What I find funny is there are actually people defending MS's bully tactics. Do you know how much MS has hurt technological computer progress?
What cracks me up was MS's "Freedom to innovate" propaganda. I really can't think of one thing that MS has innovated. MS is the KING of taking other people's innovations and bundling them with their OS and acting like THEY came up with it first. How is that innovation? They aren't even apologetic about it. They call Apple "R&D South"
Windows? Not a innovation
MS Office? Not a innovation
IE explorer? Not a Innovation
WMP? Not a innovation
Why does MS applications cost so much when they really don't have any R&D costs?
<strong>What I find funny is there are actually people defending MS's bully tactics. Do you know how much MS has hurt technological computer progress?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I'm willing to run with this. Why don't you outline one of the "bully tactics" Microsoft is accused of using, and we can discuss if it was a breach of the law? Whether or not Microsoft has "hurt technological computer progress" is a matter of opinion, and nothing to do with the case against them.
[quote]<strong>What cracks me up was MS's "Freedom to innovate" propaganda. I really can't think of one thing that MS has innovated. MS is the KING of taking other people's innovations and bundling them with their OS and acting like THEY came up with it first. How is that innovation? They aren't even apologetic about it. They call Apple "R&D South"
Windows? Not a innovation
MS Office? Not a innovation
IE explorer? Not a Innovation
WMP? Not a innovation</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look at the timeline of events. MS-DOS first appeared in 1981, at the request of IBM. Other manufacturers chose to use MS-DOS over any other product available in an open market. Windows 1.0 wasn't introduced until 1985, and yet in the four years since the release of MS-DOS, no competitor offered a viable alternative for the platform. Apple introduced the Macintosh, with a GUI, in 1984, and yet completely failed to capture a decent share of the market. By the late 1980s, MS-DOS (Not Windows) was installed on the majority of PCs, and yet there was no viable alternative available. In the late 1980s, Lotus held by far the biggest share of the software market, yet chose only to develop for MS-DOS.
That's the first ten years of the "personal computer". Microsoft perhaps didn't succeed by startling innovation, but what the heck does it matter, other than to feed the frenzied anti-Microsoft feeling amongst those who are angered by its competitors failure to innovate, and diabolical business sense?
[quote]<strong>Why does MS applications cost so much when they really don't have any R&D costs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume this is an attempt at humor, rather than any kind of valid discussion point?
Bogie just give it up. Doesn't matter if it took court system years and years of arguing back and forth to come to the conclusion that indeed MS practiced anti-competitive behavior.. they STILL want to argue cause somehow they know better.
[quote]<strong>Disagreeing with the law is not an excuse to break it, is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did he say the charges should have been dropped? Did he say the law shouldn't apply where it is?
I swear, for someone with political views like yours you're certainly changing gears without putting it in neutral first.
Bogie:
[quote]<strong>The Appeals Court ruled that MS's reason's for bundling IE with Windows did not prove any legitimate improvement for consumers and was illegal, it has also been shown that bundling is being done by MS not to connect the OS to the internet or multimedia but to blur the line between the OS and 3rd party software so that MS is able to squeeze out competition by using its existing OS control with the Windows monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you prove something like that?
Do comments within the code say "MUAHAHAHA, this will kill our big money rival Netscape!! MUAHAHAHA"?
It was shown that their doing so hurt Netscape and they believed it was done on purpose. There's no way in hell to PROVE it.
KidRed:
[quote]<strong>I didn't hear of IE until version 4.5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your ignorance proves what?
Sinewave:
[quote]<strong>Of course they was groverat... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Howso, all you've got on this is a rolleyes smiley.
How did Microsoft illegaly leverage its monopoly of Windows to push Netscape and Apple out of "the market."?
(Proofread your shit. "Was"? Are you EVER going to learn how to use English?)
[quote]<strong>Do you know how much MS has hurt technological computer progress?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Microsoft has done more for computing in general than any company anywhere. It's like saying your mother did all kinds of harm to you because she made a few mistakes along the way. Microsoft BUILT the personal computing market.
[quote]<strong>Oh and yeah... MS is still guilty of abusing their monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets not do more than one point at a time, otherwise we will diverge.
so...
first:
Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market - this limits their legal ability to do things that would be legal if they were not a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, you are using sweeping statements covering huge tracts of evidence and several sections of the Court of Appeal's order.
[quote]The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems[...]<hr></blockquote>
How can you possible say that Microsoft has been treated fairly when, in deciding whether or it holds a monopoly, only "Intel-compatible PC operating systems" were considered?
Now, if you dig down beyond that point in the order, you'll find summaries of umpteen different accusations leveled at Microsoft, used in determining whether or not it holds a monopoly, and whether or not it violated anti-trust laws. The District Court found several of the accusations to be incorrect, and those few that remain are hugely debatable.
If you want to prove your point, discuss the issues involved, don't insult me with platitudes.
[quote]<strong>Example: MS can not legally exclude Netscape from Windows PCs in order to help IE gain market share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, a sweeping statement. Explain why you believe that Microsoft "exclude[d] Netscape from Windows PCs", and how exactly they achieved this. Hint: It's all in the order, there's a link a few posts up, though be careful, the District Court dismissed many of them.
[quote]<strong>Bogie just give it up. Doesn't matter if it took court system years and years of arguing back and forth to come to the conclusion that indeed MS practiced anti-competitive behavior.. they STILL want to argue cause somehow they know better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sinewave, if you've grown tired of this discussion, why do you keep coming back and reciting platitudes? Is your view based upon a knowledge of the evidence involved, or are you happy to believe that our courts are beyond neither miscarriages of justice or even corruption? Have you read the District Court of Appeals order?
[quote] I'm actually glad Apple kept its mouth shut until there was something definite to comment on. <hr></blockquote>
I think this has more to do with Apple starting to wheen itself off the Microsoft bottle. Now that OSX is starting to get on its feet, and Office X is out, Apple's dependance on m$ is evapourating .... you can almost say that microsoft is the one that needs Apple ... it has no more trails to blaze in on the windows platform (hence the xbox)
Why do you think office x ONLY works on X, forcing people to upgrade to the new OS in order to use future versions of Office? Because microsoft knows, if it's ever going to sell Office in signifigant numbers ever again ... its going to need a brand new platform which people need it for. This assuming OSX gets anywhere in terms of market share. It's a ?ucking word processor for gods sake ... hard to keep justifying $500 upgrades every year.
[quote] To have this settlement come out of an *ANTI-TRUST* suit just boggles my mind. <hr></blockquote>
It's called Political lobbying.
[quote] Shouldn't Netscape's superiority have sustained it, or was Microsoft to just not produce IE?<hr></blockquote>
Heeheehee .... that's right, superior technology always prevailes. I don't think that Microsoft abused it's monopoly here ... but don't give me this piss that it won the browser war because it was better. People who knew a shit about computers used Netscape, those who didn't stuck with the default. It's as sad fact that the dumb dumbs out number everyone else 10-1.
[quote] And let's not romanticize Netscape's browsers, they weren't that good and IE was catching up very fast and overtook it quality-wise very quickly. <hr></blockquote>
Well, no big surprise... you already demonstrated in page 2 that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.... Sinewave mopped the floor with you.
[quote] And QT was far from "the standard for internet media" <hr></blockquote>
It is now
[quote] Groverat- I just read some of your posts, you need to be more informed<hr></blockquote>
There's the understatement of the year.
[quote] their OS costs 2-3 times as much for a new, non-upgrade copy? <hr></blockquote>
If you were stupid enough to shell out for the Microsoft upgrade path from '95 to XP you deserved to pay through the nose.
[quote] Their OS is their money product, not hardware.
Apple's hardware is their money product, not software.<hr></blockquote>
People get confused because Apple writes superior software to Microsoft.
[quote] Microsoft has done more for computing in general than any company anywhere .... Microsoft BUILT the personal computing market.<hr></blockquote>
Besides writing some excellent debuggers (which they desperately needed anyway) I fail to see any contributions they have provided for computing in general. The market already exsisted .. the've only offered an optional platform for non-intensive personal computing -like word processing. Your lack of examples certainly doesn't strengthen your case either.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Why do you think office x ONLY works on X, forcing people to upgrade to the new OS in order to use future versions of Office?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's all a clever ploy to get people to switch from OS9 to OSX?
Did Microsoft start selling OSX discs or are you a moron?
[quote]<strong>Because microsoft knows, if it's ever going to sell Office in signifigant numbers ever again ... its going to need a brand new platform which people need it for.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am baffled by this statement. . . you act as if Office v.X is attempting to capitalize on an operating system that actually has a chance of taking more than 5-10% of the market.
[quote]<strong>It's a ?ucking word processor for gods sake ... hard to keep justifying $500 upgrades every year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Office upgrades aren't $500.
2) It's far more than a word processor, that might be all YOU use it for. I have a warezed copy of Photoshop that I use for basic newbie crap, but I'm not stupid enough to think that's all it's used for.
[quote]<strong>People get confused because Apple writes superior software to Microsoft.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you disagree with my statement that Microsoft charges more for OS upgrades than Apple because Apple makes its money off of hardware?
The personal computing market as we see it today existed before Windows? Macs may have been out but their prohibitively high cost kept them from spreading like wildfire.
90+% of the world uses Windows, are you blind?
[quote]<strong> the've only offered an optional platform for non-intensive personal computing -like word processing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who devotes way too much to a company that isn't taken seriously by people who do serious work.
Kind of funny for a Mac user to insult Microsoft's lack of an "intensive" operating system. It also shows a dramatic lack of knowledge on your part about what Microsoft does and what Microsoft offers.
Can you people at least TRY to be maybe a TINY BIT objective?
OK, you know what, you have made me tired of the discussion, I have read the rulings, a couple times, I am not ignorant of the law, Groverats questions are ignorant of the law, Belle, I like you but you are trying to sidestep it all by saying that everything is too sweeping. At this point both of you are saying there is nothing supportable in the court system and that MS is all well and good. Its not the case, I know, and that is all that matters, I am confident in what I know, not something I am often. You guys want to retry MS and prove them innocent, fine, do it. I have one solution that I want and will never get:
MS broken in 3 parts and ALL Windows code open sourced under under the GPL.
<strong>Yes, but at no stage did Microsoft "add an ingredient" to Windows which made its competitors products turn to mush. If Microsoft had deliberately added code to deliberately hinder the performance of its competitors software, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. The Court of Appeals order admits this is not the case, and discounts any accusation of "sabotage".<hr></blockquote></strong>In the next section, they found that their Java developer tools would run Java under Windows' JVM, but break under Sun's. That was OK, except that they did it deceptively - MS had publicly stated they were behind cross-platform Java, and developers were told they were writing cross-platform, but unknown to them, they were writing only for Windows. And the court has several documents that show MS did this to kill Sun's version of Java, including an e-mail that says their goal was to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."
So, there is direct evidence that MS deliberately hindered the performance of its competitor's software - now do you wholeheartedly agree with me? You said you would.
I agree with you that it's weird that they excluded Macs from the relevant market, but then included evidence of how they treated Apple. [quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Did he say the charges should have been dropped? Did he say the law shouldn't apply where it is?
I swear, for someone with political views like yours you're certainly changing gears without putting it in neutral first. </strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I'm not sure who you mean by "he." I thought Belle was a "she."
2. She did say the charges should be dropped, and that the law was misapplied.
3. My political views are liberal Democrat, and part of that is usually skepticism of the actions of big business. So how am I changing gears? And by the way, I reserve the right to be totally inconsistent in anything I say.
[quote]Microsoft has done more for computing in general than any company anywhere. It's like saying your mother did all kinds of harm to you because she made a few mistakes along the way. Microsoft BUILT the personal computing market.
<hr></blockquote>
I am glad I wasn't drinking any liquid when I read that. It would be ALL over my screen.
Sinewave, if you've grown tired of this discussion, why do you keep coming back and reciting platitudes? Is your view based upon a knowledge of the evidence involved, or are you happy to believe that our courts are beyond neither miscarriages of justice or even corruption? Have you read the District Court of Appeals order?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know all about the proceedings. Again.. your just a apologist. Saying MS did no wrong or broke no law makes you a apologist. Take your rose colored MS glasses off sometimes.
The personal computing market as we see it today existed before Windows?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes very much so. How old are you again grover?
<strong> [quote]
Macs may have been out but their prohibitively high cost kept them from spreading like wildfire.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM clones where not much cheaper. It had to do more with big companies not seeing the need for personal computers when they had a BIg mainframe. When IBM put there name in the PC world the companies started listening. It had nothing to do with MS
<strong> [quote]
90+% of the world uses Windows, are you blind?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah yes.. nice way MS did that thing in the 80s DOS was installed in just about EVERY PC made cause of their contracts. "You can either buy DOS for each computer and pay a ridiculous amount of money that we set so you wont choose this option or you can buy a license for every PC you sell and get it REAL cheap."
Good way to grab a monopoly. Too bad the government made them stop that too in the early 90s.
That damn government. When is it going to stay out of big business deals!
BTW I am still waiting on some one to tell me what exactly MS "innovated". I mean they was fighting for the freedom to innovate.. but yet we see nothing from them that is innovative.
Look at the PC landscape as it stands today. Now ask yourself what one company has the most responsibility?
[quote]<strong>It had nothing to do with MS</strong><hr></blockquote>
What operating system, pray tell, made IBM's silicon useful?
[quote]<strong>Ah yes.. nice way MS did that thing in the 80s DOS was installed in just about EVERY PC made cause of their contracts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does this have to do with my point?
Do you have any arguments, or just bile against MS to spew?
[quote]<strong>but yet we see nothing from them that is innovative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look at the PC landscape as it stands today. Now ask yourself what one company has the most responsibility?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that has what to do with MS starting the Personal Computing market how? Nothing. What responsibility does MS have? To make sure they copy any one elses ideas and bundle them in their OS for consumers? What a tuff job indeed.
<strong> [quote]
What operating system, pray tell, made IBM's silicon useful?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but getting people to use these machine had nothing to do with MS DOS being installed. It had to do with the IBM name. No one really cared about MS. Not one person bought a PC cause MS made the OS. It's cause IBM had a hand it in.
[quote]<strong>
What does this have to do with my point?
Do you have any arguments, or just bile against MS to spew?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It has everything to do with your point sugar tits. MS got the 90% because of this VERY reason. It surely wasn't because of innovation or quality.
[quote]
You will never see what you choose not to see.
<hr></blockquote>
Can't see something that's not there grover. MS has done very little .. if any actual innovation. They are THE generic brand for the computer world. They make copies of original ideas.. bundle them with their generic OS and charge non-generic prices.
Mostly I want to hear the answer to Sinewave's innovation question.
What has MS innovated?
Not DOS - see QDOS
Not Office - bought from outside
Not IE - bought from outside
Not the Windows GUI - hello? They had access as a developer to Mac OS source code for the interface so they could develop for it.
Not 802.11 [AirPort - Apple and Lucent]
Not 1394 [FireWire Apple and some other people]
Not CD ROM support - Windows still treats bootable CDs as floppies ... does that even make sense?
So yeah, I am lost, was Outlook developed by MS? Its not really innovative at all, but it would be something, was the NT kernel done in house? Those two I honestly don't know about.
Comments
What cracks me up was MS's "Freedom to innovate" propaganda. I really can't think of one thing that MS has innovated. MS is the KING of taking other people's innovations and bundling them with their OS and acting like THEY came up with it first. How is that innovation? They aren't even apologetic about it. They call Apple "R&D South"
Windows? Not a innovation
MS Office? Not a innovation
IE explorer? Not a Innovation
WMP? Not a innovation
Why does MS applications cost so much when they really don't have any R&D costs?
I just thought if I'd repeat it more often it would eventually sink in for those in denial
<strong>What I find funny is there are actually people defending MS's bully tactics. Do you know how much MS has hurt technological computer progress?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I'm willing to run with this. Why don't you outline one of the "bully tactics" Microsoft is accused of using, and we can discuss if it was a breach of the law? Whether or not Microsoft has "hurt technological computer progress" is a matter of opinion, and nothing to do with the case against them.
[quote]<strong>What cracks me up was MS's "Freedom to innovate" propaganda. I really can't think of one thing that MS has innovated. MS is the KING of taking other people's innovations and bundling them with their OS and acting like THEY came up with it first. How is that innovation? They aren't even apologetic about it. They call Apple "R&D South"
Windows? Not a innovation
MS Office? Not a innovation
IE explorer? Not a Innovation
WMP? Not a innovation</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look at the timeline of events. MS-DOS first appeared in 1981, at the request of IBM. Other manufacturers chose to use MS-DOS over any other product available in an open market. Windows 1.0 wasn't introduced until 1985, and yet in the four years since the release of MS-DOS, no competitor offered a viable alternative for the platform. Apple introduced the Macintosh, with a GUI, in 1984, and yet completely failed to capture a decent share of the market. By the late 1980s, MS-DOS (Not Windows) was installed on the majority of PCs, and yet there was no viable alternative available. In the late 1980s, Lotus held by far the biggest share of the software market, yet chose only to develop for MS-DOS.
That's the first ten years of the "personal computer". Microsoft perhaps didn't succeed by startling innovation, but what the heck does it matter, other than to feed the frenzied anti-Microsoft feeling amongst those who are angered by its competitors failure to innovate, and diabolical business sense?
[quote]<strong>Why does MS applications cost so much when they really don't have any R&D costs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume this is an attempt at humor, rather than any kind of valid discussion point?
Lets not do more than one point at a time, otherwise we will diverge.
so...
first:
Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market - this limits their legal ability to do things that would be legal if they were not a monopoly.
Example: MS can not legally exclude Netscape from Windows PCs in order to help IE gain market share.
[quote]<strong>Disagreeing with the law is not an excuse to break it, is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did he say the charges should have been dropped? Did he say the law shouldn't apply where it is?
I swear, for someone with political views like yours you're certainly changing gears without putting it in neutral first.
Bogie:
[quote]<strong>The Appeals Court ruled that MS's reason's for bundling IE with Windows did not prove any legitimate improvement for consumers and was illegal, it has also been shown that bundling is being done by MS not to connect the OS to the internet or multimedia but to blur the line between the OS and 3rd party software so that MS is able to squeeze out competition by using its existing OS control with the Windows monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you prove something like that?
Do comments within the code say "MUAHAHAHA, this will kill our big money rival Netscape!! MUAHAHAHA"?
It was shown that their doing so hurt Netscape and they believed it was done on purpose. There's no way in hell to PROVE it.
KidRed:
[quote]<strong>I didn't hear of IE until version 4.5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your ignorance proves what?
Sinewave:
[quote]<strong>Of course they was groverat... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Howso, all you've got on this is a rolleyes smiley.
How did Microsoft illegaly leverage its monopoly of Windows to push Netscape and Apple out of "the market."?
(Proofread your shit. "Was"? Are you EVER going to learn how to use English?)
[quote]<strong>Do you know how much MS has hurt technological computer progress?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Microsoft has done more for computing in general than any company anywhere. It's like saying your mother did all kinds of harm to you because she made a few mistakes along the way. Microsoft BUILT the personal computing market.
[quote]<strong>Oh and yeah... MS is still guilty of abusing their monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but nothing to do with Netscape or Apple.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>OK Belle,
Lets not do more than one point at a time, otherwise we will diverge.
so...
first:
Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market - this limits their legal ability to do things that would be legal if they were not a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, you are using sweeping statements covering huge tracts of evidence and several sections of the Court of Appeal's order.
[quote]The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems[...]<hr></blockquote>
How can you possible say that Microsoft has been treated fairly when, in deciding whether or it holds a monopoly, only "Intel-compatible PC operating systems" were considered?
Now, if you dig down beyond that point in the order, you'll find summaries of umpteen different accusations leveled at Microsoft, used in determining whether or not it holds a monopoly, and whether or not it violated anti-trust laws. The District Court found several of the accusations to be incorrect, and those few that remain are hugely debatable.
If you want to prove your point, discuss the issues involved, don't insult me with platitudes.
[quote]<strong>Example: MS can not legally exclude Netscape from Windows PCs in order to help IE gain market share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, a sweeping statement. Explain why you believe that Microsoft "exclude[d] Netscape from Windows PCs", and how exactly they achieved this. Hint: It's all in the order, there's a link a few posts up, though be careful, the District Court dismissed many of them.
[quote]<strong>Bogie just give it up. Doesn't matter if it took court system years and years of arguing back and forth to come to the conclusion that indeed MS practiced anti-competitive behavior.. they STILL want to argue cause somehow they know better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sinewave, if you've grown tired of this discussion, why do you keep coming back and reciting platitudes? Is your view based upon a knowledge of the evidence involved, or are you happy to believe that our courts are beyond neither miscarriages of justice or even corruption? Have you read the District Court of Appeals order?
I think this has more to do with Apple starting to wheen itself off the Microsoft bottle. Now that OSX is starting to get on its feet, and Office X is out, Apple's dependance on m$ is evapourating .... you can almost say that microsoft is the one that needs Apple ... it has no more trails to blaze in on the windows platform (hence the xbox)
Why do you think office x ONLY works on X, forcing people to upgrade to the new OS in order to use future versions of Office? Because microsoft knows, if it's ever going to sell Office in signifigant numbers ever again ... its going to need a brand new platform which people need it for. This assuming OSX gets anywhere in terms of market share. It's a ?ucking word processor for gods sake ... hard to keep justifying $500 upgrades every year.
[quote] To have this settlement come out of an *ANTI-TRUST* suit just boggles my mind. <hr></blockquote>
It's called Political lobbying.
[quote] Shouldn't Netscape's superiority have sustained it, or was Microsoft to just not produce IE?<hr></blockquote>
Heeheehee .... that's right, superior technology always prevailes. I don't think that Microsoft abused it's monopoly here ... but don't give me this piss that it won the browser war because it was better. People who knew a shit about computers used Netscape, those who didn't stuck with the default. It's as sad fact that the dumb dumbs out number everyone else 10-1.
[quote] And let's not romanticize Netscape's browsers, they weren't that good and IE was catching up very fast and overtook it quality-wise very quickly. <hr></blockquote>
Well, no big surprise... you already demonstrated in page 2 that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.... Sinewave mopped the floor with you.
[quote] And QT was far from "the standard for internet media" <hr></blockquote>
It is now
[quote] Groverat- I just read some of your posts, you need to be more informed<hr></blockquote>
There's the understatement of the year.
[quote] their OS costs 2-3 times as much for a new, non-upgrade copy? <hr></blockquote>
If you were stupid enough to shell out for the Microsoft upgrade path from '95 to XP you deserved to pay through the nose.
[quote] Their OS is their money product, not hardware.
Apple's hardware is their money product, not software.<hr></blockquote>
People get confused because Apple writes superior software to Microsoft.
[quote] Microsoft has done more for computing in general than any company anywhere .... Microsoft BUILT the personal computing market.<hr></blockquote>
Besides writing some excellent debuggers (which they desperately needed anyway) I fail to see any contributions they have provided for computing in general. The market already exsisted .. the've only offered an optional platform for non-intensive personal computing -like word processing. Your lack of examples certainly doesn't strengthen your case either.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
It's all a clever ploy to get people to switch from OS9 to OSX?
Did Microsoft start selling OSX discs or are you a moron?
[quote]<strong>Because microsoft knows, if it's ever going to sell Office in signifigant numbers ever again ... its going to need a brand new platform which people need it for.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am baffled by this statement. . . you act as if Office v.X is attempting to capitalize on an operating system that actually has a chance of taking more than 5-10% of the market.
[quote]<strong>It's a ?ucking word processor for gods sake ... hard to keep justifying $500 upgrades every year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Office upgrades aren't $500.
2) It's far more than a word processor, that might be all YOU use it for. I have a warezed copy of Photoshop that I use for basic newbie crap, but I'm not stupid enough to think that's all it's used for.
[quote]<strong>People get confused because Apple writes superior software to Microsoft.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you disagree with my statement that Microsoft charges more for OS upgrades than Apple because Apple makes its money off of hardware?
[quote]<strong>The market already exsisted ..</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a joke.
The personal computing market as we see it today existed before Windows? Macs may have been out but their prohibitively high cost kept them from spreading like wildfire.
90+% of the world uses Windows, are you blind?
[quote]<strong> the've only offered an optional platform for non-intensive personal computing -like word processing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who devotes way too much to a company that isn't taken seriously by people who do serious work.
Kind of funny for a Mac user to insult Microsoft's lack of an "intensive" operating system. It also shows a dramatic lack of knowledge on your part about what Microsoft does and what Microsoft offers.
Can you people at least TRY to be maybe a TINY BIT objective?
MS broken in 3 parts and ALL Windows code open sourced under under the GPL.
<strong>Yes, but at no stage did Microsoft "add an ingredient" to Windows which made its competitors products turn to mush. If Microsoft had deliberately added code to deliberately hinder the performance of its competitors software, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. The Court of Appeals order admits this is not the case, and discounts any accusation of "sabotage".<hr></blockquote></strong>In the next section, they found that their Java developer tools would run Java under Windows' JVM, but break under Sun's. That was OK, except that they did it deceptively - MS had publicly stated they were behind cross-platform Java, and developers were told they were writing cross-platform, but unknown to them, they were writing only for Windows. And the court has several documents that show MS did this to kill Sun's version of Java, including an e-mail that says their goal was to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."
So, there is direct evidence that MS deliberately hindered the performance of its competitor's software - now do you wholeheartedly agree with me? You said you would.
I agree with you that it's weird that they excluded Macs from the relevant market, but then included evidence of how they treated Apple. [quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>BRussell:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagreeing with the law is not an excuse to break it, is it?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he say the charges should have been dropped? Did he say the law shouldn't apply where it is?
I swear, for someone with political views like yours you're certainly changing gears without putting it in neutral first. </strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I'm not sure who you mean by "he." I thought Belle was a "she."
2. She did say the charges should be dropped, and that the law was misapplied.
3. My political views are liberal Democrat, and part of that is usually skepticism of the actions of big business. So how am I changing gears? And by the way, I reserve the right to be totally inconsistent in anything I say.
HAHAHA!
If only everyone could have a name traditionally attributed to a man, Mr. B. Russel.
<hr></blockquote>
I am glad I wasn't drinking any liquid when I read that. It would be ALL over my screen.
<strong>
Sinewave, if you've grown tired of this discussion, why do you keep coming back and reciting platitudes? Is your view based upon a knowledge of the evidence involved, or are you happy to believe that our courts are beyond neither miscarriages of justice or even corruption? Have you read the District Court of Appeals order?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know all about the proceedings. Again.. your just a apologist. Saying MS did no wrong or broke no law makes you a apologist. Take your rose colored MS glasses off sometimes.
<strong>
That's a joke.
The personal computing market as we see it today existed before Windows?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes
<strong> [quote]
Macs may have been out but their prohibitively high cost kept them from spreading like wildfire.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM clones where not much cheaper. It had to do more with big companies not seeing the need for personal computers when they had a BIg mainframe. When IBM put there name in the PC world the companies started listening. It had nothing to do with MS
<strong> [quote]
90+% of the world uses Windows, are you blind?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah yes.. nice way MS did that thing in the 80s DOS was installed in just about EVERY PC made cause of their contracts. "You can either buy DOS for each computer and pay a ridiculous amount of money that we set so you wont choose this option or you can buy a license for every PC you sell and get it REAL cheap."
Good way to grab a monopoly. Too bad the government made them stop that too in the early 90s.
That damn government. When is it going to stay out of big business deals!
Maybe it was just Propaganda. Naw couldn't be.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any refute?
Look at the PC landscape as it stands today. Now ask yourself what one company has the most responsibility?
[quote]<strong>It had nothing to do with MS</strong><hr></blockquote>
What operating system, pray tell, made IBM's silicon useful?
[quote]<strong>Ah yes.. nice way MS did that thing in the 80s DOS was installed in just about EVERY PC made cause of their contracts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does this have to do with my point?
Do you have any arguments, or just bile against MS to spew?
[quote]<strong>but yet we see nothing from them that is innovative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You will never see what you choose not to see.
<strong>
Do you have any refute?
Look at the PC landscape as it stands today. Now ask yourself what one company has the most responsibility?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that has what to do with MS starting the Personal Computing market how? Nothing. What responsibility does MS have? To make sure they copy any one elses ideas and bundle them in their OS for consumers? What a tuff job indeed.
<strong> [quote]
What operating system, pray tell, made IBM's silicon useful?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but getting people to use these machine had nothing to do with MS DOS being installed. It had to do with the IBM name. No one really cared about MS. Not one person bought a PC cause MS made the OS. It's cause IBM had a hand it in.
[quote]<strong>
What does this have to do with my point?
Do you have any arguments, or just bile against MS to spew?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It has everything to do with your point sugar tits. MS got the 90% because of this VERY reason. It surely wasn't because of innovation or quality.
[quote]
You will never see what you choose not to see.
<hr></blockquote>
Can't see something that's not there grover. MS has done very little .. if any actual innovation. They are THE generic brand for the computer world. They make copies of original ideas.. bundle them with their generic OS and charge non-generic prices.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
Mostly I want to hear the answer to Sinewave's innovation question.
What has MS innovated?
Not DOS - see QDOS
Not Office - bought from outside
Not IE - bought from outside
Not the Windows GUI - hello? They had access as a developer to Mac OS source code for the interface so they could develop for it.
Not 802.11 [AirPort - Apple and Lucent]
Not 1394 [FireWire Apple and some other people]
Not CD ROM support - Windows still treats bootable CDs as floppies ... does that even make sense?
So yeah, I am lost, was Outlook developed by MS? Its not really innovative at all, but it would be something, was the NT kernel done in house? Those two I honestly don't know about.