I can see what you're saying, but I do consider the browser to be an integral part of the modern operating system. There's *so* much stuff that relies upon web connectivity that it's hard to argue that it should be a separate product. I know that Microsoft has used unfair tactics in the marketplace, but I don't think this is one of them.
By the same argument, you could argue that the mini calculator application market has been depleted by Microsoft's inclusion of Calculator. Or Notepad. Or Freecell. Ten years ago, connecting to the network was a separate application. Today, it's ludicrous to think of an OS without network connectivity. Same goes for multi-tasking interfaces (remember DesqView?). Operating systems evolve as does our definition, so we should be ready to accept its changing face, not stick to a hard "no bundling" rule.
I'm Korean, too (check the username), but you're clearly over defensive here. The user said nothing about the U.S. being better than Korea; nothing about the U.S. at all, in fact. The article is a bit much in that it has the potential to portray Koreans in an overly negative light, but this always happens when you write a select group. Sometimes, you just need to take it for face value and not try to read into it.
Methinks media should write about the horrors of your President Bush before writing about the horrors of addictive gaming tendencies of Koreans.
I think this is a really BS argument because that's equivalent to saying that every article out there should be about the most significant piece of news out there in the world, which means that we'd get a newspaper about a single topic every morning. We'd never hear about the girl down the street that won a science fair because it's less significant. The truth is that reporters DO write articles about the problems with the US everyday. How many articles have you read in the last 10 years about various problems in the US? How many about game addicted Koreans? You do the math.
You and I both know there are a lot more to Koreans than being glued to 19" monitors, but this is not the way to react.
You're mixing two completely separate charges against Microsoft: 1) they illegally bundled IE with Windows and 2) Microsoft used monopoly power to force OEMs to selling its product.
For #1, my argument is that I consider the browser to be an important part of the modern operating system. Just like network drivers and multi-language fonts, which were once separate products that companies marketed, but are now seamlessly integrated into the OS and the world is a better place for it. Five years from now, I think it'll be much more clear how important the paradigm of the browser (whether to use the web or not) has been. Of course, you can say that you can still use an OS without a browser, but a consumer OS require a browser these days. Just like a computer can still be useful without a network and multi-language fonts, but why would you want to do that?
If you're gonna bash Microsoft, please do so using logical reasoning and a solid legal basis. That's akin to saying that you didn't like the preset stations that came with your car and you're suing for the five minutes it took to set them up again. Lost productivity cannot be recovered through legal means.
You're drawing conclusions from the author's statements that weren't made. No, the author did not say that it was acceptable for Microsoft to not patch previous versions. No, the author did not say that it was the best means of getting information out. Don't pin the author down for something that he didn't say.
No, that's not true. Microsoft does a decent job of publicizing its updates on its webpages. WindowsUpdate is a very nice tool and I wish it had more features, but it *does* do security updates. I'm not sure if all of them are mentioned, but there have been numerous Critical Updates that I was informed about (either through the System Tray applet or from another source). If you click on Downloads from any Windows 2000 homepage (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/profes sional/overview/ is one), you'll see that there are a number of security updates listed in reverse chronological order. They briefly indicate what they're fixing and greater detail is linked once you click on a particular patch. Like I said, I don't know if every one of them is mentioned in the WindowsUpdate site, but I recognize several of them.
If you think that AV or Google is a replacement for Yahoo, you're mostly wrong. Yahoo displays stuff in categories, which makes it easy to find sites about a particular topic. Search engines are designed to locate a particular piece of information. This is an important distinction.
I used to use Yahoo and Lycos (when it was king of the search engines), and then Yahoo and AV, and then Yahoo and HotBot, and then Lycos and Google. Now I pretty much just use Google and Google Directory. Sorting information is different from finding it. This is particularly useful for thinking, "I wonder which big sites there are about video games." You can get a nice sorted list, broken down by authority as well as the different platforms or genres. If you type in "video game websites" into Google, you get a few good hits, but mostly a laundry list.
Did you even READ the article? They're using it for some cheesy portion of a website -- for dissemination of information. I don't know what they use, but I can tell you this: they won't stake the lives of astronauts and billion dollar satellites on MySQL.
Your school is then responsible for your lack of privacy, not you, as web bugs have nothing to do with it. If they were interested in your privacy, they'd put you behind a proxy.
Hot rodder... or rice-boy? Poseurs that are theorizing about every ounce of extra power when they'd be better off saving their cash and buying a better car? That's why you get the 5" coffee-can exhaust tip. Or the 20" high spoiler that makes the poor car look like a shopping cart? Or the cheesy blue headlights?
If consumers don't know that something better is out there, then that's going to be the fault of the consumer regardless of what product we're talking about, whether it's an OS, a car, or a mousetrap. That's where marketing comes in and that's where MSFT has the undeniable advantage. Consumers are stupid... but you knew that.:)
The problem is that they charge $100 per MHz per processor. I think the licensing system is fine, but at those rates, a dual processor 600 MHz machine will cost you $120k. That's an obscene price.
You're right about not enough people knowing how to configure their own machines, but Windows 2000 installs are more painless than Redhat 7, for example. I was up and running in an hour with Win2k, but it took me a couple of days to get the right Tulip driver to work with my Ethernet card.
I do have to disagree with your claim about too little too late. That's like saying that Linux is an OS just for Dew-drinking hackers. For years, it's been hyped, but it's still not ready for primetime.
Wait, so you're saying all those companies are worth it? That PE ratios of greater than 300 were valid? Cisco was worth hundreds of billions of dollars? What about eBay, Amazon.com, Priceline, eToys, Pets.com, and dozens of other ones? The list goes on and on... MSFT had nothing to do with the bullshit business plans they created.
Nonsense! SQL Server is junk. People who deal with large/complicated datasets recommend either DB2 (the proper mainframe version) or Oracle. MS SQL Server is a toy.
Oh, really? Even if it was an inferior product to SQL Server, it's keeping the costs of developing real database applications artificially low. $1500 for a SQL Server license is NOTHING compared to an equivalent license from IBM and especially Oracle (charging by the MHz? That's obscene!) While Oracle is a superior product and DB2 has its advantages, nothing is as easy to use and flexible as SQL 7 or SQL 2000. Right click for everything and there's a product you can put into production in an afternoon.
Linux was released in 1991. It was usable for my purposes in 1992 (I dumped Interactive for it).
So you expect secretaries to have moved to Linux in 1992? You're kidding, right? An eight year old could play his games and use Prodigy in 1992. Where was Linux then? Go ask your mother what she would rather do. Put 1992 Windows and 1992 Linux in front of her and see which one she picks. Hell, she would even have the ADVANATAGE of having Linux configured and placed in front of her and she'll STILL pick Windows. THAT is what this argument comes down to.
When Word started to dominate the market it was demonstrably inferior to WordPerfect. Word had an inferior interface. Word was slower and consumed more disk. Word corrupted your documents on a regular basis. Word supported fewer printers. Word had fewer features. At the time I always thought Word was a rather poor knockoff of MultiMate, and nowhere near as good as WordPerfect.
No, when Word started to take the market is when it had a version in Windows that introduced a novel concept: WYSIWYG. No, WordPerfect 5 didn't have it -- it was amazing that it simply supported a mouse. I used WP5 all the time until I saw the power of WYSIWYG editing. No longer did I have to view a separate screen to see what it was going to look like Word 2.0 started it and it stuck. WP was too late to the game with that. I can't really fault them for not having the advantage of getting their hands on Windows early on, but if WP5 was clearly a better product, you'd still see it today on every desktop.
You make some good points, but I had to respond to these.
That's ridiculous. I can be sued for libel by a company that I never worked for. Or by a person that I never met. You don't have to agree to not libel or slander anyone in order to be accused of it.
At night, a lot of servers see a tiny fraction of their normal day use, but a machine or two may still be needed. During the day, the full 20 machines may be required. Someone did their job, but the drastic changes in load necessitate the idle machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Why aren't you building your own installation CDs? You should be able to create your own SP'd install kits, self-install or not. RTFM.
I can see what you're saying, but I do consider the browser to be an integral part of the modern operating system. There's *so* much stuff that relies upon web connectivity that it's hard to argue that it should be a separate product. I know that Microsoft has used unfair tactics in the marketplace, but I don't think this is one of them. By the same argument, you could argue that the mini calculator application market has been depleted by Microsoft's inclusion of Calculator. Or Notepad. Or Freecell. Ten years ago, connecting to the network was a separate application. Today, it's ludicrous to think of an OS without network connectivity. Same goes for multi-tasking interfaces (remember DesqView?). Operating systems evolve as does our definition, so we should be ready to accept its changing face, not stick to a hard "no bundling" rule.
Nah, you can still read the text from the article here:c tion=reply&forum=TiVo+Underground&number=6&topic=0 05438.cgi&TopicSubject=Otto+Re:+Nag+Screens
http://www.avsforum.com/ubbcgitivo/postings.cgi?a
Huh? "A Civil Action" is based on a true story: W. R. Grace and the dumping of toxins in Woburn, MA.
Yahoo's list of related sites
I think this is a really BS argument because that's equivalent to saying that every article out there should be about the most significant piece of news out there in the world, which means that we'd get a newspaper about a single topic every morning. We'd never hear about the girl down the street that won a science fair because it's less significant. The truth is that reporters DO write articles about the problems with the US everyday. How many articles have you read in the last 10 years about various problems in the US? How many about game addicted Koreans? You do the math.
You and I both know there are a lot more to Koreans than being glued to 19" monitors, but this is not the way to react.
You're mixing two completely separate charges against Microsoft: 1) they illegally bundled IE with Windows and 2) Microsoft used monopoly power to force OEMs to selling its product.
For #1, my argument is that I consider the browser to be an important part of the modern operating system. Just like network drivers and multi-language fonts, which were once separate products that companies marketed, but are now seamlessly integrated into the OS and the world is a better place for it. Five years from now, I think it'll be much more clear how important the paradigm of the browser (whether to use the web or not) has been. Of course, you can say that you can still use an OS without a browser, but a consumer OS require a browser these days. Just like a computer can still be useful without a network and multi-language fonts, but why would you want to do that?
If you're gonna bash Microsoft, please do so using logical reasoning and a solid legal basis. That's akin to saying that you didn't like the preset stations that came with your car and you're suing for the five minutes it took to set them up again. Lost productivity cannot be recovered through legal means.
They didn't say that. Read it again. They're saying that it will happen LESS.
You're drawing conclusions from the author's statements that weren't made. No, the author did not say that it was acceptable for Microsoft to not patch previous versions. No, the author did not say that it was the best means of getting information out. Don't pin the author down for something that he didn't say.
No, that's not true. Microsoft does a decent job of publicizing its updates on its webpages. WindowsUpdate is a very nice tool and I wish it had more features, but it *does* do security updates. I'm not sure if all of them are mentioned, but there have been numerous Critical Updates that I was informed about (either through the System Tray applet or from another source). If you click on Downloads from any Windows 2000 homepage (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/profes sional/overview/ is one), you'll see that there are a number of security updates listed in reverse chronological order. They briefly indicate what they're fixing and greater detail is linked once you click on a particular patch. Like I said, I don't know if every one of them is mentioned in the WindowsUpdate site, but I recognize several of them.
MediaOne/AT&T Road Runner in the Boston area is very good. I've seen consistent 1.7 Mbps transfers down and 300k/s up. Hardly ever drops out.
Ranting and raving is one thing. Keep your First Amendment. But making intelligent arguments is a whole different ballgame.
If you think that AV or Google is a replacement for Yahoo, you're mostly wrong. Yahoo displays stuff in categories, which makes it easy to find sites about a particular topic. Search engines are designed to locate a particular piece of information. This is an important distinction.
I used to use Yahoo and Lycos (when it was king of the search engines), and then Yahoo and AV, and then Yahoo and HotBot, and then Lycos and Google. Now I pretty much just use Google and Google Directory. Sorting information is different from finding it. This is particularly useful for thinking, "I wonder which big sites there are about video games." You can get a nice sorted list, broken down by authority as well as the different platforms or genres. If you type in "video game websites" into Google, you get a few good hits, but mostly a laundry list.
Did you even READ the article? They're using it for some cheesy portion of a website -- for dissemination of information. I don't know what they use, but I can tell you this: they won't stake the lives of astronauts and billion dollar satellites on MySQL.
Your school is then responsible for your lack of privacy, not you, as web bugs have nothing to do with it. If they were interested in your privacy, they'd put you behind a proxy.
http://www.beaterz.com/
Hot rodder ... or rice-boy? Poseurs that are theorizing about every ounce of extra power when they'd be better off saving their cash and buying a better car? That's why you get the 5" coffee-can exhaust tip. Or the 20" high spoiler that makes the poor car look like a shopping cart? Or the cheesy blue headlights?
http://www.riceboypage.com/http://www.beaterz.com/
If consumers don't know that something better is out there, then that's going to be the fault of the consumer regardless of what product we're talking about, whether it's an OS, a car, or a mousetrap. That's where marketing comes in and that's where MSFT has the undeniable advantage. Consumers are stupid ... but you knew that. :)
The problem is that they charge $100 per MHz per processor. I think the licensing system is fine, but at those rates, a dual processor 600 MHz machine will cost you $120k. That's an obscene price.
I do have to disagree with your claim about too little too late. That's like saying that Linux is an OS just for Dew-drinking hackers. For years, it's been hyped, but it's still not ready for primetime.
Wait, so you're saying all those companies are worth it? That PE ratios of greater than 300 were valid? Cisco was worth hundreds of billions of dollars? What about eBay, Amazon.com, Priceline, eToys, Pets.com, and dozens of other ones? The list goes on and on ... MSFT had nothing to do with the bullshit business plans they created.
And this scenario is worse than just stashing the item in your pocket now?
That's ridiculous. I can be sued for libel by a company that I never worked for. Or by a person that I never met. You don't have to agree to not libel or slander anyone in order to be accused of it.
At night, a lot of servers see a tiny fraction of their normal day use, but a machine or two may still be needed. During the day, the full 20 machines may be required. Someone did their job, but the drastic changes in load necessitate the idle machines.