PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft FINALLY succumbs to antitrust punishment



Basil
25-07-2009, 08:44 PM
A long-time Microsoft antitrust champion on this board (moi) is very pleased to spread the word that Microsoft has finally succumbed to heavy fines (they certainly didn't grow a conscience) and for the first time, the software monopoly, I mean giant, will give users a choice as to which browser can used (http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25833007-5014108,00.html) on Windows 7.

Why users would use Windoze and not a mac is different topic entirely ;)

Garrett
26-07-2009, 06:07 AM
I use Windows and I thought I already had a choice of which browser to use :hmm:

What's stopping anyone from going to Mozilla.org and getting Firefox ?

If Opera was any good they would have more than 4 percent of internet traffic already, perhaps they could stop wingeing and work on their product a bit more.

What sort of lefty, hit the tall-poppy, bullcrap will they think of next :wall:

Garrett

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2009, 05:41 PM
I use Windows and I thought I already had a choice of which browser to use :hmm:

What's stopping anyone from going to Mozilla.org and getting Firefox ?

If Opera was any good they would have more than 4 percent of internet traffic already, perhaps they could stop wingeing and work on their product a bit more.

What sort of lefty, hit the tall-poppy, bullcrap will they think of next :wall:

Garrett

Let me second that.

Trahald
26-07-2009, 06:56 PM
I guess all those years of using firefox under my windows operating system were just an illusion then, seeing as Microsoft never gave me a choice and all.:confused:

On a side note, as someone who has never installed, nor upgraded a Mac O/S, do Apple offer a choice of browser other than Safari?

Basil
26-07-2009, 06:58 PM
On a side note, as someone who has never installed, nor upgraded a Mac O/S, do Apple offer a choice of browser other than Safari?
I don't believe so!

Basil
26-07-2009, 07:08 PM
As to the ramblings of my two learned (and slightly loopy) PC friends above, I believe the antitrust problem is solved at somewhat the same time as it is moot. By that I mean that in the last couple of years at most, PC drones the world over have finally had their myopic goggles ripped off.

1. Apple i-everythings are everywhere. Gobbled at alarming rates by PC drones, I might add!
2. Microsoft is now readily dissed by its loyal followers. There isn't a person on the planet who actually believes the product is quality.
3. The drones now believe a Mozilla product may actually be a bit sharper than previously loved Microsoft second-rate offerings.

These things are new phenomena. 24 months ago, people like me (and that guy from Opera) were complaining that people like you were entirely clueless and were being duped. And we were right! You were all largely clueless as you filled PC fixit shops every Saturday. And little missie wanted daddy to tell her when the computer would be fixed.

And now you've woken up. It is true that you all can navigate and make your own grown-up choices as to browser - but you didn't believe that 24 months ago. And you weren't downloading Firefox. That's the point.

Carry on!

Trahald
26-07-2009, 07:13 PM
Scoundrels!:) :shhh:

PS Mac is a fine O/S. Used it regularly in my days as an IT student. Still prefer Windows though.:eek:

Re point 2 above. The competition from Apple and Linux is great, and I hope it continues to grow, since it does force MS to lift their game significantly. I've been using Windows 7 RC as my main OS since it was released, and you would have to drag me kicking and screaming back to XP now, not to mention Vista.;)

Basil
26-07-2009, 07:14 PM
Still prefer Windows though.:eek:
:eek:

Call me. I can help :D

Trahald
26-07-2009, 07:23 PM
I think I'm beyond help;)

Desmond
27-07-2009, 08:56 AM
And now you've woken up. It is true that you all can navigate and make your own grown-up choices as to browser - but you didn't believe that 24 months ago. And you weren't downloading Firefox. That's the point.24 months? Try 5 years.

Basil
27-07-2009, 10:35 AM
24 months? Try 5 years.
Is that how long you think it's been since the plonkers have been sufficiently self-aware and brave to break from the bosom? :D

It's a matter of perception of course. You are in the industry and perhaps you are well-placed to determine. Equally it could be argued that you are exposed more heavily to more savvy users and your 'five years' is when you noticed the awakening starting, but not when it had become sufficiently widespread throughout the 'Sharon and Darren' community.

Desmond
27-07-2009, 11:07 AM
Is that how long you think it's been since the plonkers have been sufficiently self-aware and brave to break from the bosom? :D

It's a matter of perception of course. You are in the industry and perhaps you are well-placed to determine. Equally it could be argued that you are exposed more heavily to more savvy users and your 'five years' is when you noticed the awakening starting, but not when it had become sufficiently widespread throughout the 'Sharon and Darren' community.
None of the above, I mentioned it because I remember when I first used Firefox and it was 2004. I used to play with different browsers a bit but I don't bother much anymore. I tend to think this whole issue is rather moot but I wasn't going to make a big deal out of it.

I prefer to have a browser provided with the OS than none at all. Would be quite a pain to have to get one if you didn't have access to another computer. Sure, it would be better if there was a choice of 2 or more browsers upon installation but if there were it might not be your browser of choice anyway. Novice users will just choose the recommeded browser (no prizes for guessing what that will be) and advanced users will install it until they get the one they want anyway. Doesn't seem to different from what happens now.

Out of interest, does Mac OS give you a choice to install IE?

Basil
27-07-2009, 11:24 AM
Out of interest, does Mac OS give you a choice to install IE?
Mac doesn't give a choice to install (as in do you wish to navigate and find another browser) as Microsoft is now being compelled to do in Europe. This point was raised and answered earlier BTW.

However, I would suggest - and events seem to support my position - that none of this would have been enforced upon Microsoft had it not been such an obnoxious squisher of competition in years gone by.

While it may seem unfair (or an overreaction) to some that action is being demanded of Microsoft where it is not demanded of other companies, those people may take guidance from various western laws, regulations and oversight bodies governing acquisitions and mergers. Simply, once you're horrendously big, daddy's gonna make sure you don't abuse your market power.

Desmond
27-07-2009, 11:37 AM
Mac doesn't give a choice to install (as in do you wish to navigate and find another browser) as Microsoft is now being compelled to do in Europe. This point was raised and answered earlier BTW.
Sorry yes I did see that, wasn't sure if you were joking. :)

pappubahry
27-07-2009, 12:10 PM
When are the courts going to do something about Notepad always coming with Windows? :evil:

Rincewind
27-07-2009, 12:52 PM
When are the courts going to do something about Notepad always coming with Windows? :evil:

And calculator! :evil: :evil:

Brian_Jones
27-07-2009, 01:10 PM
There isn't a person on the planet who actually believes the product is quality. Carry on!

Mr Duggan. Are you sure? Or do I have to prove you wrong (yet again!)

Basil
27-07-2009, 01:27 PM
Mr Duggan. Are you sure? Or do I have to prove you wrong (yet again!)
Yes, I am sure that there isn't one single person in the whole entire world who believes that Microsoft's products are quality (except for Miranda).

Trahald
27-07-2009, 02:04 PM
When are the courts going to do something about Notepad always coming with Windows? :evil:

Notepad++ FTW:owned:

Desmond
27-07-2009, 02:15 PM
Notepad++ FTW:owned:/agree

Rincewind
27-07-2009, 02:35 PM
/agree

Let's not forget Calculator++ :)

Igor_Goldenberg
27-07-2009, 03:38 PM
However, I would suggest - and events seem to support my position - that none of this would have been enforced upon Microsoft had it not been such an obnoxious squisher of competition in years gone by.


Let me correct you - none of this would have been enforced upon Microsoft had it not been such a commercial success without (at least fifteen years ago) spending millions on lobbying and it's competitors being as clueless commercially as leftist governments around the world.

No wonder commercially clueless leftist governments run to rescue (I should say provide unfair advantage to) commercially clueless companies.

I know that referring to commercially clueless leftist governments in argument with Gunner is akin to unconventional warfare :lol: :lol:

Axiom
27-07-2009, 03:59 PM
I know that referring to commercially clueless leftist governments in argument with Gunner is akin to unconventional warfare :lol: :lol:
:lol:
good move !

hehe

Basil
27-07-2009, 04:08 PM
Let me correct you
Pfft!

We'll have to disagree, as we did last time this debate emerged. You say what you do (above). I say that regardless of the dynamism of the competitors (and they certainly were dynamic) there is one very simple reason why Apple and Netscape and a raft of other products died in the cradle - and that's because they were starved of oxygen and market exposure.

I won't be debating any further save to note as I have done here that we disagree. Oooops - except for one thing. We all agree that a substandard and regressive product achieved world domination. Go figure.

Axiom
27-07-2009, 04:41 PM
Oooops - except for one thing. We all agree that a substandard and regressive product achieved world domination. Go figure.
figures if you factor in the "bang for your buck" aspect of this substandard and regressive product ? (but you may well be right , that apple was stifled at birth , i don't know the history)

Basil
27-07-2009, 04:53 PM
figures if you factor in the "bang for your buck" aspect of this substandard and regressive product ? (but you may well be right , that apple was stifled at birth , i don't know the history)
Not so much referring to Apple. Apple's doing just fine despite the inhibition of competition. I'm referring to all the other companies that never were. Odd that the choice was Microsoft or nothing for PCs!!! Hello! Tap tap!

Axiom
27-07-2009, 04:56 PM
Not so much referring to Apple. Apple's doing just fine despite the inhibition of competition. I'm referring to all the other companies that never were. Odd that the choice was Microsoft or nothing for PCs!!! Hello! Tap tap!
but did microsoft provide the superior "bang for your buck" product in the early days ,thus quashing competitors ?

Basil
27-07-2009, 05:07 PM
but did microsoft provide the superior "bang for your buck" product in the early days ,thus quashing competitors ?
perhaps. perhaps not. the others didn't get any oxygen.

BTW if Microsoft was best in class, God help the rest of us. And further, if any other companies wanted their emerging OS software bundled (at no charge) with PCs (like Microsoft bundled their free software to kill Netscape) it certainly never happened.

Which software did you try and reject in favour of Microsoft on your PC? :hmm:

Trahald
27-07-2009, 08:30 PM
Let's not forget Calculator++ :)

I had no idea.:eek:

Q:
Which software did you try and reject in favour of Microsoft on your PC? :hmm:

A: Linux (On at least 3-4 occasions).

Axiom
27-07-2009, 08:40 PM
Which software did you try and reject in favour of Microsoft on your PC? :hmm:
good point , i use firefox (it's much quicker)

Miranda
27-07-2009, 08:50 PM
Yes, I am sure that there isn't one single person in the whole entire world who believes that Microsoft's products are quality (except for Miranda).
:rolleyes:
I am too lazy to bring up the Mac vs. PC debate, however I am not naive enough to state that "every single Microsoft product is quality". They made a serious error with Vista, but I believe that the OS as a whole is superior to a Mac.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/92605,32-reasons-why-pcs-are-better-than-macs.aspx

IE is a dodgy browser, no doubt about it. Firefox is much faster and better, however I believe that giving users the choice of their browser will not change much - the people will just select IE, the browser whose icon they know to click on.

Axiom
27-07-2009, 08:54 PM
IE is a dodgy browser, no doubt about it. Firefox is much faster and better, however I believe that giving users the choice of their browser will not change much - the people will just select IE, the browser whose icon they know to click on.
is it certain that firefox is not in some way owned by microsoft ?

Basil
28-07-2009, 12:01 AM
Which software did you try and reject in favour of Microsoft on your PC?
A: Linux (On at least 3-4 occasions).
Was that Harvey Norman or KMart where you spoke at length with the young chap that showed you a range of boxes with linux? :rolleyes:

Please try and get out of the heady heights of the semi-pro spheres and into the land of Sharon and Darren who were jettisoned into becoming life-long stake-holders in Microsoft's bigger scheme without any choice.

Ian Murray
28-07-2009, 07:34 AM
is it certain that firefox is not in some way owned by microsoft ?
Yes

Ian Murray
28-07-2009, 07:37 AM
Note that Microsoft will be reluctantly offering a choice of browser to European customers only. The rest of us will still get IE only preloaded, with no choices offered.

Miranda
28-07-2009, 08:50 AM
So, when will Mac stop offering Safari? :hmm:

Basil
28-07-2009, 10:06 AM
So, when will Mac stop offering Safari? :hmm:
I doubt it will happen. As alluded to above, the overwhelming vast majority of companies are not required to do such things.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2009, 10:34 AM
Which software did you try and reject in favour of Microsoft on your PC? :hmm:

1. I tried Linux, finally rejected it on desktop. Left one as a internet gateway.
Even on the server I use Novell Netware (even though the core is Linux).

2. Open Office. Tried it for while, then gave up and went back to Ms Office. Main reason it was too slow.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2009, 10:37 AM
Note that Microsoft will be reluctantly offering a choice of browser to European customers only. The rest of us will still get IE only preloaded, with no choices offered.
Thanks for letting me know. I now realised that I've been suffering from the delusion for last 10+ years. The sad reality is that I have never used Thunderbird or Firefox, or other browers/email clients, it was just my imagination.
I though I posted it through the Firefox, but now I realised I was severely mistaken.

Ian Murray
28-07-2009, 10:46 AM
Thanks for letting me know. I now realised that I've been suffering from the delusion for last 10+ years. The sad reality is that I have never used Thunderbird or Firefox, or other browers/email clients, it was just my imagination.
I though I posted it through the Firefox, but now I realised I was severely mistaken.
You're at liberty to make your own choices, but you won't get any help from Microsoft

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2009, 10:51 AM
You're at liberty to make your own choices, but you won't get any help from Microsoft
Do I need it? Most of the hardware vendors would put any free software on your computer, all you need is ask. Many of them would suggest different alternatives as well.
If you know there is an alternative to IE, you can easily find and get it.
If you don't know there is an alternative to IE, it means you are either:
a. Live on another planet
b. Do not really need a computer
c. Will be perfectly happy using IE.


Why should Microsoft suggest to use their competitors software instead of their own?
Any other business would cry and scream if they are forced to promote (at their own cost!) to promote their competitors product. But if it's Microsoft, it's fine.

Ian Murray
28-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Do I need it? Most of the hardware vendors would put any free software on your computer, all you need is ask. Many of them would suggest different alternatives as well.
If you know there is an alternative to IE, you can easily find and get it.
If you don't know there is an alternative to IE, it means you are either:
a. Live on another planet
b. Do not really need a computer
c. Will be perfectly happy using IE.


Why should Microsoft suggest to use their competitors software instead of their own?
Any other business would cry and scream if they are forced to promote (at their own cost!) to promote their competitors product. But if it's Microsoft, it's fine.
If I buy Windows it's because I want an operating system. Why should I have an internet browser I don't want foisted on me without a choice?

Miranda
28-07-2009, 12:04 PM
If I buy Windows it's because I want an operating system. Why should I have an internet browser I don't want foisted on me without a choice?
Unlike you, most of the population uses IE for a reason - it's what comes with Windows. They're perfectly happy to use it, because it's what they want. Why should you, the minority, force the majority to jump through hoops to simply get the browser they want?

Trahald
28-07-2009, 02:16 PM
If I buy Windows it's because I want an operating system. Why should I have an internet browser I don't want foisted on me without a choice?

I do not like the text editor, calculator, email client, fonts, wallpapers, explorer shell, media player etc. etc. etc that Microsoft bundles with Windows.

Give me choices dagnamit.:wall:

In fact why don't Microsoft just make everyone happy and just ship the kernel?

Ian Murray
28-07-2009, 10:15 PM
Unlike you, most of the population uses IE for a reason - it's what comes with Windows. They're perfectly happy to use it, because it's what they want.
No, it's not what they want - it's what they get. No take it or leave it - just take it. True, the average bloke-in-the-street user will use IE, not knowing it's a second-rate product and there are better options available. That knowledge comes as one gains computer know-how.

It's like buying a car. You get the basic model, then select whatever optional extras you fancy. You don't have to take what the dealer offers - you can go to AutoCheap and get better cheaper there.

CameronD
28-07-2009, 10:24 PM
I didnt know their were other browsers, and I'm sure if you polled the general (not chess) community, that over 85% would say the same. People would be to scared to use other stuff as their to scared to know how it works, IZ find installing simple programe hard and difficult to use.

pappubahry
28-07-2009, 10:57 PM
I didnt know their were other browsers, and I'm sure if you polled the general (not chess) community, that over 85% would say the same.
IE accounts for only two thirds of the browser market, so it would be well under 85%.

Rincewind
29-07-2009, 08:11 AM
I'm sure if you polled the general (not chess) community

I think a lot of people know about firefox, chrome and the like. I don't think the chess community is particularly computer savvy. Perhaps the online chess community is. :)

Desmond
29-07-2009, 08:44 AM
No, it's not what they want - it's what they get. No take it or leave it - just take it. True, the average bloke-in-the-street user will use IE, not knowing it's a second-rate product and there are better options available. That knowledge comes as one gains computer know-how.

It's like buying a car. You get the basic model, then select whatever optional extras you fancy. You don't have to take what the dealer offers - you can go to AutoCheap and get better cheaper there.
Just as you are free to go elsewhere and get another browser.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2009, 02:04 PM
If I buy Windows it's because I want an operating system. Why should I have an internet browser I don't want foisted on me without a choice?
You don't have to. Nobody forces you to use IE or hundreds of other applications that come with Windows.

And if you don't want to buy Window, get a supposedly free Linux. Then share an experience.

two side notes:
1. most of Linux distribution come with heaps of software as well (including browser), and nobody forces them to include IE.

2. If you buy Windows you will still need IE at least to download Firefox (or whatever browser you choose to use).

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2009, 02:07 PM
It's like buying a car. You get the basic model, then select whatever optional extras you fancy. You don't have to take what the dealer offers - you can go to AutoCheap and get better cheaper there.

Same with Windows, you don't have to use the optional extras and can get better. They won't cheaper though.

Basil
29-07-2009, 03:38 PM
... If you buy Windows you will still need IE at least to download Firefox....
If? If? Come on mate. There is no if. It is when. And that's the problem.

And why it is 'when' and there is no competition on the shelves is even more sinister. And this is what we've been talking about for a decade.

Davidflude
29-07-2009, 03:52 PM
Thats right, the amount Microsoft earned fell. If Windows 7 does not sell in heaps things could get worse.

The point is that the Microsoft near monopoly is being slowly eroded.

As people switch to free office packages why buy the Microsoft one.

A lot of people will not switch from packages they are used to even if there are better free packages due to the learning curve.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2009, 05:14 PM
If? If? Come on mate. There is no if. It is when. And that's the problem.

And why it is 'when' and there is no competition on the shelves is even more sinister. And this is what we've been talking about for a decade.
There is a competition, Linux for example.
Main point - you can start you own company, design better and cheaper OS and put it on the shelves.

Basil
29-07-2009, 05:27 PM
There is a competition, Linux for example.
Main point - you can start you own company, design better and cheaper OS and put it on the shelves.
Yes you can start a new company. Yes you can design a better and cheaper OS. No you can't put it on the shelves. As I said in an earlier post, "is it Harvey Norman or KMart that you can go to and ask for a nice linux box with some freeware on it?"

I don't think you (and Jono and garrett) fully clocked that back in the day this has all been argued and investigated. Your assertions that it's all just a beat-up on poor ol' Microsoft is denying the bastardry that was endemic for two decades. I really can't believe that you all believe that in such a massive global market there were actually no other competitors :rolleyes:, whereas every other market on the planet has a saturation of competitors slicing each other's throats for microbes of market share.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Yes you can start a new company. Yes you can design a better and cheaper OS. No you can't put it on the shelves. As I said in an earlier post, "is it Harvey Norman or KMart that you can go to and ask for a nice linux box with some freeware on it?"
Linux GNU license forbids selling Linux, so you won't see it on the shelves.
Yet you can find plenty of software (non-Microsoft) in those stores.
I personally don't shop for software at KMart or Harvey Norman and not sure it's the best example.
BTW, do they sell Mac?


I don't think you (and Jono and garrett) fully clocked that back in the day this has all been argued and investigated. Your assertions that it's all just a beat-up on poor ol' Microsoft is denying the bastardry that was endemic for two decades. I really can't believe that you all believe that in such a massive global market there were actually no other competitors :rolleyes:, whereas every other market on the planet has a saturation of competitors slicing each other's throats for microbes of market share.
Nothing stopped Linus Torvald from creating Linux. IBM had their OS (don't remember the name, wasn't very good). I am not even talking numerous imitation of DOS in late 80-s early 90-s.
Apple was trying to compete with Microsoft as well. But they wanted to force their consumers to buy expensive hardware and software without any flexibility at all. No wonder consumers showed them a finger and voted with their money for the Microsoft.

Main question:
Why do you fault Microsoft for the lack of competition? Did they force anyone to use Windows? They did not even have lobbyists in the Washington until late 90-s.
Yes, Gates is a good businessman and a very good salesman. Yes, he sold the product very well despite the shortcomings. Many other try and fail, what's wrong with the success?

Basil
29-07-2009, 05:59 PM
Yet you can find plenty of software (non-Microsoft) in those stores.
Exactly! So there are people that can make software. But not OS on the shelves because you couldn't buy the boxes without Microsoft (old story not given airplay here).

I personally don't shop for software at KMart or Harvey Norman and not sure it's the best example.
Exactly. You blokes who defend Microsoft nearly all have one thing in common - you're v. savvy computer people NOT buying from KMart. 'Round about now there'd be a few KMart types just waking up to the fact that "hey why wasn't there a choice of OS in the shops?" There's a choice of every other damn thing in KMart.

BTW, do they sell Mac?
No. But that was Apple's choice to use their own vendors. Everyone's (consumers and Apple and retailers) loosening up a bit now. Please don't think (as many people do) that my beef is on behalf of mac - it's certainly not. I'm observing drones and corporate thuggery; or consumers who didn't have a choice and all the OS developers who were murdered in their beds.


Apple was trying to compete with Microsoft as well. But they wanted to force their consumers to buy expensive hardware and software without any flexibility at all. No wonder consumers showed them a finger and voted with their money for the Microsoft.
Missing the point. Forget Apple. This is not about Apple. Pretend you never heard of Apple. Apple is doing just fine.


Why do you fault Microsoft for the lack of competition? Did they force anyone to use Windows?
Yes. By their practices which have been covered copiously elsewhere, both here and in the courts. For the most part, Micosoft were unable to be fingered, even though everyone knew they were up to their eyeballs in it.

Desmond
29-07-2009, 07:58 PM
Linux GNU license forbids selling Linux, so you won't see it on the shelves.Forbidden from selling the license yes, but there is still a lot of money to be made in the subscription and support.

Basil
29-07-2009, 08:14 PM
Or just a nice box without any software installed. Or clarification that the box is being purchased and the software is for free. You know, in aisle 36 for $179.00. Walk away.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 08:28 PM
Or just a nice box without any software installed. Or clarification that the box is being purchased and the software is for free. You know, in aisle 36 for $179.00. Walk away.
free market ,
buyer beware ,
knowledge is power ,
get informed ,
there's a sucker born every minute .

Basil
29-07-2009, 08:30 PM
free market
!!! *choke* think about that. Probably the most un-free market that has ever existed. I didn't pick you for a brain-washed drone.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 08:40 PM
!!! *choke* think about that. Probably the most un-free market that has ever existed. I didn't pick you for a brain-washed drone.
So you want socialist government intervention via new anti-competition laws ?

Basil
29-07-2009, 08:50 PM
So you want socialist government intervention via new anti-competition laws ?
Don't be a silly billy. Nothing I have said has suggested that.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 09:07 PM
Don't be a silly billy. Nothing I have said has suggested that.
ok, so you want stiffer anti competitive laws or stiffer enforcement ?

Basil
29-07-2009, 09:27 PM
ok, so you want stiffer anti competitive laws or stiffer enforcement ?
The laws are just about right IM(non expert)O.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 09:32 PM
The laws are just about right IM(non expert)O.
i thought seeing you seem to know the problem well, you might proffer a solution .

Basil
29-07-2009, 09:57 PM
i thought seeing you seem to know the problem well, you might proffer a solution .
It was quite unfortunate that MS wasn't nailed. Some box-makers nearly squealed. I think one did but was discredited. Proving that software wasn't developed to market-ready levels because no practical chances of sale were available was also difficult. The evidence was anecdotal, overwhelming, but ultimately insufficient.

Basil
29-07-2009, 10:04 PM
There is much 'chat' available on this subject. Here's the wiki glossary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) of some of the events to take on approximate face value. There is fodder for Jono and Igor and anyone else who wants to argue from the other end, but at the end of the day ... yup. Boot-licking, choice-free computing - for the whole world! Carry on!

The various independent exposÚs on the retail bastardry aren't here. Some googling may assist.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 10:09 PM
It was quite unfortunate that MS wasn't nailed. Some box-makers nearly squealed. I think one did but was discredited. Proving that software wasn't developed to market-ready levels because no practical chances of sale were available was also difficult. The evidence was anecdotal, overwhelming, but ultimately insufficient.
if it was so obvious that MS was shutting out competitors as you say , then why was the evidence overwhelmingly only anecdotal ? Surely cold hard evidence could be obtained if as you say the laws are adequate.

Basil
29-07-2009, 10:26 PM
if it was so obvious that MS was shutting out competitors as you say , then why was the evidence overwhelmingly only anecdotal ? Surely cold hard evidence could be obtained if as you say the laws are adequate.
Axiom, I can't do the whole Microsoft thing one sentence at a time. This has been out for a decade or more. Current affairs, newspapers, courts and so forth. Short answer to your question is:

"Hey My Box Manufacturer Guy, I see you're making boxes and they're getting shipped with Microsoft. Can you do a range without Microsoft?"
"Technically, yes."
"Great, I'll place an order for 20,000 units. When can you deliver?"
"Ummm ... eeer ... ummm ... you know I don't think I can supply you - we're on pretty tight capacities here."

or

"Hey Mr Box Manu ..."
"Go. Go away. No talking. Get camera out."

or

and so it went on.

Basil
29-07-2009, 10:32 PM
You can poke around this article (http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-purchase-dell-computers-without-windows-vista-microsoft-software/) for a clue as to what was going on in the previous post. Check the related articles too. This was the first I found BTW - I'm not particularly interested in mounting the case here - that's been done - I'm more interested in insulting you plebs just for my own amusement.

Please bear in mind that this link is the sanitised 2008 experience after MS realised the jig was up. A decade ago, it was simply impossible to buy a box without MS from a consumer dealership.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2009, 04:09 AM
Notepad++ FTW:owned:
Excellent.


Let's not forget Calculator++ :)
What's the advantage?

Rincewind
30-07-2009, 08:35 AM
What's the advantage?

The main one IMO is that it does unit conversions.

A minor one is that the second function button relabels the functions with the names or symbols for the "inverse"* functions. E.g. It has buttons with radical signs for square-, cube- and nth-roots. To take a square root in calculator you need to raise to the power of 1/2 or use inverse x^2 . It's surprising the number of people who don't know or realise that these are the same thing.

I suspect it has an extra few functions which may be useful from time to time (like logs to the base n and buttons for the number of combinations and permutations) but they are probably even more minor than the relabeling of the "inverse" functions.


* Inverse is slightly inaccurate since the "inverse" of pi according to calculator is 2*pi. So Calculator++ is more accurate in calling this the "2nd function" button.

Desmond
30-07-2009, 09:06 AM
It was quite unfortunate that MS wasn't nailed. Some box-makers nearly squealed. I think one did but was discredited. Proving that software wasn't developed to market-ready levels because no practical chances of sale were available was also difficult. The evidence was anecdotal, overwhelming, but ultimately insufficient.
It is worth noting that OEMs do ship boxes with software on it that is not Microsoft and against which Microsoft has a directly competing product. Eg many OEMs ship PCs with a free trial of Norton anti-virus pre-installed. Microsoft's product in this range is/was OneCare. OneCare was a purchasable product, now I believe it is going to be free, either now or in the near future. What this might do to other anti-virus companies will be interesting.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes. By their practices which have been covered copiously elsewhere, both here and in the courts. For the most part, Micosoft were unable to be fingered, even though everyone knew they were up to their eyeballs in it.
Conventional wisdom is not a substitute for a fact. You assume that Microsoft behaved like a thug forcing everyone from the market and that's it's proven. It's not. So any conclusions based on that are very shaky.
It rebinds me of global warmist screaming "the debate is over".
I am far from saying that Microsoft is saint, but what they did was normal business practice.
Microsoft's only fault is that it was immensely successful and nobody managed to make OS with comparable price and quality. Neither Apple, nor IBM.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 11:11 AM
Forbidden from selling the license yes, but there is still a lot of money to be made in the subscription and support.

Not as much. IMO the main problem with Linux (and the reason it did not become a viable desktop option) is that money cannot be made from development (only support). As a result the cost of ownership and managing Linux becomes higher then XP for almost anyone (with the exclusion of computer-savvy home users with plenty of free time on their hands).

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 11:13 AM
It is worth noting that OEMs do ship boxes with software on it that is not Microsoft and against which Microsoft has a directly competing product. Eg many OEMs ship PCs with a free trial of Norton anti-virus pre-installed. Microsoft's product in this range is/was OneCare. OneCare was a purchasable product, now I believe it is going to be free, either now or in the near future. What this might do to other anti-virus companies will be interesting.
I can also confirm that I over last fifteen years I bought heaps of computers, in most cases without any OS at all.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 11:15 AM
Or just a nice box without any software installed. Or clarification that the box is being purchased and the software is for free. You know, in aisle 36 for $179.00. Walk away.
Easy. I recently bought a box for $500. Could go even cheaper. Heaps of stores around where you buy a cheap box no software whatsoever.

Basil
30-07-2009, 11:24 AM
Easy. I recently bought a box for $500. Could go even cheaper. Heaps of stores around where you buy a cheap box no software whatsoever.
This is true now. Building own as well. I won't respond to the rest of your posts because a) we have had this discussion before q.v., and b) at the end of the day, no convictions were recorded and c) it's very easy (for me) to come off looking like I'm complaining! - which I'm not.

Now - my main point for you! :D Despite your skating around the issue by using the catch-all that you accept Microsoft is no saint ... do you believe that Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices? Now there's a question!

Desmond
30-07-2009, 11:24 AM
I can also confirm that I over last fifteen years I bought heaps of computers, in most cases without any OS at all.You can buy the parts, yes. But not a complete system from an OEM, EG Lenovo, HP, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, the list goes on. They don't ship them without Windows.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2009, 11:52 AM
The main one IMO is that it does unit conversions.

A minor one is that the second function button relabels the functions with the names or symbols for the "inverse"* functions. E.g. It has buttons with radical signs for square-, cube- and nth-roots. To take a square root in calculator you need to raise to the power of 1/2 or use inverse x^2 . It's surprising the number of people who don't know or realise that these are the same thing.

I suspect it has an extra few functions which may be useful from time to time (like logs to the base n and buttons for the number of combinations and permutations) but they are probably even more minor than the relabeling of the "inverse" functions.
Thanx RW, it does seem a bit better. The Google Toolbar also does unit (and currency) conversions.

Other good freeware (or optional donationware) programs that are better than the MS bundled ones are:

CCleaner (http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/CCleaner-Review-16983.shtml), which is better than MS Disk Cleaner and has some registry cleaning functions, startup inspection and uninstall as well.

Defraggler (http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,72958/description.html): better than MS Defragmenter, e.g. can select individual files to defrag without having to process the whole drive.


Both are Piriform (http://www.piriform.com/), and available in their latest updates from FileHippo.com (http://www.filehippo.com/)

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2009, 12:22 PM
Conventional wisdom is not a substitute for a fact. You assume that Microsoft behaved like a thug forcing everyone from the market and that's it's proven. It's not. So any conclusions based on that are very shaky.
If a law is unjust and vague, as antitrust is, then it proves nothing that MS lost a court case under the law. The escaped slave Dred Scott lost a US Supreme Court case that deemed him a non-citizen under the antebellum US law.

Also, since the InJustice bureaucrats pays no price for losing (same with the government anti-discrimination kangaroo courts), they can keep hounding a business and costing it a fortune. Not surprisingly, many businesses settle out of court because it's cheaper than fighting over many years. Then the InJustice scum use this as evidence for how important they are.


It rebinds me of global warmist screaming "the debate is over".
Which any sensible person should realize is a way of silencing dissent.


I am far from saying that Microsoft is saint, but what they did was normal business practice.
Microsoft's only fault is that it was immensely successful and nobody managed to make OS with comparable price and quality.
Indeed, while I detest its BloatWare and IE, it remains true that it made computers available for the masses, and they do keep improving because of competition.

Also, despite liking capitalism, I detest many capitalists, including Gates. He is a limousine lefty who basically capitulated to the antitrust gestapo (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/article.asp?ID=4730).


Neither Apple, nor IBM.
And IBM was a long-term target for the (In)Justice Department. As were many other companies with the "crime" of being "too successful". Yet all these companies provided lower costs and better products for their customers than their rivals. So it's not surprising that it was not the consumers who complained, but less successful companies, or simply the Injustice Department just because they could, and because it "justifies" their existence.

These vexatious lawsuits even hurt the very consumers they profess to help, since any legal costs are passed on to them. Further, for all the justifiable whinging about MS's crappy products, this very lawsuit discourages improvement in case they are deemed "anti-competitive" i.e. successful:


... For at root, Microsoft was a tremendous firm (and I use the word "was" deliberately; for a company of its size, Microsoft has long ceased being an important technological innovator). More than any other company, it was Microsoft that launched the PC revolution which helped put a computer on every desk. Today however, Microsoft is only a shadow of what it once was, for despite all its denials, Microsoft has been effectively neutered by antitrust. Today it is Google that has invigorated search, Apple that has invigorated multimedia, and Mozilla Firefox that has invigorated web browsing—not Microsoft. Innovation and regulation don't go hand in hand.

Thus it is easy to see why Microsoft's star is fading. Every time you hear an antitrust regulator talk about Microsoft's next round of operating system upgrades, you hear them say that Microsoft had best tread lightly—or else. What incentive then does an individual have to innovate if at every moment he must look over his shoulder to ensure that his ideas won't prompt a competitor or a regulator to file an antitrust suit that destroys both him and his innovations? Which force is more powerful--the joy of creation (and the profits it may bring), or the omnipresent threat of treble damages under antitrust? [Emphasis in original]

And therein lies Microsoft's greatest failure. If Microsoft were to have argued against the validity of the antitrust laws, it would have highlighted that these laws negate a businessman's moral right to his property. It would have highlighted that it is not an act of force to put a product on the market that becomes the industry standard and to integrate new features into that product. Microsoft can no more force itself upon its customers than any other firm—only a government regulator possess the power of outright coercion. And thus Microsoft failed to make the most important point in any discussion about antitrust—the point that there is a difference between a businessman and a regulator, a distinction that the philosopher Harry Binswanger once wryly described as the difference between the "dollar and the gun." Microsoft simply refused to declare its moral innocence, and refute the charges of attackers on their own terms. It left that work to others (it even supported my organization's advocacy for a brief time), but it never spoke unequivocally in its own defense and in its own voice. ...

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 01:54 PM
This is true now.
And was true fifteen years ago. Precisely because PC (unlike MAC!) is an open architecture any shop can build.
BTW, have ever heard about Compaq? Once it was a successful PC manufacter. However, they made their hardware a closed box - no aftermarket upgrade possible outside of their framework. They've gone long time ago.


Now - my main point for you! :D Despite your skating around the issue by using the catch-all that you accept Microsoft is no saint ... do you believe that Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices? Now there's a question!
What is anti-competitive practice? Anything that does not involve force, fraud or reneging on the contract is not, in my books, anti-competitive practice.
To my knowledge, Microsoft was not engaged in anti-competitive practice.

Bill Gletsos
30-07-2009, 02:11 PM
And was true fifteen years ago. Precisely because PC (unlike MAC!) is an open architecture any shop can build.
BTW, have ever heard about Compaq? Once it was a successful PC manufacter. However, they made their hardware a closed box - no aftermarket upgrade possible outside of their framework. They've gone long time ago.Compaq merged with Hewlett-Packard in 2001.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2009, 03:12 PM
Compaq merged with Hewlett-Packard in 2001.
Technically it's true. It was more a takeover and, according to some inside sources, not entirely friendly one.

Bill Gletsos
30-07-2009, 03:28 PM
Technically it's true. It was more a takeover and, according to some inside sources, not entirely friendly one.I agree.

Basil
30-07-2009, 05:52 PM
And was true fifteen years ago. Precisely because PC (unlike MAC!) is an open architecture any shop can build. ...
No no no no no. Your position (and that of your colleagues) always comes back to : "Are you reallly sure you're not just anti the success of it all? Anyone could have done it and Gates did - get over it.".

Implicit in your collective positions is that no one else of any consequence was building OS to compete with Microsoft. And to support this imputation you collectively point to Apple (and now others) who elected to go a different path, such as in Apple's case supplying and controlling their own everything, and in Compaq's case as you describe.

These droppings of case studies do not address the core of what is being levelled at Microsoft. While these case studies may be true, neither company AFAIK has any gripes regarding the antitrust assertions being made against MS.


To my knowledge, Microsoft was not engaged in anti-competitive practice.
OK, thanks. And I can't prove otherwise. Simply an amazing product to which no competitor was ever created. Astonishing.

Rincewind
30-07-2009, 06:05 PM
OK, thanks. And I can't prove otherwise. Simply an amazing product to which no competitor was ever created. Astonishing.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but haven't people mentioned other browsers, mail clients and operating systems that are available to run on most, if not all, machines that also run Microsoft software?

If you problem is one of dominant market share then that happens and is not necessarily evidence of anti-competitive practice. It is no different to Google's present dominance of the search engine service. Incidentally Microsoft is currently running a distant second ni that market (but were running a very distant third before they bought second place).

Basil
30-07-2009, 06:12 PM
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse
No, not at all. I often have the same thought about the defenders of MS.


... but haven't people mentioned other browsers, mail clients and operating systems that are available to run on most, if not all, machines that also run Microsoft software?
Yes. So? Please refer final par.


If you problem is one of dominant market share then that happens and is not necessarily evidence of anti-competitive practice.
Of course. I'm not sure you'been folowing, which is OK.


It is no different to Google's present dominance of the search engine service. Incidentally Microsoft is currently running a distant second ni that market (but were running a very distant third before they bought second place).
It's entirely different. Browsers are freely available and no anti-competitive practices have been engaged in AFAIK. Alta Vista was it. Yahoo was it. Then Google was it.

Microsoft had no OS compeition (to speak of) to run on blank boxes. Blank boxes (to speak of) were unable to be found in abundance, commercially. I (and other say and suspect) that MS skull-duggery was at play. You and others say Gates was a genius and did not nothing wrong.

Rincewind
30-07-2009, 06:41 PM
Microsoft had no OS compeition (to speak of) to run on blank boxes. Blank boxes (to speak of) were unable to be found in abundance, commercially.

So what is the timeframe of this anti-competitive market bully-boy situation? Are we just talking ancient history here (>10 years ago)? Or something more recent?

Basil
30-07-2009, 06:59 PM
So what is the timeframe of this anti-competitive market bully-boy situation? Are we just talking ancient history here (>10 years ago)? Or something more recent?
Ancient history >10 years. Once the lead is astronomical the sheep stations aren't up for grabs - it's just a case of tending the lawns. That's in respect to the OS discussion.

With respect to the topic of this thread, it seems to me that the Europeans have said "regardless of how you got your lead, ill-gotten or otherwise, it is incumbent on you to use your monopolistic status to spread the word about the little people.".

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2009, 10:38 AM
With respect to the topic of this thread, it seems to me that the Europeans have said "regardless of how you got your lead, ill-gotten or otherwise, it is incumbent on you to use your monopolistic status to spread the word about the little people.".
It might look to you as free market, but to me it looks like a socialist state (clueless by it's nature) trying to steak their beak in one more place (when the only appropriate place for them to steak their beaks is - well, everybody knows!).

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2009, 10:41 AM
Implicit in your collective positions is that no one else of any consequence was building OS to compete with Microsoft. And to support this imputation you collectively point to Apple (and now others) who elected to go a different path, such as in Apple's case supplying and controlling their own everything, and in Compaq's case as you describe.


I also mentioned IBM with their OS2 system (which was compatible with MS windows, btw!). And by the time OS2 faded into oblivion Linux appeared.
Your statement that MS Windows never had a competition is not correct.

If a company is a sole supplier of a product, does it necessarily mean they are crooks?

Basil
31-07-2009, 06:31 PM
If a company is a sole supplier of a product, does it necessarily mean they are crooks?
Not at all - and I don't think you believe for a minute that I hold that position. I suspect that Microsoft actively engaged in prohibiting competition. You don't.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2009, 08:01 PM
I suspect that Microsoft actively engaged in prohibiting competition.
How?

Basil
31-07-2009, 09:34 PM
How?
I have discussed this elsewhere in greater depth and the net is riddled with citations. I accept that the majority of those are unproven. But briefly, the original wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft)which makes a reasonable overview read, especially in that it attempts to also articulate the "this is just about petty jealousies" angle, says in the last para under heading of Criticisms of the Case

"Instead, he argued, Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market."

and

In answering your question directly, a summary of the prosecution's position (found in the last sentence of the first para).

"Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) ..., (and) Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

I believe that Microsoft engaged in these practices. So did the judges. So did the appeal judges!!!!

You and Jono don't. It's all good.

nekobasu
13-08-2009, 01:36 PM
Calculator++ isn't only for Windoze. It's a Java application that works the same on Mac OS X and Linux too. The beta for 1.1 works on Solaris as well. 1.0.x runs on Solaris, but has a few bugs. So, 1.1 will be the one to use on Solaris. The 1.1 beta also has a few new features. Go Here (http://www.iloc.com/products/calculator) to download it.

As for the 2ndF button in Calculator++, Rincewind is right. Not everything that gets enabled by it is an "inverse" function button. There are plenty that simply have an additional feature. I suppose they could have made the calculator bigger in order to accomodate the additional features, but I appreciate that they didn't make it a huge window like all the other downloadable scientific calculators.

Davidflude
14-08-2009, 06:31 PM
A Texas Judge has ordered Microsoft to stop distributing Word because it infringes a Canadian Cpmpany's patents. this could prove interesting.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2009, 09:48 PM
What's new? Windoze itself plagiarized Mac's GUI.

Desmond
24-08-2009, 03:22 PM
Mozilla finally loses all credibility (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43725/141/)


Opinion - You couldn't make this stuff up. The Mozilla Corporation - and never was the word 'corporation' applied to such an undeserving bunch of spineless no-hopers - is now whingeing that Microsoft's Browser ballot screen - exactly what they and their friends in the European Union have been demanding all along - is no longer sufficient.

Well, please excuse me while I throw up. How much longer are we expected to put up with these whining scumbags who patently cannot compete on a level playing field, but demand that commercial operations give their competitors higher billing than their own products?

It beggars belief that Mozilla's Mitchell Baker has the gall to say that the MS ballot screen giving Windows 7 users the option of setting up Firefox, or any other browser instead, was 'not enough to level the playing field'.

Here's a spot of free, open source, advice for Ms Baker - the world does not owe your sadly-inadequate operation a living. If you can't win the hearts and minds of ordinary web users by offering a demonstrably superior product, perhaps you should give up and give us all a break from your tragic failure to compete on the world stage.
...

Basil
24-08-2009, 03:31 PM
I've read the piece and Andrew Thomas (the author) has a good point - from what I can tell from the scrap of a story that it is.

However, judging from what else he writes (discredited, dead-end, purported supporting arguments such as Apple and Safari, and Google) it is he that appears to lose crdibility as a balanced writer.

Basil
24-12-2009, 12:54 AM
The dirty little gobblers (http://www.news.com.au/technology/us-court-oks-us290m-microsoft-verdict/story-e6frfro0-1225813038830) are at it again.

Spiny Norman
24-12-2009, 04:13 AM
Point #1 -- the US patent system is a joke (I should know, as I once held provisional patents that I would have had to defend against companies such as Microsoft)

Point #2 -- if people (or courts) think that the way to solve these sorts of problems is by effectively prohibiting the sale of pieces of software, they are also a joke.

Desmond
24-12-2009, 08:42 AM
Interesting. Most major PC and notebook vendors ship their machines with Office pre-loaded (limited time trial). I guess they aren't going to stop the sale of those machines (technically not a sale of Word).

Spiny Norman
24-12-2009, 02:57 PM
They will all switch to Office 2010 which is, presumably, not covered by the judgement since it hasn't even been released yet.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2010, 06:00 AM
But now Apple is under attack from the Injustice Department and Federal Trade Commission under the deliberately vague "anti-trust" laws (http://townhall.com/columnists/GaryShapiro/2010/05/25/us_innovation_under_attack_by_obama). These iniquitous laws stifle innovation and enrich ambulance-chasing Goughfather types instead.

Rincewind
14-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Let's not forget Calculator++ :)

Please note I found a bug with an old version Calculator++ in the units conversion routine (the fairly simple conversion of kilograms to zeptograms was out by a factor of 10). So if you downloaded a version at around the time I posted this message I strongly recommend upgrading.

http://www.iloc.com/products/calculator/

ER
14-08-2010, 02:17 PM
.... These iniquitous laws stifle innovation and enrich ambulance-chasing Goughfather types instead.
:lol: