Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:35:36 10/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2001 at 00:23:16, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>Operating Systems include more and more stuff, and that tendency started *long
>before* MS fas founded. I.e. look at the evolution of OS/360. It even included
>DB. Any Linux distribution includes much more stuff than Windows. [I am not
>talking about device drivers here -- it looks that only MS understands that
>writing and carefully testing tens of thousand of drivers is *necessity* for the
>OS success]. Slightly paraphrasing you, "However, how and why an OS
>should have compilers, version control systems, and other non-OS software".
>
>And now please look at the history of PC operating systems. Should graphic shell
>be part of the OS? Networking? Multitasking? Logged file system? Compressed file
>systems? TCP/IP? FTP client? Etc. etc. Companies that produced those add-ins in
>the past of course will say one way; *most* of consumers will say other way.
>Yes, that practice can hurt competitors. But it's legal as long as customers are
>happy.
Is it the logic that you have been taught at MS?
"It is legal as long as the customers are happy"
Wow. Thinking about it, this describes very well Microsoft's illegal behaviour
over the last 15 years, the very behaviour that allowed it to kill every
competitor around.
I do not know if it is exactly what you intended to say, but I can very well
imagine that this strategy is REALLY, EXACTLY, what is applied by Microsoft's
top executives.
Example 1: stealing code from the Stacker disk compression utility. It is legal,
as long as customers are happy. And indeed they were. Stacker was not, and
finally Microsoft paid them several millions dollars, and got away with it.
Example 2: Tying the Internet browser to the operating system. It is legal, as
long as customers are happy. Some were, some were not. So some consumer
associations, together with the US Justice Departement, sued Microsoft.
Bad luck this time, a US court said that it was illegal (which was later
confirmed by the appeals court).
But it might very well be that the guys at Microsoft really believe that what is
legal is defined by the satisfaction of the consumers.
I leave up to you to imagine what kind of crimes can be accepted by this kind of
philosophy.
Christophe
>And of course you still can install competing product on your OS. And -- as long
>as it's better than one produced by OS manufacturer -- people regularly do that.
>
>Eugene
>
>On October 27, 2001 at 10:26:27, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On October 27, 2001 at 06:46:25, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>On October 26, 2001 at 20:43:14, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 26, 2001 at 19:12:03, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>OK, then you definitely work for MS. Most observers mention the need to have
>>>>>256Mb of memory and a very fast processor in order to run XP.
>>>>
>>>>Question the observers. Most memory companies have gone so far as to say that XP
>>>>will only run well with 512MB RAM or more. Hmm, I wonder why they say that? And
>>>>if you see an article saying something similar, ask if the author is only saying
>>>>it because of the noise that memory companies have made. The Register has
>>>>written a few columns on how much memory XP really needs, and the consensus is
>>>>that it will perform just fine with 64MB, which I have witnessed personally and
>>>>consider to be true.
>>>>
>>>>>Windows 95 runs on my 386sx 20MHz, and it has only 5Mb of memory. I just have
>>>>>to
>>>>>wait a little minute every time I want to open an explorer window. But I swear
>>>>>W95 works on my 386sx 20MHz notebook.
>>>>
>>>>I don't doubt that. But I remember running 95 on a 486/80 (WAY faster than a
>>>>386sx) with 8MB RAM and it was a DOG when running any more than one program.
>>>>
>>>>WinXP will run just fine on any Pentium (including 60MHz) with 64+MB RAM. I have
>>>>seen it myself running just fine on a P5/133 and a P5/60 isn't so much slower as
>>>>to make it unusable.
>>>>
>>>>>Why should I let a chance to Microsoft to have a look at what's going on
>>>>>inside
>>>>>my computer?
>>>>>
>>>>>The question "are they going to have a look or not" is totally secondary.
>>>>
>>>>By running a Microsoft OS, you are giving MS the opportunity to do that no
>>>>matter what, whether you like it or not. MS could upload every single keystroke
>>>>you enter without your knowledge, if it wanted. Same for any other operating
>>>>system you might use. The question is not whether or not you're giving them a
>>>>chance to do it, it's what they're actually doing. And it has been independently
>>>>confirmed that MS is NOT uploading personal information about you. Just a hash
>>>>of your hardware.
>>>>
>>>>>>I'm the last person to tell somebody to use Windows, but if you don't use it,
>>>>>>I'd prefer that your reasons be based on accurate information. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Come on. I have seen where Microsoft is taking us over the years, and as the
>>>>>justice is not willing to stop them, the only way to keep a little bit of
>>>>>privacy and control over our information systems is to realize what's going on
>>>>>and to resist.
>>>>
>>>>Or just use something else. I don't see why you're getting so worked up about
>>>>this product activation scheme (which is presumably what you're talking about).
>>>>Look at it from other viewpoints.
>>>>
>>>>1. A lot of the more expensive software requires dongles. Would you prefer a
>>>>dongle over a fairly harmless/painless "product activation" scheme? Or how about
>>>>programs that require you to insert the CD every few times you use them?
>>>>Microsoft doesn't make you do that, either. In terms of copy protection, the
>>>>product activation scheme is not as bad as many alternatives in use by companies
>>>>that you would probably consider less evil than MS.
>>>>
>>>>2. If MS does not take actions within their means to prevent piracy, it becomes
>>>>legally very difficult to prosecute pirates. In effect, our legal system is
>>>>_forcing_ MS to do something in the vein of product activation.
>>>>
>>>>I often enjoy reading your posts a lot because I think they are very well
>>>>thought-out, balanced, and objective, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>>>If you really believe in all this Brave New World, Orwellian sort of stuff about
>>>>Microsoft, you are free to go live in the woods and send letter bombs to people.
>>>>
>>>>-Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>I think what is the main concern is the MS domination of the market plus
>>>the fact that MS has a bad reputation as a monopolist. I believe I don't
>>>have to be specific here.
>>>
>>>Just realize the power of MS, if they want to stop all PC's from working
>>>one day they can do it. I know this is extreme but that is not important.
>>>Important is if it is desirable a company to have so much power.
>>>
>>>Then when a new OS comes that is even more dominant ignoring the concerns
>>>that are among people and that follows the same "more power to MS" principles
>>>it is not so difficult to understand new criticism. Keyword is fear. And not
>>>unjustified as MS presents itself as a company hungry for power.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>I think there's more to it than that. The monopoly concerns are very justified.
>>Windows OSs are indispensable essentially and as such a large number of diverse
>>software makers have developed software for it. However, how and why an OS
>>should have movie editors, MP3-type player/editors, and other non-OS software is
>>unfair competition. People have little choice but to go for the OS, and as such
>>are finding a number of other software for "free" forcibly bundled with it,
>>threatening the existence of the companies who would compete in that field, and
>>who possibly innovated in it (like Real Media). Creating tools to facilitate and
>>improve multimedia interaction is fine, giving out the software that effectively
>>kills another company's chances to compete is not. Not only does one not have a
>>choice as it is there with the OS (though what that has to do with an OS is
>>beyond me), but it inhibits other developments in the same area. All that blabla
>>by Gates stating that he doesn't understand because he is just trying to offer
>>the best software available is tripe. IMHO.
>>
>> Albert
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.