Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:38:56 10/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2001 at 03:48:36, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>On October 28, 2001 at 01:35:36, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>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"
>
>Yes. According to the US laws, company cannot be sued for the antitrust
>violations if it can prove that what was done was made in customer's interests.
>Competitors can than file a separate lawsuit, but that's another matter.
OK, thanks.
That sheds a new light on Microsoft's philosophy. See below...
Christophe
>The problem with MS is that it hired morons for lawyers. Sometimes I think even
>I cold do better on the trial.
>
>Eugene
>
>>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.