price the bureaucrats determine) their IP?
I find the tragedy of the commons much more likely than the wisdom of crowds in most cases.
If even 20% of day to day "office" users of Windows switch to Linux or Apple, you would see a seismic shift in the OS and software markets. You're talking about a small number of mission critical software for which there is no analog, it's background noise in terms of any potential market share shift.
Uh oh, mod war! The dweebs who agree or disagree furiously exercising their kung-fu mod power to assert their deeply held convictions as some sort of proxy to the power they lack to make a woman look twice at them!
This place brings me endless hilarity from day to day, I truly love it.
[Shrug]. I guess pretending things are exactly the way you think they are is a nice gig if you can get it.
Go read the opening paragraph of Monopoly on Wikipedia. Now, you can take the easy way out and apply the "durr, Wikipedia" approach or you can just admit you're a jackass.
[A monopoly] exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Nope, Microsoft can not determine significantly the terms over which individuals have access to an operating system. Namely because there are free ones.
Now I'm bored, though. Your slavish reluctance to use your brain and instead argue through authority (durr, the DoJ at the time said they were a monopoly!) means you are a non-reflective jackass.
Well, as a fucking moron I'd point out that there is also mission critical software on Linux.
From there, I'd point out that very few machines are "mission critical" and that if all the non-"mission critical" users decided they liked Linux they could use Linux and drive Windows into obscurity.
I'll allow you takebacksies as I like the cut of your jib. You can take back your inane point and I'll pretend you didn't make it. If Windows was relegated to just the mission critical uses, it would be a minority OS, so clearly it's a meaningless point.
For the record, I don't think Apple is a monopoly, I just argue the point for clarity. If Microsoft is a monopoly because people love Windows, Apple is a monopoly because people love the iPhone and most of the money to made in mobile apps is on the iPhone market.
I would say neither is a monopoly. I prefer an old school approach - leave the market alone unless someone has a government granted monopoly or a monopoly on a finite resource. And unless it rises to the level of a cure for cancer or free power, I don't believe there is any case for monopolies based on intellectual property.
As of late last year, Apple's app store had ~$2.4 billion of dollars in sales, compared to about $60 million for Android.
If you want to make money off of selling apps for smartphones, how can you not see Apple's store as a monopoly? Any other way I can reach that huge market?
Sure, one could say just sell for Android/BB/Palm but then one could just tell Windows whiners to go buy and develop on Linux.
But this wasn't actually my point, now that I've rambled about it. The point is if your competitor can do it, so can you - monopoly or not. Antitrust law isn't meant to hamstring a monopoly, only prevent them from using their monopoly to do something their competitors can't. Their competitors can, and have, opened app stores.
Sure, depends on what you mean by a market. The iPhone itself is a minority in the "cell phone" market. It's still (I think) #1 in the "smartphone market", and it's absolutely certainly far and away the #1 (probably to the level of a monopoly some hippies use) in terms of market share for smart phone applications sales via its market.
Or maybe people..you know...like Windows? People can buy a 10 year old used Honda Civic for $2k, but they insist on sometimes buying $40k BMW's. BMW must have a monopoly and pricing power?
Ahh yes, the immutable definition of "monopoly", right? It's not like it would change in a heartbeat if a more right-leaning administration got elected and cleaned house in the DoJ, right? I can only assume you would instantly change your opinion because of that, right?
Your second point is counter to reality. If Dell's customers want Linux, they can get Linux. You seem to be implying a lie, namely that Microsoft somehow prevents Dell or other vendors from selling Linux on their machines. In fact this is the most trite of lies: the easily disproved one.
You can wave your hands about all you'd like and use your mysterious Johnny Trustbuster magic, but you won't change the fact that ultimately if end-users want Linux, end-users can buy Linux and change the OS market.
This isn't a case of monopoly, it's a case of the tragedy of the commons, at least in the view of those who don't like Windows.
To reply more thoroughly to your argument, what exactly do you think would happen if Microsoft added 25% to the price of Windows OS's? 50%? 100%? At each step up, Linux (and Apple, and other) market share would increase substantially.
I love developing in .NET on Windows, but shit if they started charging me more for OS's and tools I'd be fine moving over to Java on Linux.
The only thing holding people to Windows is impetus. The vast majority of people could switch to Linux or MacOS if they weren't lazy.
You're an idiot.
Queue, as in prepare the line of idiots tripping over each other to claim that Apple somehow has different rules because they're "not a monopoly", when by this loose definition they certainly are in the smartphone app market.
Queue, also, grammar correcting idiots who don't know how easy it is to wriggle out of your asinine pedantry.
Wow, Apple only has 3% of the smartphone app market? You'll have to alert them (and the rest of...reality) to that "fact" ;).