The findings of fact explain what you need to know.
formatting link
It's good reading.
You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us knew long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds monopoly power, you might endanger your business status with Microsoft. If you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power, then you lump yourself in with the few remaining zealots who defend Microsoft. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other?
newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com! newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu! newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!sn- xit-11!sn-xit-05!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for- mail
Me neither. Yes Microsoft does develop personal computer software. But so does thousands of other companies as well. So this rules out Microsoft as a monopoly.
Your proof is from known liars who hides the truth under the umbrella of nation security and many other things.
I have no strange views about Microsoft's dominance. I freely admit they have a huge following using their software. Although what the
*facts* don't show is how this dominance means that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market.
That is ridiculous! How can that be? As they would had to have complete control over the PC. This isn't the case at all. As Microsoft's largest threat is probably Linux. So get that silly idea out of your head, because it just isn't so. As there are probably millions of PCs not running any MS product at all. And you are totally ignoring this *fact*. Why is that?
Is it because the lying system told you so? Thus are you trying us to believe known liars? Why? I easily shown you how ridiculous calling Microsoft a monopoly sounds by using the known *facts*. Don't follow others in their ignorance, think for yourself.
__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
As hard as it may be to believe, the declaration of a court is not any kind of final or universal authority, except in legal terms.
Exactly.
Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems. That's about it.
I don't understand this statement.
Legal "corrections" are notorious for their ineffectiveness. Market forces are much more balanced and reliable, even if they don't move as quickly as some might like.
I don't see a connection between the two.
Or I simply disagree with you, which is not the same thing.
In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public utilities, then?
I understand it, but I also know that it's not always desirable.
I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the military?
Microsoft has had a lot of legal trouble because it has made a lot of well-funded enemies by virtue of its exceptional performance.
I've been doing it for most of my life.
Then why do you seem to object to Windows as a single platform?
You'd prefer to let that mass murderer with the machine gun continue to shoot at innocent bystanders?
There isn't any part that I don't understand. I understand it only too well. Do you know why the personification of justice is blindfolded?
Maybe you should buy a Mac.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft.
Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by intelligently managing a computer software company, because they cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves.
Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply because Microsoft would not hire them.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
You're attempting to base your position on personal attacks and personality conflicts. Others base their positions on arguments relevant to the topic under discussion, with personalities being ignored and personal attacks being nonexistent. What might this imply?
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they are just pissed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to use a computer?
And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is pissed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed..
Before anyone gets pissed, is all in jest :-)
BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax evasion....
I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....
Well, yes, and that's what my comment "But 'best' includes more than just the technical" meant to address.
Yes, but I think you're talking about a time period slightly after the period I was, before the clones were in swing. Although, IBM *did* leave the hardware open to encourage third party add-on suppliers, just not copies, while Apple kept things much closer to the vest.
But the mainframe point is well taken and IBM would, of course, have a lot more experience in that what with them being the premier mainframe supplier at the time.
Well, 'average' people ;) or, simply, lots of people. And that'll take managing because you simply can't expect everyone to be a genius, much less a genius at everything. Not to mention you can't have even geniuses going in every which a way direction. There has to be focus.
Yes, there's the 'vision' thing.
Still, there's the matter of why would someone be induced to change the vision? Stagnation is one possibility and the other is the 'new guy' making his mark with his own 'vision', but if things are humming merrily along he'd be foolish to change things too much so we get back to "where do we go now?"
Sure it was the norm because it only ran on the company's proprietary hardware so, go to it folks, make more stuff for our proprietary hardware, which is where the money was to begin with, and you're not releasing into the market the thing that makes it proprietary, your hardware.
IBM failed to recognize just how utterly trivial it was, compared to 'mainframes', to duplicate the hardware, not to mention they had simply purchased a public domain design made from freely available parts, and then to publish the one and only 'proprietary' piece, BIOS source, *PLUS* haven given away rights to sell the DOS (same, "who cares about the software?" notion)... well, woops.
I'm not saying it should have been obvious at the time but it sure is in hindsight and I'd imagine Microsoft noticed it along with everyone else.
Sounds simple but, in practice, it isn't as it usually takes more than just a really smart group of people as familiarity, experience, insight, or whatever combination that went into the particular 'great idea' isn't necessarily translatable into another one. I think it was you, yourself, who pointed out that Microsoft was good at the business suite business but not very good in others as they just don't have sufficient experience or insight for them.
That's one reason why companies are always searching for a 'process' that is, essentially, 'one-time genius' independent. I.E. idea generation from market feedback, hire/consult 'experts' in the new thing, brain storming sessions, focus group studies, etc..
I wonder if that's because Bill Gates is 'gone' or if it's more the result of this being about as far as a business suite/'Windows'O.S. combination can take them, especially in a U.S. market, at least, that is closer to saturation than it is the wide open early days of growing by leaps and bounds and where you have to now do upgrades, or 'something', just to stay even. The wave they were riding ain't there no more.
And there isn't another 'IBM' giant poised to dominate a huge future market that you can sell DOS to and clean up when someone cracks their BIOS code nor is anyone going to give them 'sell to others' license rights, so those 'great ideas' aren't going to happen again no matter how 'smart' they are.
When you first posed that scenario I thought it made a lot of sense but the more I think about it the more I question it, at least as a 'universal'. It can certainly happen that way but you can also be simply obsoleted by the next 'great idea'. For example, the introduction of calculators put the slide rule folks out of business, at least in that business, virtually overnight without them having to make 'too many mistakes'.
Of course, I suppose you can always call it a 'mistake' to not be diversified enough (that's those bottom-line-style management types you don't like), not see that microcomputers can do almost anything (electronics wasn't their business), or whatever the 'next great idea' is (how are you going to get around the patent/copyright?) but that's stretching the 'mistake' concept a bit.
I wouldn't mind having his bucks, or even what he pays in taxes, but I've hated his software since he was nothing but a rich kid with a couple of computers.
More than anything Gates was (and is) a marketer. He knows how to put just enough stuff into a box to get people to buy the box. I'd never claim to be able to make money as well as he does.
Microsoft would never hire me; I have no degrees. However, I still lay claim to having asked the question, would I ever work for Microsoft? and answered in the negative long before I ever considered the question you pose.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
I've already read it, stem to stern, and since you apparently don't have a single independent thought about it there's nothing to 'discuss'.
And what does it matter whether I "say one way or the other?"
But since it seems you're going to hound me for all of eternity I'll tell you why I've declined in the past; because you are an irrational ideologue about it who, regardless of the context, topic, time period, or anything else, does little more than repeat over and over 'the court said so' and paste links to it as if the court is omniscient and infallible in every word and jot
Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe that no guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent person ever convicted nor any injustice ever done, and that's where the court works best. It's even more absurd to think the court is infallible in business law suits and just plain nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what does, or does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what the features of an O.S. 'should be', and software/product content in general. You can't even get a room full of 'experts' to agree on it and the court ain't no 'expert'. Put simply, they got no clue.
And then there's the matter that you seem to think "holds monopoly power" and "is a monopoly" are equivalent, since you use them interchangeably, and they're not.
That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final findings but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel' of anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the text of it.
And since that is the entirety of your 'argument', for everything, there is nothing to 'discuss'.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.