*sigh* some people just don't GET it... (I guess that's why we have
discussions)
> > > 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
...
> If events become too uncomfortable for people.. someone else will come in
> and fill the need that is better... Where I live there has been a hardware
There are tons of better OSs, but how much money have all the Linux
companies made vs what Microsoft has made? What is the OS that 80-95% of
desktop systems (depending on whose statistics you use) in the world run
on? How in the world do you plan on making your bigger/better OS
profitable and a decent market share? You CAN'T because when you do, MS
will find a way to extinguish your project. The ONLY way that anyone has
been able to compete has been to offer a FREE operating system, and even
that is making only very slow progress.
> chain called "Hecengers(sic)" which started doing a horrible job.. so
> someone else with a brian saw demand there.. and built "home depot" which
> did a much better job.. and managed to drive the other company out of
I have no idea how you can compare a store vs another store when we're
talking about worldwide market shares. The cost to enter into creating a
store in your town is very low.. especially for esablished chains. There
is no need to gain widespread acceptance of anything, the 2 stores sold
the same products (I'm assuming).
> has to have consumers stay with the product to succeed.. the 49 other
> manufactors could pool together money and make thier own gas stations...
Maybe they could, or they could license the specs for the gas so they
could sell their cars, and then the gas co could go and change teh specs
again. But this is just speculation for a made-up scenario. But what
about a phone company that owns all the wires in the USA, and makes you
lease their phones for your house? Anyone who wanted to make a better
phone wouldn't be able to sell it because your phone company won't let
people use other phones with your wires. Although I'm not sure there
WERE other phone manufacturers before the phone companies got
deregulated, but the point is, they were split up, no longer had a
monopoly, and everyone THRIVED... look at all the phones you can choose
from now, and look at all the competitive rates that are out there.
There's nothing inherently wrong with monoopolies, but according to every
economics class, a monopoly, without regulation will have a higher price
point than with competition. It's been found as FACT that MS is a
monopoly.
> Now I'm confused... I've used many diffrent operating systems, and have
> yet to find one that doesn't include a browser... Solaris includes
Sure, they INCLUDE a browser, but they don't TIE it into the operating
system... you can uninstall the Java browser, or not install it to begin
with. Same with most every other OS. You can't NOT install IE in the
new versions of Windows. And you CAN'T DO that if you have a monopoly!
> a browser.. why should microsoft be targeted as a company that souln't be
> alowed to have one? How is this Illegal?
The other companies aren't monopolies for one.
> VAlinuxsystems came in.. saw there was a demand for linux systems, and
> built them..
Compared to how many Windows machines Dell, Compaq, etc have made...?
> > Yeah, look at them. Sun manufactures servers, the most high-end of which
> > don't compare to any machine that runs windows.
>
> I would hardly consider an Ultra5 to be a server, but it could be used as
> one I suppose...
It's whatever you want to use it as... I use mine as a desktop, there are
other people who use it as a server. People use Win98 machines as
servers. Look at where Sun makes most of their revenue and it is from
the higher end machines, though. THis is off the topic though.
> It's the very acts that microsoft is commiting that is helping linux to
> become more popular...
How do you figure? I think that if MS wasn't committing these acts that
Linux would be a LOT more popular and widespread now. Wine and other
emulators would work better bc MS wouldn't be changing the APIs on the
developers, for instance.
> > (not
> > allowing OEMs to preinstall linux,
>
> VAlinux systems, Microway, Cobaltmicro, Corel.... MS hasn't stopped
> them...
They don't sell ANY windows boxes though ... If you go to Dell's website
and compare the cost of a machine with Windows VS the same machine with
NO os, they cost the SAME... you are paying for WIndows whether you want
it or not!
> Ahh it was ok for netscape to take over, but not microsoft?
I'm not sure where you're coming to this conclusion from, but it's
perfectly fine for MS to take over if they do it LEGALLY.
> If microsoft broke a contract with sun I belive they should be held
> liable... this has nothing to do with them being a monopoly or evil..
As they are, that is a seperate court case. BUT the reasons for them
using the illegal strong arm tactics stem from their feeling threatened
by java - a platform which could make having windows irrevelant, and
people could choose Linux, Be, etc, and run the same applications.
> People started using MS word because it was much friendlyer then
> WordPerfect... thier success was based on marketing of their product and
Both have been around a LONG time, the modern-day version of both are the
same in terms of user-friendliness. In fact, people used to laugh at the
prospect of using MS Word. It is what you get people used to using, and
when you include it with the price of a new computer, they have no desire
to purchase or learn something new.
> fufilling what they percived customers wanted... note: Macintosh computers
> probably wouln't have grown as fast as they did in the begining if it
> wasn't for Microsoft Excel
WHAT?? Excel wasn't available for Mac until what, 1998?? And even then,
MS didn't make teh Mac version just for shits and giggles, they did it so
they could force Apple to make their users use IE. I believe also, that
they helped Apple keep afloat so they'd have some leverage with the DOJ
about not being a monopoly... (although tht wasn't stated in the FOF,
since they didn't include Apple desktops as "intel-compatible computers")
> people WANTED to click file-save then some archaic set of keystrokes...
That is not what Word has always been, and neither Wordperfect. They are
BOTH click file-save.
> companys get hurt (and sometimes helped) by thier compition.. it happens..
> it's called caitalism...
Yes BUT when it's illegally done by a monopoly is a whole nother ballgame.
> > > > There are laws about how you can compete. Microsoft fragrantly violates
> > > > them left and right.
> > >
> > > What do those laws actualy do though?
They help the consumer! If MS didn't have a monopoly over the OS, would
we pay $99 for an upgrade? hell no.
> unless your stealing someone intelliectual property (ohhh don't get me
> started on this issue ;)).. how can you illegaly tie in a product?
This has been gone over and over... if you were the only carpet
manufacturer (and it was really hard to become a carpet manufacturer) and
you decided to make carpet padding, and you told everyone that they
couldn't use Company XYZ's padding with your carpet, they had to use
YOURS, THAT is illegally tying in your new product with the one you have
a monopoly on, and hurting the consumer.
> They DO have compeditors.. and if they charge more then people are
> willing.. someone else will probably step in..
For all intensive purposes they don't. That's teh definition of a
monopoly, which is a FACT of the DOJ vs MS case.
> what do you feel that microsoft should be able to include?
> solitare? oohh your taking away from card game makers...
"include" but not TIE IN.
> you know what... I'm HAPPY microsoft includes a browser... because there
Well what about a company that doesn't want their employees browsing the
internet.... how happy are they that they are FORCED to have a browser on
their windows desktops?
> What industries do you feel they can and can't get involved in? computers
> everywhere need an OS..
They all don't need a browser though. And they don't all have to be
Windows OS's either.
> ahh force microsoft to craft thier software to the whims of some
> oganization.. lovely..
So once they get 99% of the browser market, they can change the standards
however they want so none of the other browsers will work? Oh dear, and
MS doesn't MAKE IE for linux, solaris, Be, or the other OSs. Guess you
can't browse the web on your other-OS machine when everyone else on the
planet uses Windows!
> well because of the regulations... I can't start a simple courier route
> without worring about being arrested or having to go through alot of legal
> mumbojumbo..
You can't?? Since when, UPS seems to do just fine in the premium courier
route niche.
> Um VAlinux systems was started well before this trial started...
How many did they sell before the trial, and did they also sell Windows?
NO they didn't, and they still don't (hence the name)... that company
doesn't make their bread and butter on windows machines like others do.
Why should MS be allowed to tell these other companies that if they want
to sell windows machines they can't sell any other kind?
Dianna
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
