M$ users.......read on

[lager_brains 0]

Quote:

Exactly.Thankyou for your politeness, having checked again I see that you are indeed correct.

As to MS & the monopoly issue - well I was going to state my opinion, but then I stopped & asked myself "what's the point?"

Thanks, because if you didn't know about not being able to remove IE, then we don't want to hear your 'opinion' of M$ and monopoly issues.

[Alien 1]

Quote:

Thanks, because if you didn't know about not being able to remove IE, then we don't want to hear your 'opinion' of M$ and monopoly issues.

As someone else pointed out earlier, it is possible, if you want to go thorugh enough hassle to do it, I was merely taking the side of those who [in court] have accused MS of making it out to be more difficult than it actually is. Personally, I think the only reason that it can't be actually removed via Add/Remove is because MS don't want you to, not because it would be too difficult.

Having said that, I still don't understand why anyone would want to remove IE. Ok, so if you were developing some sort of application specific computer, for which you had created your own proprietry software & wanted to save every last MB you could, then I could see the point. But for most other Windows users? As it has been stated time & again, there just isn't a web browser better than IE @ the moment.

[lager_brains 0]

THERE ISN'T NOW BECAUSE BY GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE THEY KILLED THE COMPETITION.

 

BLOODY HELL, IS THAT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ??

 

That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??

 

You see, by doing that, they have denied you something possibly better than what they 'forced' upon you.

 

True, you don't have to use it, but of course NOW, there isn't a decent choice, so you have NO choice but to use it.

 

All I'm asking for is a level playing field, healthy competition and therefore decent choice for the consumer. Is that being unreasonable ?

[lager_brains 0]

Quote:

That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??

And this sort of behaviour has been repeated by M$ time after time after time.

[Alien 1]

Quote:

THERE ISN'T NOW BECAUSE BY GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE THEY KILLED THE COMPETITION.

BLOODY HELL, IS THAT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ??

I understand what you are saying perfectly. I simply have difficulty reconciling your opinion with reality. I used Netscape way before IE4 was released [because it wasn't my computer & had no say in what browser was used/installed]. Even then Netscape was free, so how does MS releasing another free product kill them off? Especially when they are still around & very much alive, even if their product is crap. If Netscape Navigator was better than IE, then before long word would get around & ppl would use it instead of IE. Why aren't they doing this? Because Navigator is a vastly inferior product.

If IE was that bad when it was 1st released, & Netscape was so superior, then ppl would have simply reinstalled Netscape, or if they weren't already using it before then they would have gone looking for it. What annoys me is ppl like you who just assume that ppl are so dumb that they will just sit back & use whatever MS bundles with Windows & not go looking for alternatives if they don't like any of the bundled apps.

Also, leaving browsers aside for the moment, let's look @ another app. Media Player. Now, as I understand your position on the issue, because of MS's clout & tactics MS's apps/products are used more often than those made by the under-dogs, right? What's 1 of the most popular apps for playing music, especially MP3s? It's not Media Player is it? No, it's Winamp. It's also free, & it's not made by MS. Why is it more popular? Because ppl like it more for playing music with & choose to use that instead.

Quote:

That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??

Well if, as you say, Netscape has been killed off, don't you think you ought to let them know? Cos they obviously seem to be unaware of that, seeing as how they just released Navigator 7.0 Preview Release 1.

Quote:

You see, by doing that, they have denied you something possibly better than what they 'forced' upon you.

They haven't forced anything on me. If I wanted to use Navigator as my main browser I would. The reason I don't is because I choose IE because it is a better browser.

Quote:

True, you don't have to use it, but of course NOW, there isn't a decent choice, so you have NO choice but to use it.

What do you mean NOW there isn't a decent choice [i assume you mean a decent range/selection]? There NEVER has been. Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the reason software companies & independant programmers don't bother trying to produce a better browser is because they actually like IE & can think of better things to do with their time, such as creating other types of software.

Quote:

All I'm asking for is a level playing field, healthy competition and therefore decent choice for the consumer. Is that being unreasonable ?

Unreasonable? Perhaps not, though perhaps somewhat naive & idealistic.

[Bursar 0]

I'll have to agree with Alien there. When I first got on the net, IE was dog awful, and Navigator was a fairly decent browser. I didn't pay for Navigator, though IIRC you could pay for it (or there was a supped up version you could pay for - can't quite remember).

 

That continued pretty much up until IE 4 which just leapt ahead of Netscapes offering. I did try and continue using Navigator, as it was the browser I was most familiar with, but in the end, IE was a superior product so I switched over to it. If there was a compelling reason to stay with Navigator, I would have done.

 

Netscape are still churning out updates to Navigator, and there's Mozilla, Opera and probably a couple of others as well. That makes at least 4 different browsers to choose from. How many do you want?

 

The WinAmp point is a good one. All my MP3s are played back through it, and the only thing I use Media Player for is watching movies that I've downloaded (which I don't do particularly often).

 

Yes it would be nice if MS changed the installation options in Windows so you could have more choice about some of the stuff that gets installed. Some of it is just bloat that a lot of people don't use, but it does mean that your PC is ready to do most tasks that you could wish for as soon as it is setup.

 

I for one would be quite happy to see MS keep adding extra bits to their Operating Systems.

 

And lager_brains, do you really have to add your sig to the bottom of every post? The sig is generally several times longer than the posts you make.

[sapiens74 0]

"That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??"

 

So what you are saying is that MS kept Netscape from making a better product?

 

How is it that you want open source but yet companies to make products for profits sake? Cause the only thing I can deduce from your post is that somehow MS kept Netscape from innovating.

 

You gotta figure when Netscape and MS both released versions 4.0 of thier product that Netscape had to realize they were falling behind. By that time they still had some market share in which to work with.

 

So what did they do?

 

They waited almost 4 years to release the next full blown version.

 

THey dropped the ball plain and simple. It was the fourth courter, they had the ball, down by 2 with a chance to tie, and they threw the ball away.

 

No one to blame but themselves.

[sapiens74 0]

You gotta figure also that Netscape is no longer a small company. Even with AOLTIMEWARNER funds, bully tactics and thier market share they still cannot make a good product.

 

Thats why sloth is one of the seven biggest sins.

 

And they are guilty of it, from the time Netscape 3 was released.

[CUViper 0]

To me, all the bundling MS does is no different than a car manufacturer bundling, say, a cd-player with their cars. In some of the newer cars, the stereo is so tightly integrated that it becomes almost impossible to remove it to replace it with something else. And if you do remove it, chances are you will lose some functionality, like volume control on the steering wheel or something. So in that sense, IE is a lot like the cd player in your new car. Yet no one complains to car manufacturers for anti-competitive practices against Kenwood or Alpine...

 

Besides, seeing as Netscape is backed by AOL-Time-Warner-etc-etc, I think it's pretty ridiculous to whine about poor old Netscape.

[Yankee 0]

If the same corporations who are now suing Miscrsoft would spend the same amount of time and money developing a superior product we would all benefit.

[BladeRunner 0]

I just couldn't resist.

It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.

Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.

Here is why MS are not a monopoly.

 

1. Their product prices actually go down, to be a monopoly prices have to continue to increase.

 

2. Microsoft do not restrict supply of their products, again to be in a monopoly position a company needs to be actively restrict supply.

 

These two points alone mean that Microsoft cannot be legally classed as a monopoly.

 

A quote from PC Week about a year ago:

"A lot of companies are making a lot of money on the ubiquity of Windows, providing users with a lot of choice where they want it--on their desktops. That isn't the expected result of a monopoly."

[Alien 1]

Quote:

2. Microsoft do not restrict supply of their products, again to be in a monopoly position a company needs to be actively restrict supply.

Doesn't them refusing to do business with some OEMs if they [the OEMs] ship machines with Linux on them count as restricting supply?

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Doesn't them refusing to do business with some OEMs if they [the OEMs] ship machines with Linux on them count as restricting supply?

BMW refused to ship the X5 SUV when it first came out to dealers (much to their dismay, and they even filed a lawsuit about it but I think the dealers lost) that didn't meet their revised standards for the showroom and service areas. Many companies refuse to send product to VARs and other distribution points, and you only hear about this because it's the "in" thing to do to bash on MS.

[Bursar 0]

I wouldn't have thought so. By having OEMs that supply machines with Linux on, they are directly impacting on Microsofts sales.

 

Surely MS should have some say on the types of organisations that sell it's products.

[DeadCats 0]

1. It's great being back and seeing all my friends still about in this forum. It's been a trippy past year, moving to Alaska, etc, etc. Anyway...

2. Microsoft won OS War One by licensing DOS to IBM and retaining the rights to license it to other PC manufacturers. Apple helped them tremendously in a backhanded way, by keeping their computers' architecture proprietary, while IBM's was open for everyone to clone. Everyone did, and MS had customized versions of DOS for every one of them. A *customized* version was necessary to make them more closely *IBM-Compatible,* a phrase that has about disappeared.

3. MS won OS War Two by their dealings with OEM's. There were other operating systems around at the time, but Microsoft's was pretty much the cheapest and best choice for most users. They had the large end of the market share, but obviously Bill was no slouch. About the time Windows 3.1 had rapidly gained in popularity, and though OEM's were free to install and sell any OS, if they wanted this super-special-dirtcheap-price for Windows then they had to pay a licensing fee for EVERY PC they sold. IRREGARDLESS of what OS was loaded. Or even no OS. Smart-business, if you can get away with it, and MS did for many years.

4. Microsoft won OS War Three by being pretty decent software. Sure, some of it sucks. They all suck. So what? MS stuff seems to work the best for most folks, and hey! it's not badly priced, either.

 

My $0.02

DC

[Brian Frank 0]

Look what the cat drug in, heh:D Nice to see ya back, DC.

[clutch 1]

Welcome back, plan on sticking around?

 

[three 0]

Quote:

I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.

Here is a good site that sheds some light on the case. Also, here under Article 1. Monopoly Power is where the courts ruled that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly:

"The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings ¶¶ 18-29. The Court has further found that no firm not currently marketing Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of such consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Id. ¶¶ 18, 30-32. From these facts, the Court has inferred that if a single firm or cartel controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market - and leave the price there for a significant period of time - without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Id. ¶ 18. This inference, in turn, has led the Court to find that the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide does in fact constitute the relevant market in the context of the plaintiffs' monopoly maintenance claim. Id. "

[lager_brains 0]

Quote:

I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.

1. Their product prices actually go down, to be a monopoly prices have to continue to increase.

That is just junk. Do you understand the term 'reconstituted' ?

Just being able to ensure that NO OTHER COMPETITOR CAN COMPETE WOULD BE ENOUGH.

Quote:

2. Microsoft do not restrict supply of their products, again to be in a monopoly position a company needs to be actively restrict supply.

Are you doing this deliberately ??

Quote:

These two points alone mean that Microsoft cannot be legally classed as a monopoly.

A quote from PC Week about a year ago:
"A lot of companies are making a lot of money on the ubiquity of Windows, providing users with a lot of choice where they want it--on their desktops. That isn't the expected result of a monopoly."

Ah, quoting from a magazine. Therefore it must be true.......

To Three, don't bother, they earn their crust via M$, therefore 'they are alright Jack'.

;(

P.S. BladeRunner, how's that reply regarding Sun being bigger crooks coming along ?? You've had plenty of time to think up an answer !

[Brian Frank 0]

No competitor can compete because they haven't come up with really good alternatives. Star Office is nice and all, but it cannot beat my copy of Office 2000. If I had to use another office suite, it'd probably be Corel, since Word Perfect seems to be pretty decent, but that's about it there.

 

Also, companies don't seem to port Windows programs and games over to other platforms unless extremely popular or important. Same with drivers. I'd go Linux, but Windows is easier to use and I have no trouble getting drivers and separate software. The next best thing to Windows for me would be Mac OS X. xBSD? Nope, even more difficult than Linux. I'm not saying the alternatives to Windows necessarily suck, but they are much more of a hassle than anything else--especially the learning curve.

[DosFreak 2]

Check out OpenOffice. It's tempting me to replace my Office Xp installs at work....of course I "like" Office 2000 ebtter than Office XP so whatdoi know.

[BladeRunner 0]

Lager-Brains

 

I am attempting to find the links from which I was refering.

Those links about how SUN are in fact constantly screwing their customers over licenses.

How those people using SUN are suddenly finding that every year there are massive hikes in the license costs and they have got no choice but to continue paying it.

Those were the issues to which I was refering, but as you are one of these people who will not believe anything unless links are posted (Doubt you would even if I posted some links) then that is what I was looking for.

 

My god man, anchoring on about the same point over and over again.

 

I suggest you go and read the "legal definition" of a monopoly.

I'm not on about what you think, I'm not on about what you've just made up or decided in your head what is right and what is wrong, I'm talking about the legal definition.

 

So I point out that MS fail to meet the criterior on two points that need to be met for a company to be classed as a monopoly.

 

Those being that MS's prices do not continue to rise every year, which is absolutley correct.

Then I point out the fact that MS do not restrict the supply of their own products.

To which you and your intelligence come up with the absoluelty amazing reply:

 

Are you doing this deliberately ??

 

Well hello, maybe you'd like to explain your answer to this one.

What exactly does this line mean?

Am I doing this deliberately?

Am I doing what deliberately?

If you are asking am I deliberately posting quotes and information to back up my support for MS rather than being on a one-man crusade then the answer is yes.

 

If you are asking if I deliberately restrict the supply of my own products then the answer would be no, when users and the network need my help then I just do it, part of my job.

You really are going to have to learn to phrase your questions better.

 

So lets see.

You will not accept person experience.

You will not accept the experience of others.

You will not accept articles posted in magazines

 

What exactly will you accept?

Signed testimony from god?

 

Oh and Larger_Brains I am still waiting to hear about your connection with the computer industry.

Where your experience fits in to all this, what area of the industry you are working in.

 

It's been a while, but doesn't Solaris ship with a built in web browser?

Humm, surely this is bad for everone concerned, maybe this should be removed too I feel.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

Quote:

Check out OpenOffice. It's tempting me to replace my Office Xp installs at work....of course I "like" Office 2000 ebtter than Office XP so whatdoi know.

Sweet! Thnx for the suggestions.

[videobruce 0]

Gee...................What have I done?

 

I created a monster..............

[fish 0]

Hey Bruce,your on a MS forum you know!!!!!

Hehe!

 

For myselfe,i resolve the problem.I have dual boot!! One with the best OS ever made by MS,WIN2K,and,as a new GNU user,i have the new Mandrake 8.2....... AND I LOVE BOTH!!!!!

 

Hummmm,could i do that with my wife???....

 

 

I love you all!!!

 

Mouahahahahahahahahah!