Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 04:57:07 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2001 at 23:45:45, Slater Wold wrote: >This is a hard pill to swallow. I don't like the tone of voice either, you are right. There's no need to talk like that. >When I read this e-mail to him, he laughed. Simple "big bad corporation" >propaganda, to spread hype and concern, without a shread of evidence. Sorta >like Hitler did so long ago. I hate Microsoft bashing. Be it out of jealousy, be it out of (misplaced)frustration, be it out of an inferiority complex against a big company, it's wrong to bash in this way. However Microsoft business dealing slate over the years is not clean. As for a lot of companies. But when their split tongue emerges, and it looks like that - as a customer - per saldo *I* am the loser, it's reasonable to criticise these practices. It has nothing to do with spreading hypes, and you know the golden rule on Internet: having to mention Hitler to prove your point is a zero for you and a one for the "opponent". :)) >But let's get serious for a second. You think that a company that has recently >been convicted of controlling a monopoly, and threated with pretty serious >consequences, would do something as stupid as forward personal and/or >confidential things to their HQ's? And for what? Is MS planning some global >domination, to take over the world and all the computers, so that Bill Gates can >rule the world? I mean seriously! Do you think that Bill Gates gives a damn >what you, or I, or anyone in the world (home users specifically) does with their >products? HELL NO. All they care about, is that we BUY their products. You are a bit too naive here. That can go together perfectly. The ways Microsoft use to dominate the PC world with their software surfaces every now and then, and even lead to investigations by the Justice Department., a trial and a conviction, suggests that they indeed as a part of their strategy se extremely agressive tactics to sell their products. We are not only talking pushing out Netscape or Dr-DOS, but also the obligatory delivery (and payment) of an MS OS with most new PC's. Some of those business gives me an uneasy feeling. It is well known that they have been actively pushing out other companies with other solutions. At the same time Microsoft claims that those companies shouldn't whine about domination but make a better product themselves. It sounds a bit double hearted to me, asking others to develop rivalling software and at the same time use some highly dubious techniques to push them out of the market. With a conviction in it's pocket, and further trial still running, Microsoft again made some provisions in it's new XP that denie flat the spirit of the judgement that was given over the integration of IE and MS Windows, and *only* they altered some after pushing from outside. So I think you are not right with the point that MS becomes more careful. The image that surfaces for me is that they flatly ignore the signals that have been given to them by law. >And >that we aren't borrowing a friends. MS is _VERY_ serious about licenses. I >_CAN_ tell you this: everytime you get a service pack, they check that license. > And if it happens that 400 people upgrade to Service Pack 2 for Windows 2000 >that have the same license, someone is in TROUBLE. They are simply protecting >their investment, and their product. Nothing more, nothing less. And this is, >as extreme as MS goes, in wanting to know who you are, or what you're doing with >their products. And as much piracy goes on in the US, I don't blame them one >bit. You are right, no one has the right to rip off a company by not paying. Microsoft has every right to protect it's OS. The new licensing scheme is just very bad PR for Microsoft. Basically they are right, but the tone is much too threatening, and the chosen solution is idiotic. In the mean time we already know the ones who are going to have the most harassment with the licensing schemes: the paying user, not the warez criminal. In a market where you only have a limited share, you will listen to your customers, as you are likely to lose customers. Microsoft won't be that quick. Why should they? Everyone is running their OS - because of a lot of the afore mentioned dubious tactics. > >As for the call in licenses, get used to it. You said you went to Linux? Most >Linux programs do the same damn thing. Use it for 30 days, then call and get a >license. FacetCorp, and company in Texas that makes FacetWin, a program to >connect Windows PC's to Linux/Unix boxes has been doing this for over 6 years! >It pretty much voids ALL piracy. And when I called in my registration for >Office XP, I told the lady on the phone, "I have a laptop too, I plan on >installing Office XP on." She kindly replied, "OK, I can give you a key for >that too, while we're on the phone." No extra money, no extra time. > >I love Linux/Unix. And believe it to be the "better" business operating system. > But I also know that it will more than likely never be as popular as Windows. >I have told people I am a Linux administrator, and they have replied, "What is >Linux?" And while that might not be good news for the people at Red Hat or >Caldera, it's the simple truth. > >Bill Gates had a good idea, and obviously, it worked. People have made the >choice of what's mainstream. Companies bought Windows, which in turn made >people buy Windows, which in turn made more people buy Windows. It's kind of >like that old defense, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But in >this case it's, "Big business doesn't make monopolies, people make monopolies." >We the people have made our choice. And for now, Windows is that choice. As I said before, without the stupid Microsoft bashing , you are mistaken. Microsoft did use techniques who duped rivaling companies, and so most likely - and most important- the customer as well. > >At the end of my conversation, my Father made a remark that I 100% believe to be >true. If you don't like Windows, or Office, or any Microsoft product, simply do >not buy them. I respect the work of your dad. He doesn't deserve to be bullied for his hard work. But he is wrong. Just because of some dubious tactics Microsoft won a near monopoly, and that's why a lot of users have no choice at all. A lot PC sellers won't sell you a PC *without* Microsoft - this is long standing practice. If I don't like windows, but need a business application very hard, I have to use the OS as well. There are no easy replacements. >There is no need to spread bullshit hype on message boards, and >things you obviosuly have no idea about. Instead, do what Mr. Linus did a long >time ago. Simply make something better. Again and again, companies tried it, and Microsoft told it to be a good practise, but in more than one instance killed the opposition with less ethical ways. All and all there is no problem with Windows. The GUI is fine, it's better than the Mac original they copied it from. It works intuitive, has a lot of possibilities for every level of user. We put our mom behind her new PC to get her to use e-mail, and without instructions she can handle all, and find her way. The pro versions of Windows (NT, 2000, and no doubt the XP -department) are stable and reliable as well. Microsoft can do a fine job. And -last but not least- standardisation has it's advantages for the customer. The Win95/98/Me aren't fine products. Without bashing MS -I have to stress it again - these OS's are underperforming. I am one of these guys that's always called by friends and family to solve their problems, and sometimes I see the most idiotic things done by users, but as often..... ....if I only could send a bill to Microsoft for the hours of engineering to keep it running or get it running again because of flaws in their comsumer OS's .... well... the yearly results of Microsoft would be a lot lower. Even the combination of their OS and their own software (suites) has given me the creeps from time to time. Now: When you are a private user, and you are stuck with this underperforming OS; when you haven't got the resources to use another OS, as it asks for a lot of knowledge most people don't have and don't want to have; when you were forced to pay for the OS coming with your PC as well; if the provider of that OS sells other -professional- customers a stable OS and you as private customer an instable product; and it comes out with a new OS that becomes more expensive, and is presented to you as if you were a potential warez criminal, so Microsoft has to know what PC you use; if you see that the company is under heavy legal artillery, and despite a conviction continues on the same way... ...well, then there is no need to spit and rave over Microsoft, but I can sure tell you they will have a hard time to convince me why I should be happy with another -any- product from them. Piracy? They are pirating for years on my private wallet, and my expensive private time, because of their second rate performing consumer OS's they pushed me down the throath with a new PC, and as a big thank they also try every means, inlcuding some highly dubious and even illegal, as has been judged, to kill as many alternatives as there are for me. The business world is a cold world, and there's no place for sissies. Microsoft is no sissie, and I can understand that. But to me the image arises of a company not winning a near monopoly by making *better products*, but by disabling the alternatives. The consequences for me -as a customer- are dear: not product performance on it's toes to outperform the opponents, but Windows 95, 98, Me. No disrespect: but as a man proud of his work your father should consider that customer for an instance as well. J.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.