More :)
> It feels new to me though even though I've been using computers since the
> atari800 :)
Right, Computing as we know it today is new. "desktop computing" to be
specific, has gone from the "early adopter" stage to more mainstream.
> They came up with an operating system that would run on intel based
> hardware... that people would want to run the applications they also
> wanted to run.
Not really... they are just good at marketing it. They bought DOS from
someone else, and emulated teh Apple OS when they made Win 3.1. They
also put some bugs into Win 3.1 on purpose so people would think that
they had to have MS-Dos and that the other people's Dosses wouldn't
work. The applications come once an OS gets a user base, but to get a
user base, an OS has to have applications (the chicken and the egg
deal). There were a lot of applications that ran on DOS (MS-DOS and
others) and those applications also ran on Win 3.1. So people adopted
Win 3.1 because it was the first relatively userfriendly interface for
Dos. (IIRC) And Win 95 ran Win 3.1 programs, and so on. BUT in this
"upgrade" process, they also added a lot of things, so that their OS quit
being compatible with other peoples'.
> what practice do you consider to be illeagle that they commited?
Tying in their products. That's the BIG thing. Say you owned 80% of the
gas stations, and you were 1 of 50 car manufacturers. Say that at your
gas stations you sold a special formula of gasoline. Then, you decided
to change that formula to something else, and kept it secret, and so only
the cars you manufactured would run on your gasoline, the other cars
wouldn't. People would have to buy your cars in order to get gasoline,
and thus you'd end up with a big market share of cars BECAUSE you had a
big market share in gas stations. MS has been doing this left and right.
> > attacked for using illegal tactics to destroy their competition, like
> > writing contracts that forced hardware manufacturers to pay for Microsoft
> > licenses regardless of whether or not they put *any* MS products on the
> > computers in question, and using their monopoly power to make it impossible
> > for any company that did not agree to stay in business.
>
> Microsoft didn't "force" the vendors to agree to this.. the hardware
> venders did this so they could get cheaper pricing...
No, but if people won't buy a computer if it doesn't come with windows,
and MS says if you don't put IE pre-installed,default on your computers,
I'll raise the price of windows to $200 from $100, they're making you
have to price your computers higher and be less competitive with your
competitors. It's not based on how many computers you sell (bulk-based
discounts) but just a "we CAN do this so we will" sort of thing. They
are tying in their browser with their OS which IS illegal if you have a
monopoly. Essentially it IS forcing vendors to agree to it because
otehrwise, they would go out of business for not being competitive just
because of windows' pricing.
> Companies that don't agree with microsoft have managed to stay in
> busniess.. look at sun, redhat, corel, be, etc...
Yeah, look at them. Sun manufactures servers, the most high-end of which
don't compare to any machine that runs windows. MS has done some shady
acts in the low-end server range (spreading around FUD mostly) but
nothing that really compares to what they've done with the desktop
market. RedHat sells service, and supports Linux... it's probable Redhat
could make a lot more money if Linux was more popular, and if MS didn't
take steps to try to extinguish anything that is a threat to Windows (not
allowing OEMs to preinstall linux, taking over the browser market to slow
down Java, etc.). Corel also, their office products used to be a lot
more popular than MS OFfice, and MS has done a real good job in making
sure Windows comes with MS word (which all the other parts are integrated
with, so people get used to the word interface rather than wordperfects')
- Corel HAS suffered, too... sure Corel, RedHat, are still in business,
but what's your point? They have been hurt by MS's strong arm tactics.
> > There are laws about how you can compete. Microsoft fragrantly violates
> > them left and right.
>
> What do those laws actualy do though?
They keep one company from taking over the world, illegally tying in
products, and charging customers more than they could if they had
competitors.
> So... IBM, wanting to beable to use a MS licensed product gave up on one
> of thier own products...
If you have a monopoly you have the power to do it.
> I fail to see what wrong was done here.. these sorts of deals get made all
> the time.. in many diffrent industries... known as "I'll scratch your back
> if you scratch mine"
Right, but whose back was MS scratching? It was more like they agree to
scratch a little itch of yours, if you scratch their whole back, and keep
scratching. They own all the back scratchers, so it's not like you have
a choice if you want to not go crazy for having that stupid itch. :)
> potientialy harmful to the future of computing.. but it's not nearly as
> bad as how scewed up things could get if the government starts getting
> involved. I would prefer an "unscrupulous company" milk me then an
You're acting like the government doesn't ever get involved except in
this one case. If the gov't didn't ever get involved, we'd probably end
up with one huge company (ie THE phone company, which dabbles in cable
companies, internet companies, and so on and so forth until they own
everything... ) which is about just as bad as the gov't controlling
everything. MOST countries have laws that corporations have to abide by!
It's NOT a new thing in the USA!
> What exactly do you want the government to do?
Force MS to quit trying to take over Java. Force them to quit tying
Office, Windows, IE, and other products together with the onese they have
a monopoly on. Make them quit dabbling in all these other industries. (I
remember when I signed up for Roadrunner high speed cable access, and
they FORCED me, WINTOUT asking me to download IE AND install it - why? bc
ms has its fingers in Roadrunner/Time Warner and some sort of deal).
Make them share the inner workings of Windows (the APIs they love to
change once people get a windows emulator for Linux/Solaris/etc
working). Force MS to stick to STANDARDS (do you know how much I HATE
browsing the web on my Sun Ultra 5 box with solaris and finding so many
pages that have question marks instead of apostrophes (along with other
changes) just because MS can't stick to STANDARD ASCII and has to change
it and make the WEB of all things proprietary)
> oganizations/corperations.. look into alot of those laws that were written
> and what they accomplised... you might be quite surprised...
Yeah, we pay .33 for stamps... if the Postal service was deregulated,
we'd have 10 mailmen coming a day, and because of lower volume they'd
each be delivering fewer letters which would cost more to mail.
> I agree microsoft will not be put out of business.. infact I'm quite sure
> whatever measures are enacted.. they will at somepoint intime backfire...
This has actually been helping everyone a lot, by MS being in court and
having all their actions under scrutiny. Now OEMs are freer to sell
computers w/o an OS, sell computers with Linux, etc. Why, just a few
years ago, my company had to pay EXTRA to buy laptops without Windows
installed!
This case is close to my heart, and I was overjoyed when I read the news
on Fri. The sooner this thing comes to a close, the less damage MS can
do, and the better off we all will be.
Dianna
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
