Author: Slater Wold
Date: 09:20:38 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 07:57:07, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >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". :)) MS dealings are no dirty than IBM's was 20 years ago. No one's bashing them today. You learn through experience, and MS will too. Remember, this is actually a very young company. Perhaps it's tactics won't get cleaner, rather just better. Remember, it's only wrong if you get caught. :) And I apologize for the Hitler comment. However, Hitler was the forefather of propaganda. And the Linux/Unix boys do it almost to a tee on the internet. Most of them couldn't set up a MS Windows network, but somehow seem to know every flaw and unstability of their OS. Otherwise, bad comment. I apologize. > >>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. I am not naive. You are just paranoid. Control of the market is one thing, taking over the world is another. >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. The judge hated MS. Everyone knows that. His Compaq probably crashed that morning. Granted, the dealings were bad. Ok. But that trial was a goof. We all know that. >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. You cannot simply "push" someone out of business. Sorry. Doesn't happen like that. (Unless you are a _REALLY_ paranoid, and think things happen in the real world happen like in the movie "Anti-Trust".) Other than IE vs Netscape, how has MS pushed anyone out of the market? I am unaware of any. >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. Once again, pushing Dr-Dos out of the market was probably not a bad thing. But let's take Unix SCO for example. MS bought that, in hopes to destroy it, and never has. It's still here, it's still working, and still somewhat compitetion. However, MS has sold it, and now Caldera owns it. Let's see who does better with it. :) >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. They will try to get away with whatever they can. We are all guilty of this. >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. The warez criminal will have no problems. Because they simply won't be able to use it. Trust me on that one. :) >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. Agreed. > >> >>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. Rivaling companies? 5 years ago, who was MS REAL compitetion? And please tell me how they duped them. > >> >>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. I just don't see how that's MS's problem. That's business. It might not be right, it might not be moral, but it's business. It in EVERY business plan, to become #1 in their market. MS got that. > > >>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. Other than Netscape, I don't know what you mean here. Sorry. > >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 agree. And would never use them. However, I would recommend them to someone with ZERO computer knowledge, before I would even THINK about Linux! And that I believe, was in MS plan. >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. I know the feeling. And agree. :) >Now: > >When you are a private user, and you are stuck with this underperforming OS; Yes, and I don't make a lot of money, and am stuck with an underperforming car. Or in better terms, not a McLaren, or something I want. Simply because I cannot afford it. That's relative. Sure, Windows 98 was the "bottom-of-the-barrel". Just like the "bottom-of-the-barrel" Ford cars. Look at the difference between a Ford Focus, and a Lincoln Navigator. :) >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; Common sense. Who would drive a car that took an engineering degree to drive, but was 100% safer than a normal car? Only the ones who were smarter and richer. >when you were forced to pay for the OS coming with your PC as well; Go buy a clone. They are cheaper anyway. Load whatever you'd like. >if the provider of that OS sells other -professional- customers a stable OS and >you as private customer an instable product; Refer to #1. >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; Protecting their assets. We all pay for others mistakes. I am 22, and have never have had an at fault accident. But I pay HIGH premiums, because I am "more likely" to get in an accident. I am paying for other mistakes and irresposiblity. Oh well. Fact of life. I too am forced to buy insurance. And while I HATE to do it, I do it. And wish others would too. >if you see that the company is under heavy legal artillery, and despite a >conviction continues on the same way... Like the Clintons? It's the American way. :) Ok, maybe it's not right, but it's something that happens. Sorry. >...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. Then don't buy them. If enough people agree with you, they will stop. >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. So are insurance compaines in America. It's a racket. But a legal one. I know, it does suck. >The business world is a cold world, and there's no place for sissies. Microsoft >is no sissie, and I can understand that. They aren't doing anything new, I will promise you that. >But to me the image arises of a company not winning a near monopoly by making >*better products*, but by disabling the alternatives. Please give me at least 1 example of "disabling" the alternatives. Other than Netscape. >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. Agreed. And some people still buy Ford Focus's. :) >No disrespect: but as a man proud of his work your father should consider that >customer for an instance as well. My father will _NEVER_ consider the customer. The customer doesn't pay him, MS does. He will do the BEST he can, and all that MS will allow. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't take it as disrespect. People hate MS. People hate Bill Gates. Oh well. A lot of people hate a lot of people. It's fine. I understand. > >J. I get your point 100%. I agree with some, don't get others, and simply disagree with some. Oh well. We're two different people. That is understandable. MS is just like any other product in the world: buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't like it. I am terribly sorry there are no equal but I just fail to see how this is more than 40% MS fault. I am at work, so I am being rushed. Forgive me for incomplete thoughts. :) Slate
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.