The biggest problem that I see is Microsofts unwillingness to apply.odt readable OK. MS Office is often mentioned as the more "advanced" of the office suits, but test to edit equations, diagrams, and other useful functions and it fails.
The worst part of it must be that certified drivers does not always work. Most drivers that are certified does not have that quality as I feel the certification is worth it.
One thing that probably would fix the problems are open-drivers, but the companies are too afraid it might hurt them in some way. Feels like both Microsoft and the hardware companies are still left in the 90's.
I would too like to see that. But then I remembered that you said standard and a microsoft product in the same sentence... Because you don't expect mirosoft to just cut and past do you?, of course they will make a new better product.
Just because they do not know which application to use does not mean it is hard. If it is hard to find or understand it is up to them or the softwaremaker to make them see how.
Sidenote: A lot of people does not know how install on Windows either so your argument fails. Try get a person to find an application that they need. If they don't know how to find it, maybe it is better to try and learn first or not bother at all.
"Looking for more customers, the company did extensive market research in poor countries."
Am I the only one reacting to this? If they need to do [b]extensive market research[/b] to figure out that this is what a lot of people want (not only in africa/asia) they can't be very bright.
Well new CD:s do use DRM, haven't you ever heard about Sony??
Most major comanies put DRM on their releases. Hard to get copies that actually works in old stereos..
"what features are perhaps lacking and are you currently working on adding these?"
I think I answered correctly, if they are lacking features, the community will provide it for them. They don't need to _add_ anything if they have a plugin-system where the community will provide them with whatever they would like to se in the browser.
They have answered to that question in a way. They added plugins, see now they can wait almost a millenia before they need to upgrade because the users will do everything for them!
Som you think it is just about two "bad" companies that's complaining? The are being heard because they are the two biggest. There are lots ov AV-software out there that is great, and a lot thats free too. The argument that they should go to oblivion is one thing, but the security-market today is huge and there is a lot of different companies out there.
Short note: Who supplied the Talibans and Iraqs with weapons that did those horrible things? Who supported their actions until they wasn't needed any more?
"Now they're upset because Microsoft wants that piece of that market; in other words, Microsoft wants to profit from the fact that Windows isn't secure."
But how come Microsoft is opening up the kernel to its own security-programs. Wouldn't the platform be better of not having any at all?
And by the way, just because they want a piece of it doesn't mean that they can remove all other vendors from the pie (guess why they complain?).
Well since NASA is having problems with funding and if the Bush administration is the only thing keeping them afloat with traveling to space I'd say it isn't such a longshot...
Who is it that has made virus-software a demand on the market? Microsoft is after more than 10 years of needing third-party security software suddenly providing their own exactly the same solution as the third-parties. The problem is that Microsoft is not giving people or the rivals any choice.
If you are worried about paying for the software, you actually already pay Microsoft for their security software so what is the different, you don't like to bills instead of one or what?
No you are absolutely right, there should not be any need of "third-applications", as anti-virus, adware and such but tell that to Microsoft who is the only producer of systems that need it.
I hope the last line was sarcastic cause "optional" software is not the same thing, and if you really want to now, you can use GMail with any client that can handle POP3/IMAPI. (GMail is a service not a software.)
I'm not providing people with a choice because that is not by problem. EU has challanged Microsoft because it is [b]they[/b] who has to give that choice to people. Is that so hard to understand, or have you not read or understood what the charges from EU is?
You are saying that Microsoft does not have a choice, thats because they have never needed to. Sure I'm pretty hard on that Microsoft will have to do something that isn't damaging the rival companys. But what I really don't like with Microsofts politics is that they have realised that their software is bad and now they are filling up that "hole" by implementing something that "might" fix the problem (if it is discovered) aka. anti-virus software.
Microsoft has made treamendous upgrades in their basic security. But they still need to include new security features that check if the system has been compromised. If the same vendor that can't secure their software is going to handle the cleaning of the system, I'm pretty worried.
The "choice" that you are talking about is just third-party software. To open a dialog with other parts how to make it better and not ignoring other security experts.
You have a good point and for that if they include or offer the products for free, you still pay for it when you by a MicrosoftOS and that is probably something you will have to take in but it does make the rivals look a lot more expensive and in that manner less attractive even if they are the better option.
The question was "not to shut out rivals in the security software market" and you are saying, "it is possible to switch". Your argument is true in that way that people can change, but at that limitless knowledge that every Windows user seem to have that is a very far reach. To the people that are having trouble using Word or not even knowing there is a choice, is there really a choice?
Back to the question, how do you solve the problem with the rivals or do you just throw them out of the window?
I Would be happy not to need any anti-virus, encryptions and so on if I could but to leave that and trust Microsoft when they say secure and not having any rivals at that area is actually scaring me.
Yeah, because I would never want to use a software firewall in the first place. Who would if they could, and if there is a hardwareoption the first thing I would do was to remove all traces of Windows "security" package... (But thats in a world where Microsoft actually allows me to remove their built-in so called "features".
Well it is posted under Linux and by a poster who obviously supports Linux. The statement goes for both Vista and Ubuntu, maybe it should have been two separate articles or another heading but I don't know if it was wrong.
I'd say you can argue that if this *engine* is not on the market or a product for sale, why should I not be allowed to make my own for me? The problem with patents is that people can use them as an economic tool. You store the product and you sue anyone that creates a similar product. If I make an exact copy of an engine without either seeing the plans for it or studiing the engine, how come I can't build/sale the same product, because the other party was faster than me so I can't use my _own_ product? It sounds stupid.
Or how about patenting the double click.. Some parts of the patentsystem is kind of broken..
See, here is one that has understood the real problem with piracy. I really hope the regular consumers realises this too before we have been overwelmed with DRM-damaged products.
Slashdot Mirror
You could say the same about the bible...
The biggest problem that I see is Microsofts unwillingness to apply .odt readable OK. MS Office is often mentioned as the more "advanced" of the office suits, but test to edit equations, diagrams, and other useful functions and it fails.
The worst part of it must be that certified drivers does not always work. Most drivers that are certified does not have that quality as I feel the certification is worth it.
One thing that probably would fix the problems are open-drivers, but the companies are too afraid it might hurt them in some way. Feels like both Microsoft and the hardware companies are still left in the 90's.
I would too like to see that. But then I remembered that you said standard and a microsoft product in the same sentence... Because you don't expect mirosoft to just cut and past do you?, of course they will make a new better product.
Just because they do not know which application to use does not mean it is hard. If it is hard to find or understand it is up to them or the softwaremaker to make them see how. Sidenote: A lot of people does not know how install on Windows either so your argument fails. Try get a person to find an application that they need. If they don't know how to find it, maybe it is better to try and learn first or not bother at all.
"Looking for more customers, the company did extensive market research in poor countries." Am I the only one reacting to this? If they need to do [b]extensive market research[/b] to figure out that this is what a lot of people want (not only in africa/asia) they can't be very bright.
Well new CD:s do use DRM, haven't you ever heard about Sony?? Most major comanies put DRM on their releases. Hard to get copies that actually works in old stereos..
"what features are perhaps lacking and are you currently working on adding these?" I think I answered correctly, if they are lacking features, the community will provide it for them. They don't need to _add_ anything if they have a plugin-system where the community will provide them with whatever they would like to se in the browser.
They have answered to that question in a way. They added plugins, see now they can wait almost a millenia before they need to upgrade because the users will do everything for them!
I think it is a rather fair question to ask. They have only implemented ~50% of a standard that they said they would fully support.
Som you think it is just about two "bad" companies that's complaining? The are being heard because they are the two biggest. There are lots ov AV-software out there that is great, and a lot thats free too. The argument that they should go to oblivion is one thing, but the security-market today is huge and there is a lot of different companies out there.
Short note: Who supplied the Talibans and Iraqs with weapons that did those horrible things? Who supported their actions until they wasn't needed any more?
Does being built-in into Windows make it a good/better product? That was the question, not if Microsoft is ego-centric..
"Now they're upset because Microsoft wants that piece of that market; in other words, Microsoft wants to profit from the fact that Windows isn't secure." But how come Microsoft is opening up the kernel to its own security-programs. Wouldn't the platform be better of not having any at all? And by the way, just because they want a piece of it doesn't mean that they can remove all other vendors from the pie (guess why they complain?).
Well since NASA is having problems with funding and if the Bush administration is the only thing keeping them afloat with traveling to space I'd say it isn't such a longshot...
Who is it that has made virus-software a demand on the market? Microsoft is after more than 10 years of needing third-party security software suddenly providing their own exactly the same solution as the third-parties. The problem is that Microsoft is not giving people or the rivals any choice. If you are worried about paying for the software, you actually already pay Microsoft for their security software so what is the different, you don't like to bills instead of one or what? No you are absolutely right, there should not be any need of "third-applications", as anti-virus, adware and such but tell that to Microsoft who is the only producer of systems that need it. I hope the last line was sarcastic cause "optional" software is not the same thing, and if you really want to now, you can use GMail with any client that can handle POP3/IMAPI. (GMail is a service not a software.)
I'm not providing people with a choice because that is not by problem. EU has challanged Microsoft because it is [b]they[/b] who has to give that choice to people. Is that so hard to understand, or have you not read or understood what the charges from EU is?
You are saying that Microsoft does not have a choice, thats because they have never needed to. Sure I'm pretty hard on that Microsoft will have to do something that isn't damaging the rival companys. But what I really don't like with Microsofts politics is that they have realised that their software is bad and now they are filling up that "hole" by implementing something that "might" fix the problem (if it is discovered) aka. anti-virus software. Microsoft has made treamendous upgrades in their basic security. But they still need to include new security features that check if the system has been compromised. If the same vendor that can't secure their software is going to handle the cleaning of the system, I'm pretty worried. The "choice" that you are talking about is just third-party software. To open a dialog with other parts how to make it better and not ignoring other security experts.
You have a good point and for that if they include or offer the products for free, you still pay for it when you by a MicrosoftOS and that is probably something you will have to take in but it does make the rivals look a lot more expensive and in that manner less attractive even if they are the better option.
The question was "not to shut out rivals in the security software market" and you are saying, "it is possible to switch". Your argument is true in that way that people can change, but at that limitless knowledge that every Windows user seem to have that is a very far reach. To the people that are having trouble using Word or not even knowing there is a choice, is there really a choice? Back to the question, how do you solve the problem with the rivals or do you just throw them out of the window? I Would be happy not to need any anti-virus, encryptions and so on if I could but to leave that and trust Microsoft when they say secure and not having any rivals at that area is actually scaring me.
Yeah, because I would never want to use a software firewall in the first place. Who would if they could, and if there is a hardwareoption the first thing I would do was to remove all traces of Windows "security" package... (But thats in a world where Microsoft actually allows me to remove their built-in so called "features".
Well it is posted under Linux and by a poster who obviously supports Linux. The statement goes for both Vista and Ubuntu, maybe it should have been two separate articles or another heading but I don't know if it was wrong.
I'd say you can argue that if this *engine* is not on the market or a product for sale, why should I not be allowed to make my own for me? The problem with patents is that people can use them as an economic tool. You store the product and you sue anyone that creates a similar product. If I make an exact copy of an engine without either seeing the plans for it or studiing the engine, how come I can't build/sale the same product, because the other party was faster than me so I can't use my _own_ product? It sounds stupid. Or how about patenting the double click.. Some parts of the patentsystem is kind of broken..
See, here is one that has understood the real problem with piracy. I really hope the regular consumers realises this too before we have been overwelmed with DRM-damaged products.
Well.. That's about Sony in a nutshell, "consumers will have to correct after us", not thinking about all those other companies out there.