Steve Ballmer calls Apple's Mac growth a "rounding error" - Page 7

Originally Posted by VinitaBoy

[...]

Do NOT delude your self into believing that Microsoft bailed out Apple. Didn't happen. They bailed THEMSELVES out of just one more in a long list of ethical (not to say CRIMINAL) activities here and around the world.

Originally Posted by mrochester

This is what I've always thought. You hear about how PCs just go spectacularly wrong in this forum, and how the user has paid MILLIONS for virus software, yet my Windows PC 'just works' and I have a free antivirus installed. It's either ignorance, or trolling.

I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.

Originally Posted by mrochester

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.

Originally Posted by mrochester

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.

Originally Posted by dballecer

or....lives with someone, or visited a trusted website with a zero day flash infection, or received an email with a .doc attachment from a trusted source which was nevertheless infected with a virus. I don't think that everyone who's been infected by a PC virus is ignorant. The truly smart PC users should just avoid the internet, I guess.

What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Yeah, but an Apple dominated industry would look ALOT better than a Microsoft dominated one.

Originally Posted by dballecer

Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.

The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.

But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.

Originally Posted by dballecer

Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.

The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.

But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.

Originally Posted by mrochester

I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.

Originally Posted by mrochester

I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.

It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.

Originally Posted by dballecer

Good point. I definitely agree with that.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.

It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.

Originally Posted by mrochester

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.

Originally Posted by souliisoul

I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.

This basically a translation of your quote to allow you to see how silly it was 'Hey my country has never been to war, so I can't understand why everyone is talking about all the wars around the world'

There are many people who are probably virus free, BUT when you compare the number of people/coporations that have been infected, it is vastly significant compared to Apple community.

sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!

Originally Posted by mrochester

I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.

Originally Posted by kotatsu

If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!

Originally Posted by cdyates

Poppycock!

The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.

The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.

I think those people might have been wrong.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You don't need conspiracy theories when there are real, documented conspiracies. Microsoft did conspire to force Netscape out, but not for the reasons we might assume. Microsoft wasn't concerned with being bested in the browser market per se, they were worried that the browser might eventually make the operating system less relevant. Netscape was talking openly about this possibility. Microsoft wanted Netscape neutralized for this reason primarily. FrontPage wasn't the issue so much as ActiveX and other Microsoft-specific technologies which they pushed through their server products, as a way of marginalizing Netscape.

I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.

Originally Posted by IQ78

Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by IQ78

I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.

Here's my biased view of the browser history:

Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows

Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)

Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.

Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.

Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.

Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.

Oh well... enough conspiracy theory for today....

IAMIQ78

Originally Posted by dfiler

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Not entirely. The continued development of Office for the Mac was part of the deal Apple made with Microsoft to avoid a long court battle, which involved that, the "investment," a technology sharing arrangement, the MSIE install agreement, and many thought at the time, probably some cash behind the scenes. We don't know if Microsoft would have continued Office development for the Mac had all the rest not occurred. It was all packaged up in one big announcement.

Originally Posted by thompr

My point was that the continued development of Office for the Mac saved the Mac platform, and the (potential) investment of cash did not. While your response was an interesting dive into what all was involved with that deal, it did not refute that point.

Originally Posted by dfiler

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.

Originally Posted by VinitaBoy

@phalanx,

"That is why the they bailed them out financially years ago."

Sorry, "phal," but Microsoft did no such thing. When little Billy G's company sent $150 million to Apple "years ago," it was to keep himself and his company out of jail! Microsoft (via one of its supposed "subcontractors) was caught red-handed stealing the code from QuickTime to make its own media support system. Yes, STEALING THE CODE. Gotcha!

The settlement of this matter, accomplished out of court, was the transfer of funds you allude to, above. Believe me, there is no love lost between Microsoft and ANY of its present or former competitors: not Netscape, not Word Perfect, not anybody.

Do NOT delude your self into believing that Microsoft bailed out Apple. Didn't happen. They bailed THEMSELVES out of just one more in a long list of ethical (not to say CRIMINAL) activities here and around the world.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Trying to remember what this discussion was about...

I'd respond that no single thing saved the Mac. As far as Office is concerned, Microsoft was already committed to the next version at the time the announcement was made, so at most, Microsoft's commitment was to one more version beyond that one (which turned out to be Office X). A lot of things happened at Apple between 1997 and 2001 to save the Mac platform.

Originally Posted by dfiler

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.

Originally Posted by thompr

Let's just agree on this: that Microsoft's recommitment to Office on Mac was a NECESSARY condition for saving the platform, but it may not have been sufficient all by itself. In that case, we are BOTH right. At the time, the Mac would have been doomed without Office, but it also took a lot of other great moves by Apple (e.g. the iMac) to save it too.

Also: my memory differs from yours with respect to timing between announcement of the deal and commitment to Office for Mac. In other words, I am quite sure (because I was paying close attention to all things Mac even back then) that the information about Office for Mac and the deal we are discussing were revealed simultaneously.

Thompson

Originally Posted by dr_lha

Is that why GM went bankrupt and needed to be bailed out by the US Gov then?