BILL GATES RECLAIMS HIS THRONE! MSFT TO NOT BREAK UP!!! [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

froggystyle

06-28-2001, 03:22 PM

Thats the biggest BS ive heard..... the reason your all pissed about xp registration is cause it makes it harder for you all to steal it...second...big corporations allow gooods to be mass produced which in turn allows them to be produced for a lower price which in turn means that you the consumer gets the good for lss...thats why they are able to drive the small guy out of business...because theya re able to make the same product for less money and offer it to you for less....

Second...AMD is a big company and two big companies with
the ability to mass produce will compete and offer an item for even less....but relize that if chips were made by three guys in a little office you would be paying up the butt for them and nobody would have computers....big businesses have the power to buy in bulk and interconnect every aspect of a product in a way that allows for a cheaper part to be made in an efficient enough manner to allow for a cheaper end product...

froggystyle

06-28-2001, 03:36 PM

Oh also... Microsoft would not do anything to shoot themselves in the foot...they still have to appeal to the consumer otherwise the consumer wont buy.....subscription services fail and microsoft will see that very quickly..as sales drop on new operating systems they will realise that they are loosing money. they dont want to loose money, and therefore they will have to change their strategy.

Ice-9

06-28-2001, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
If netscape didnt suck so much then maybe people would have given it more of a chance..its slow. Yeah ms pushed them around but thats what corporations do...its called progress.. weed out the week develope better products moove along..who cares who puts out the product...microsoft has a record of adapting the best features of rival companies products and integrating them..so you still get the good eventually just not from nutscrape...plus nutscrape has alot of virtually useless features that just waste space and slow everything down. I support big business. Its what makes things cheap for everyone and efficient and simple...its also what keeps our economy growing and gives up more money to spend on stuff...

I'm not disparaging Microsoft's developers. They know what they're doing, and when the pressure is on, they can produce a decent product. But when there's no competition, which is what they strive for in every market they enter, the innovation slows down or goes away entirely. Look at the Office suite. How much has it really changed in the last couple releases? I think the only reason XP is such a big deal is that there's a little bit of competition springing up from Sun's free suite and stuff of that sort.

Incidentally, to what useless features in Netscape are you referring? IE has far more propietary, closed-source options and features that encourage developers to write code that won't work under Netscape. And the main reason IE has beaten Netscape is NOT performance - it's bundling. When the average joe starts up his new computer, it runs Windows. When he wants to get on the net, all he has to do is plug it into his phone jack, double click on one of the ISP shortcuts on the desktop, and up comes IE! Why would he even bother to download Netscape? So all I'm saying is that Microsoft squeezed out the competition with unscrupulous business practices rather than a clearly better product. And overall, that's bad for business.

mojo

06-28-2001, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
I dont get why everyone hates ms so much.... they bring amazing technological innovations to the world. they donate large amounts of money to scientific research. they provide jobs to countless people. they are largely responsible for the boom in pc use. I for one cheer microsoft. boo to all the naysayers

your idea of progress keeps us behind the real potential of progress. get with it....they are bogging us down

zenbooty

06-28-2001, 03:52 PM

Hate to say it, froggy, but you sound completely snowed by Microsoftspeak. Innovation? Hah! Their operating system, their bread and butter, is an insecure, buggy piece of shite that everyone buys because its been dumbed down to the point where any idiot can understand it. Hey, I'm all for usability, but at what cost? You say they adapt the best technologies from other companies and integrate them into their own products. That's innovation? Some of us would call that stealing and using your girth and monopoly to squeeze out those you stole from. That's not legal. Its not in the best interest for the consumer either, cause once the little fish are dead, Microsoft can charge whatever they'd like because they'll be the only game in town.

The point is not to see Microsoft as some evil aberration. If Sun, Oracle, Novell or whoever had the kind of market domination that Microshit has now, I'm sure they'd behave no better. Monopoly sucks for capitalism, because the strength of capitalism is free competition, and monopolies hinder that.

Go Linux!

Jenny

06-28-2001, 04:19 PM

Hey hapoo, LOVE the new sig! :D

stupidzbu

06-28-2001, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Jenny
Hey hapoo, LOVE the new sig! :D

am i missing something? that seems to be the same old sig to me....

leemaj

06-28-2001, 11:19 PM

I agree with the people saying that MS is producing crappy new products. I think that it is good that they had competition from netscape, because it helped IE go from version 3.0 to version 5.0. and im sure all of you noticed a lot of change. Now, with 6.0 comming out, i doubt there will be anything to make it worth the download.

IntegraTypeR

06-29-2001, 12:04 AM

Why are all of you trashing MS so much? If you dont like it then don't use their products. They may not have been the pioneer, for example, of the internet browser but they saw potential and went for it. MS developers are very smart people and take a lot of pride in their work. Initially thier products might not be the best but as time goes on it gets better. That option is open to anyone and MS just happens to do a pretty good job revising thier products to make them good. All companies can do this but MS just happens to do it better. I challenge everyone to tell me taht they have never pirated MS software. Is that the only reason that everyone is trashin on MS so much ? because you cannot pirate XP easily anymore? Don't trash the company just because they have devised a way to try to recoup the lost revenue. I admit that I am guilty of pirating here and there but htat doesn't mean that I will speak shit bout the company and say that it is evil.

IntegraTypeR

06-29-2001, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Ice-9
<snip>
Incidentally, to what useless features in Netscape are you referring? IE has far more propietary, closed-source options and features that encourage developers to write code that won't work under Netscape. And the main reason IE has beaten Netscape is NOT performance - it's bundling. When the average joe starts up his new computer, it runs Windows. When he wants to get on the net, all he has to do is plug it into his phone jack, double click on one of the ISP shortcuts on the desktop, and up comes IE! Why would he even bother to download Netscape? So all I'm saying is that Microsoft squeezed out the competition with unscrupulous business practices rather than a clearly better product. And overall, that's bad for business.

MS developers, incidentally, work hard to try to make sure their products are browser compatible. This includes making sure it is compatible with IE and Netscape, past versions included. I cannot even begin to count the number of hours that have gone into various products trying to make sure that it is compatible with IE and Netscape. There is a lot of manpower that goes into this. If it doesn't work with Netscape then it means that there wasn't enough Netscape users to make it worth the manpower that MS would put towards compatibility.

How is it unscrupulous for MS? MS cannot squeeze out Netscape when Netscape is owned by AOL, another big power house. AOL has simply decided to get out of the browser business and will focus Netscape to do other things. If AOL thought that the browser business was something they watnd to stay in then they would have invested $$ (and don't tell me that they don't have $) into making Netscape better than IE. The simple fact is that they decided that their goal wasn't to rule the browser world.

If MS is on most ppl's desktops when teh comp boots up whos fault is that? Do you think that the average joe schmo knows how to use Linux? I don't think so. The average Joe barely knows how to get on-line to check his e-mail. MS caters to the n-user who doesn't know that much. If vendors sold PCs with Linux sales woudl decrease b/c ppl would be intimidated by the complexity of it. MS happened to capitalize on the knowledge that computers can be intimidating and they need an easy to use, intuitive version of an OS. There hasn't been any competition for MS' OS yet. If there is competition then it might challenge MS for dominance but, as yet, none have emerged. The other leading software companies haven't invested $$ to try to develop one yet or, if they have, their products haven't succeeded yet.

TheLoneGunman

06-29-2001, 12:27 AM

First of all, it was the US Court of APPEALS that overruled the trial court. This can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Second, I think Bill Gates is one of the first people to declare victory after his guilty verdict was AFFIRMED.

Third, I was working at Intuit when this trial was going on and Scott Cook was just down the hall. His testimony was very clear that Bill Gates personally offered him millions to use IE instead of Netscape in Quicken. There was no serious rebuttal of this testimony (or that of many others who said similar things) by Microsoft.

Fourth, the problem with the civil court process is that the remedy is rarely proximate to the harm. Therefore, it was too late to revive Netscape or any other competitors by the time Microsoft was found guilty. As a result, Microsoft can cry that they are the victim and there is no remedy to equitably punish them.

Fifth, through the use of undocumented features and hooks (that are known internally) Microsoft uses its operating system to put application developers at a disadvantage.

Sixth, Intuit (Quicken, Quick Books, Turbo Tax) is the perfect example of anti-trust laws WORKING. Intuit and Microsoft planned to merge and the government prevented. Had they not, the inferior financial products that Microsoft sells now would be the ONLY major products on the market.

CluelessSi

06-29-2001, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR

Originally posted by Ice-9
<snip>
Incidentally, to what useless features in Netscape are you referring? IE has far more propietary, closed-source options and features that encourage developers to write code that won't work under Netscape. And the main reason IE has beaten Netscape is NOT performance - it's bundling. When the average joe starts up his new computer, it runs Windows. When he wants to get on the net, all he has to do is plug it into his phone jack, double click on one of the ISP shortcuts on the desktop, and up comes IE! Why would he even bother to download Netscape? So all I'm saying is that Microsoft squeezed out the competition with unscrupulous business practices rather than a clearly better product. And overall, that's bad for business.

MS developers, incidentally, work hard to try to make sure their products are browser compatible. This includes making sure it is compatible with IE and Netscape, past versions included. I cannot even begin to count the number of hours that have gone into various products trying to make sure that it is compatible with IE and Netscape. There is a lot of manpower that goes into this. If it doesn't work with Netscape then it means that there wasn't enough Netscape users to make it worth the manpower that MS would put towards compatibility.

How is it unscrupulous for MS? MS cannot squeeze out Netscape when Netscape is owned by AOL, another big power house. AOL has simply decided to get out of the browser business and will focus Netscape to do other things. If AOL thought that the browser business was something they watnd to stay in then they would have invested $$ (and don't tell me that they don't have $) into making Netscape better than IE. The simple fact is that they decided that their goal wasn't to rule the browser world.

If MS is on most ppl's desktops when teh comp boots up whos fault is that? Do you think that the average joe schmo knows how to use Linux? I don't think so. The average Joe barely knows how to get on-line to check his e-mail. MS caters to the n-user who doesn't know that much. If vendors sold PCs with Linux sales woudl decrease b/c ppl would be intimidated by the complexity of it. MS happened to capitalize on the knowledge that computers can be intimidating and they need an easy to use, intuitive version of an OS. There hasn't been any competition for MS' OS yet. If there is competition then it might challenge MS for dominance but, as yet, none have emerged. The other leading software companies haven't invested $$ to try to develop one yet or, if they have, their products haven't succeeded yet.

Must agree. I have spent countless hours tring to make some things work on both netscape and IE and also across platforms (windows and MAC) I must tell you Netscape is a pain to work with and the MAC versoin plainly crashes when I try to code some advanced things into it.

Netscape does start up a lot slower then IE. I chose to use IE over netscape, not because it was on the OS (back then it was not) but because it was faster and more powerful and more tolerent to bad coding on the web...

Speaking of big busniess why don't people complain about AOL? It is slowly taking over everything (netscape, ICQ, big ISP) I personally like MS and admire thier ability to become so big. The way it does business is not much different then what others would do in thier position.

Grimm

06-29-2001, 01:04 PM

I will agree that the current version of IE is better than the current version of Netscape. But you must admit it is hard to develop a program after you have lost your revenue suorce due to a monopoly stomping you flat. The inclusion of code in the OS designed to make your product not work properly hurts too.
What M$ did was illegal. A court of law ruled it was so and the appeals court agreed.

Ice-9

06-29-2001, 01:35 PM

Blecch. I disagree, Clueless, but I don't have the energy to argue this today. Maybe tomorrow.

froggystyle

06-29-2001, 02:08 PM

Microsoft developed both dos and windows..if anyone here is willing to stand up and tell me that that isnt innovation then i dont know what is. microsoft simpified pcs to a point where anyone can use them...if thats not innovation then what is? yes their operating systems are buggy but they are striving to fix that all the time and at the same time include new software that makes things easier. They are now incorporating the win2k kernel into their xp operating system for home use...win2k does crash, but it recovers virtually every time it's solid as a rock. Windows is a standard. Companies accept it as a functional product people accept it as a functional product. In my oppinion We need a standard..look whats gonna happen when AMD and Intel's architecture branches off in different directions with the upcomming processors...programs will have to cater to one or the other....how much fun is it gonna be when youcan use windows only with intels 64 chip[ but you cant play games because the games cater to AMD's chip you reach an impass... imagine if mobo manufacturers didnt have a standard for ide slot size so diferent mannufacturers used different sizes..and you had to figure out wich cards fit in which slots. How much fun would that be?

look at all of you sitting there saying that what microsoft did was illegal as you simultaneously download bootleg coppies of xp and try to create hacks to bypass thae registration safeguards..

look at basket ball... motumbo fouls shaq and thats against the rules..illegal if you will...so what happens shaq gets some compensation in the form of free throws. its not like you throw motumbo out of the nba. its just alittle punnishment. people ruff eachother all the time in basketball and most fot he time they dont get cought. Its part of the game.

Its the same thing with microsoft they ruff the opponents itsagainst the rules they get penalised you dont kick them out of the software industry over it and you dont sit there crying about how unfair it is that a dominant figure is domieering. You find a more domineering opponent or some other way... For microsoft to be able to muscle out the competition they had to have power..power they created by innovating and growing and succesfuly marketing and knowing their targets. Yes they overstep their bounds sometimes and they will get penalised for it...its not a reason to hate them otherwise you can go ahead and hate everyone....everybody muscles for rank...you have to ar else you get stepped on. Its a dog eat dog world.

\/\/|ZarD

06-29-2001, 02:28 PM

DOS is a piece of shit
Linux tears DOS apart, as does UNIX and even Micro$oft gave up on DOS
Windows is a crappy OS, it is terribly bugged, and M$ doesn't do anything to fix most of the "insignificant" problems
Further more the idea behind windows was taken from Apple's developement of their OS. Windows wasn't innovation it was adaptation... as has been ever single freaking release of Windows. Windows is based on adaptation not innovation. Kudos to Apple for using a Unix kernal, now that's innovation!

M$'s products are not anywhere as simple to use as Apples, or do you think otherwise?
M$ is a terrible standard, and with WinXP I hope it dies in the OS market. WinXP is a piece of shit, it's use of a "pretty" interface will just make a bunch of systems useless. People will start switching to Linux, as they should. Linux is a better product with a better price

Also
Big business is not good for consumers, over said that is stupid. Competition is good for consumers not monopolies. A M$ breakup is necessary, if not we'll all be using NTOS based OS's running/crashing every couple days. NTOS is a step in the right direction, but still not anywhere as good as Unix or Linux

froggystyle

06-29-2001, 02:37 PM

Dos ant the time was an innovation genious not right now...you think linux was pulled ot of thin air...everybody adapts. rebok comes out with air filled shoes nike comes out with better air filled shoes. we invent tv...japan comes otu with better tvs they innovate based on principles that already exist...every interface that exists in a goui format is adapted form apple then which would under your theorys would make linux just as guilty as microsoft..if you chalk everything up to adaptation and you think adaptation is bull then why dont you go back to watching black and white tvs listening to single speaker radios and living in grass huts...thateres the innovation. every single thing we take for granted is based on inovation from previously existing principles. its the way the world works...it allows us to advance

Chinpoko_Mon

06-29-2001, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
Microsoft developed both dos and windows..if anyone here is willing to stand up and tell me that that isnt innovation then i dont know what is.
Actually Xerox developed the first GUI user interface, (dumb a$$ execs dump the idea) then MS came along bought over the rights for it and ran with it. So MS technically did NOT develope Windows.

microsoft simpified pcs to a point where anyone can use them...if thats not innovation then what is? Actually, Apple does that better than MS. Try explaining left mouse-click and right mouse-click to a 4 or 5 year old. MACs only have one click, now THAT's innovation.

yes their operating systems are buggy but they are striving to fix that all the time and at the same time include new software that makes things easier.
Try selling a "buggy" car/truck to a customer and tell them that you'll continually service and fix the car when you find problems with it. What kind of quality control is that? The fact that they do provide patches and what-nots is no excuse to sell a buggy piece of software.

They are now incorporating the win2k kernel into their xp operating system for home use...win2k does crash, but it recovers virtually every time it's solid as a rock.
That's like saying, I have this really good battery in my car, but it dies every couple of weeks. But once I jumped start it, it works great!

Windows is a standard.Companies accept it as a functional product people accept it as a functional product.
Windows being standard is pretty sad. The only reason why companies have to accept them is because MS pays off third-party software developers to write software to work only with MS OS's. And that MS can tweak the third party software to work better with MS (god knows, they won't let any one near their source.)

In my oppinion We need a standard..look whats gonna happen when AMD and Intel's architecture branches off in different directions with the upcomming processors...
programs will have to cater to one or the other....how much fun is it gonna be when youcan use windows only with intels 64 chip[ but you cant play games because the games cater to AMD's chip you reach an impass... imagine if mobo manufacturers didnt have a standard for ide slot size so diferent mannufacturers used different sizes..and you had to figure out wich cards fit in which slots. How much fun would that be?
Dominance breeds complacency and complacency slows innovation. Do you think that if AMD was not around to compete with Intel, that Intel would be working so hard the P4's? I doubt it very much, they'll just milked the market for as long as they can before they come out with their "new revolutionary" technologym which they've already had to eons....

look at all of you sitting there saying that what microsoft did was illegal as you simultaneously download bootleg coppies of xp and try to create hacks to bypass thae registration safeguards..
This is just to find out just exactly how the software works. The fact is that us as consumers have a right to decide for ourselves what we like and not like. This may be achieved through "hacking". IF MS had it's way, no one would have a choice.

look at basket ball... motumbo fouls shaq and thats against the rules..illegal if you will...so what happens shaq gets some compensation in the form of free throws. its not like you throw motumbo out of the nba. its just alittle punnishment. people ruff eachother all the time in basketball and most fot he time they dont get cought. Its part of the game.
But Shaq doesn't go around paying other players off, so that they won't play with Motumbo. Nor does Shaq tell people off and say,"you have to play the game my way or else I'll make sure no one else plays with you."

everyone....everybody muscles for rank...you have to ar else you get stepped on. Its a dog eat dog world. Sure corporate take-overs are common place and so happen daily, but there is still such a thing called Business etiquette and ethics. And MS has neither.

Chinpoko_Mon

06-29-2001, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
Dos ant the time was an innovation genious not right now...you think linux was pulled ot of thin air...everybody adapts. rebok comes out with air filled shoes nike comes out with better air filled shoes. we invent tv...japan comes otu with better tvs they innovate based on principles that already exist...every interface that exists in a goui format is adapted form apple then which would under your theorys would make linux just as guilty as microsoft..if you chalk everything up to adaptation and you think adaptation is bull then why dont you go back to watching black and white tvs listening to single speaker radios and living in grass huts...thateres the innovation. every single thing we take for granted is based on inovation from previously existing principles. its the way the world works...it allows us to advance

true, taking what comes before and making it better is innovation and let us advance. It's called competition.

MS is trying to DO AWAY WITH THEIR COMPETITION. Then where will innovation and advancement go?

IntegraTypeR

06-29-2001, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by \/\/|ZarD
DOS is a piece of shit
Linux tears DOS apart, as does UNIX and even Micro$oft gave up on DOS
Windows is a crappy OS, it is terribly bugged, and M$ doesn't do anything to fix most of the "insignificant" problems
Further more the idea behind windows was taken from Apple's developement of their OS. Windows wasn't innovation it was adaptation... as has been ever single freaking release of Windows. Windows is based on adaptation not innovation. Kudos to Apple for using a Unix kernal, now that's innovation!

M$'s products are not anywhere as simple to use as Apples, or do you think otherwise?
M$ is a terrible standard, and with WinXP I hope it dies in the OS market. WinXP is a piece of shit, it's use of a "pretty" interface will just make a bunch of systems useless. People will start switching to Linux, as they should. Linux is a better product with a better price

Also
Big business is not good for consumers, over said that is stupid. Competition is good for consumers not monopolies. A M$ breakup is necessary, if not we'll all be using NTOS based OS's running/crashing every couple days. NTOS is a step in the right direction, but still not anywhere as good as Unix or Linux

Whoever said that you had to create the product to be the best at it? No one. You just have to make it the best. MS has done that. They have made their products better than their competion and that is why they are 'winning'.

If you don't like MS products no one forces you to use it. Heck, if you wanted to, write your own program that is better. If you think that it stinks then that is fine. Eveyrone is entitled to their own opinion but don't go on thinking that someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use an inferior product.

There are always bugs with programs that are on the scale of one as huge as Windows. Who told you that MS doesn't try to fix the bugs? I'd like to know because I happen to know for a fact that MS tries to fix all their bugs but -- reality check -- they can't fix all of them. They fix the ones that cause the most problems for the most people or cause failure of the OS. They do try to fix things and if anyone tells you otherwise then they have a personal vendetta against the company.

Do you honestly think that your 70 year old grandmother is going to fuss with using Linux? The answer: no. The grandmother just wants to be able to communicate with her family and doesn't want to bother typing in a whole bunch of text just to do something as launch an application. She doesn't want to try to fuss with changing this setting and that setting just so that she has a functional computer. The n-user likes "plug and play."

If you don't like MS' OS then that is fine b/c everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you think that Linux or Unix is superior then that is fine. If Windows is such a POS then it would have died out long ago. You need to remember that there are many people out there that are computer illiterate and need easy to use OS and programs.

zenbooty

06-29-2001, 02:47 PM

Microsoft did not develop DOS. They bought it off of other developers.

Microsoft did not "develop" Windows. They ripped the idea off from Apple's Macintosh interface. Not very innovative, you think?

Unix does not crash without a buggy program to break it.
Novell's OS does not crash without a buggy program to break it.
Macintosh's don't crash unless their running a buggy program which breaks it.
Only Microshit's OS crashes regularly over time, even if you have nothing else loaded on it. That, my friend, is not innovation. That is inferior product, and its foisted upon us because of Microshit's illegal business practices that allowed them to gain and keep their monopoly.

Go Linux!

froggystyle

06-29-2001, 02:52 PM

the reason companies create better products in a competiton environment is to eliminate the competition. The reason intel is working so hard ont he p4 chip is because they want to create usch a superior product at a price that amd wont be bale to compete....prices drop on products so that one company..the company that can afford the lowest prices will come out on top. Every companys ideal goal is to eliminate their competition and be the sole providers.

and as far as applegoes..talking about anti competition..when they started making their comps they pattented everything and would not share anything with devlopers they wanted to be completely self sufficient the tried to begin with no comptetion..they wanted to be the sole developers and the sole mannufacturersof everything apple related..Guess what happened as a result..they bottlenecked and pc's took over the market..

personally i like two buttons on my mouse and i dont much like the interface that apple offers i think its annoying..maybe cause in used to the ms interface. But ill tell you this much. I like the fact that i can cut, copy, paste, open, delete items off my desptop without having barely move my mouse at all. I like the two buttons they allow more options and if you were never to use the right button you could still do everything you can do on a mac just using the left button.

zenbooty

06-29-2001, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR

If you don't like MS' OS then that is fine b/c everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you think that Linux or Unix is superior then that is fine. If Windows is such a POS then it would have died out long ago. You need to remember that there are many people out there that are computer illiterate and need easy to use OS and programs.

Yes, there is a place for Microsoft in this world. All those people who don't wish to actually learn anything about computers still should have access to email and all that. Microsoft serves them. What pisses the rest of us off is that Microsoft would very much like to see, and does everything in its power to achieve the annihilation of all OS's that aren't Microsoft. If they had their way, we would all be stuck with their lame-brained system, without the option of using Unix, or Linux, or Macintosh, or whatever. They pay off 3rd party vendors to ensure that software is only written for Microshit, thus eliminating the market for other OS's. This is an illegal use of power and monopoly, and just absolute bullshit in general.

Chinpoko_Mon

06-29-2001, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR

Whoever said that you had to create the product to be the best at it? No one. You just have to make it the best. MS has done that. They have made their products better than their competion and that is why they are 'winning'.[quote]
MS is not the best product, it's just that more third-party software works with their OS. (Most of these partnerships were formed through coercion, which is why they are in court).

[quote]There are always bugs with programs that are on the scale of one as huge as Windows. Who told you that MS doesn't try to fix the bugs? I'd like to know because I happen to know for a fact that MS tries to fix all their bugs but -- reality check -- they can't fix all of them. They fix the ones that cause the most problems for the most people or cause failure of the OS. They do try to fix things and if anyone tells you otherwise then they have a personal vendetta against the company.
No one disagrees with the fact that MS does have patches to fix problems. If MS is such a GREAT company, why are they selling you an OS that doesn't work a 100%? If MS manufacture cars, they would sell you a car where the A/C might or might not work. The blinkers will work sometimes...the engine crashes for no reason. Sometimes, all the warning lights will just come on and blink like crazy (but all you have to do is kill the engine and start her up again). What a perfect car? isn't it?

Do you honestly think that your 70 year old grandmother is going to fuss with using Linux? The answer: no. The grandmother just wants to be able to communicate with her family and doesn't want to bother typing in a whole bunch of text just to do something as launch an application. She doesn't want to try to fuss with changing this setting and that setting just so that she has a functional computer. The n-user likes "plug and play."
Sounds like you're describing a MAC.

You need to remember that there are many people out there that are computer illiterate and need easy to use OS and programs. Once again, that sounds an awfully lot like a MAC.

froggystyle

06-29-2001, 02:57 PM

Zen

who the individual is that actually physically put together dos or windows or anything else is incosequential...the product is microsofts they own it if the guys name is ben or goerge that put it together doesnt matter waht matters is that bill is the on who took it its his product tis not aols product its not bmw,s product its microsofts product...

Chinpoko_Mon

06-29-2001, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
personally i like two buttons on my mouse and i dont much like the interface that apple offers i think its annoying..maybe cause in used to the ms interface. But ill tell you this much. I like the fact that i can cut, copy, paste, open, delete items off my desptop without having barely move my mouse at all. I like the two buttons they allow more options and if you were never to use the right button you could still do everything you can do on a mac just using the left button.
But the things is NOT everyone likes what you like, so it's just important to allow people to have a choice. This is what America is all about. Choices.... MS is trying to take away our basic freedom of choice.

That makes them very un-Constitional, which once again, is why they are in court.

Chinpoko_Mon

06-29-2001, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
Zen

who the individual is that actually physically put together dos or windows or anything else is incosequential...the product is microsofts they own it if the guys name is ben or goerge that put it together doesnt matter waht matters is that bill is the on who took it its his product tis not aols product its not bmw,s product its microsofts product...

dude, where's the punctuation....

have no idea what you're babbling about... and talk about run-ons... yikes...

zenbooty

06-29-2001, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
Zen

who the individual is that actually physically put together dos or windows or anything else is incosequential...the product is microsofts they own it if the guys name is ben or goerge that put it together doesnt matter waht matters is that bill is the on who took it its his product tis not aols product its not bmw,s product its microsofts product...

The point I was trying to make is that you can't call Microsoft an innovative company when it doesn't design anything original on its own. They either buy it or steal it, or rip off the idea from somebody else. That's not innovation. It might be good (success-wise, not ethics-wise)business, but its not innovation.

Chinpoko_Mon

06-29-2001, 03:07 PM

Courtesy of Dictionary.com

in·no·va·tion (n-vshn)
n.
-The act of introducing something new.
-Something newly introduced.

\/\/|ZarD

06-29-2001, 03:13 PM

This is my final statement on this topic, quickly you'll learn that Got|Apex?'s forums aren't the place for the highest intelectual discussion.

Micro$oft is a company that is only interested in profits. Basically this is what it comes down to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7415/gm.html That is a factual occurance. Old Billy was very much annoyed by GM's response, but hey he should deal with it. He gives us a crap product and then threatens to cancel our contract if we dont' upgrade to the newest crap. http://www.zdnetindia.com/reviews/specials/winxp/stories/22376.html Micro$oft has no right to tell consumers that they HAVE to upgrade. WinXP's eyecandy is most definately not worth the cost of an upgrade.

zenbooty

06-29-2001, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by froggystyle
the reason companies create better products in a competiton environment is to eliminate the competition. The reason intel is working so hard ont he p4 chip is because they want to create usch a superior product at a price that amd wont be bale to compete....prices drop on products so that one company..the company that can afford the lowest prices will come out on top. Every companys ideal goal is to eliminate their competition and be the sole providers.

This is patently wrong on all levels. The reason companies create better products is to make more money. Business is supposed to be about establishing a relationship with your customers to keep them loyal, and competing with other businesses. It is not about driving your competition out of business. That is the unethical way of going about things. Every company's ideal goal is to make profit. Period. The elimination of competition as a goal unto itself is a fallacy that doesn't represent the true spirit of capitalism. That's just one more reason to hate Microsoft, their promotion of the idea that being the best means eliminating all other competitive options. Because when that is the basis of your company, product quality takes a backseat to nasty and often illegal business practices, which is exactly what we are witnessing with Microshit.

and as far as applegoes..talking about anti competition..when they started making their comps they pattented everything and would not share anything with devlopers they wanted to be completely self sufficient the tried to begin with no comptetion..they wanted to be the sole developers and the sole mannufacturersof everything apple related..Guess what happened as a result..they bottlenecked and pc's took over the market..

At the time that Apple started putting together computers, this was the standard industry practice. It wasn't until IBM licensed out its hardware technology that the concept of opens standards and the PC explosion came to be. Don't blame Apple for following what was then computer business gospel. Instead credit IBM for bravely challenging that gospel and making the PC era possible. Especially considering what a risk that was to IBM, who had a lock on just about all computer production at the time.

xsiled

06-29-2001, 03:35 PM

i farted and remembered that bush wasnt a part of our judicial system

zenbooty

06-29-2001, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by xsiled
i farted and remembered that bush wasnt a part of our judicial system

wha?

CluelessSi

07-02-2001, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by \/\/|ZarD
DOS is a piece of shit
Linux tears DOS apart, as does UNIX and even Micro$oft gave up on DOS
Windows is a crappy OS, it is terribly bugged, and M$ doesn't do anything to fix most of the "insignificant" problems
Further more the idea behind windows was taken from Apple's developement of their OS. Windows wasn't innovation it was adaptation... as has been ever single freaking release of Windows. Windows is based on adaptation not innovation. Kudos to Apple for using a Unix kernal, now that's innovation!

M$'s products are not anywhere as simple to use as Apples, or do you think otherwise?
M$ is a terrible standard, and with WinXP I hope it dies in the OS market. WinXP is a piece of shit, it's use of a "pretty" interface will just make a bunch of systems useless. People will start switching to Linux, as they should. Linux is a better product with a better price

Also
Big business is not good for consumers, over said that is stupid. Competition is good for consumers not monopolies. A M$ breakup is necessary, if not we'll all be using NTOS based OS's running/crashing every couple days. NTOS is a step in the right direction, but still not anywhere as good as Unix or Linux

Damn F*** this just break up everything and have nothing make money thus no one will have the revune to make advance. let go back to paper and pencil and human mind, screw computers........

Break up MS then why not break all companies that are a little big like AOL, Apple, Intel AMD anything all things should be open source and evn the government might need to be broken up..... Grrrr.....

I am sick of this argueing... MS climbed to the top and to incorporate other ppl's ideas is not bad thing. it is almost like open sourceing... but if everything is open source then no one will make money and no more advance will come out or they will slow down. ok if MS breaks up then so what... each indiviual thing will take over thier respective markets.. so what kill all big busniess??? tell me that???? I like working for a big company and it is those companies that buy and give money to the small compnaies that might nto have the resources to develop thier product and also might have been the goal of thiers all along (to get a big companies support) What stealing ideas? if it was out then you can have similar ideas... what did apple have? ti was all the idea of Xerox not apple... Xerox did not develop it so someone else did, as did MS...

[Edited by CluelessSi on 07-02-2001 at 09:54 AM]

CluelessSi

07-02-2001, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Chinpoko_Mon

Originally posted by froggystyle
personally i like two buttons on my mouse and i dont much like the interface that apple offers i think its annoying..maybe cause in used to the ms interface. But ill tell you this much. I like the fact that i can cut, copy, paste, open, delete items off my desptop without having barely move my mouse at all. I like the two buttons they allow more options and if you were never to use the right button you could still do everything you can do on a mac just using the left button.
But the things is NOT everyone likes what you like, so it's just important to allow people to have a choice. This is what America is all about. Choices.... MS is trying to take away our basic freedom of choice.

That makes them very un-Constitional, which once again, is why they are in court.

Let's have a choice of government's laws everything, it is not posiible....

if you keep killing the top then no one will compete...

molecularfire

07-02-2001, 10:16 AM

I agree with Clueless. Whether you're a fan of Microsoft or not, you can't deny that as a business they have basically won the game (in the very least, they are doing well). If someone plays well, should they be forced to take it easy so that their opponents can feel like they're doing well. If that's the case, then someone should've made a rule that the lakers can only use Kobe or Shaq in a game and not both at the same time. In my opinion, if you were able to break down the wall and kill the guards, you have a right to sack and pillage as you see fit. It's fair... It's not nice, but it's fair.

zenbooty

07-02-2001, 10:27 AM

Microsoft did not just, "play the game well." They cheated every step of the way, and used there monopoly illegaly. Monopoly is bad for the economy, and bad for technological advancement. To credit Microsoft for anything other than the spread of poisonous business practices is to be blind to the stealing and ripping off of a lot of legitimate work by a lot of independent developers. Anyone who works in or with technology should fear a system where their work can be stolen by a bigger fish simply because they know how to use their girth. THAT is what is going to kill technological innovation. Not the breakup of a monopoly.

molecularfire

07-02-2001, 10:51 AM

I'm not denying that Microsoft cheats. Name one successful company that doesn't. As for using it's girth to push aside smaller companies, yeah it does that too. I have never had a fight with someone bigger than me who didn't try to use his size to his advantage. He'd be pretty stupid in my opinion if he didn't. I bear big people no ill will. They put in the effort to get buff that I didn't. I put in the effort to become fast that they usually don't and have no problem using that to my advantage. I'd be insulted if someone didn't use an advantage that they had in a fight. As for whether Microsoft's monopoly status will help or hurt the progression of technology as a whole, why should Microsoft care about that. I've never fought with someone who was particularly concerned that if they hurt me what repercussions it would have to society as a whole. It benefits us to have technonlgy progress and to have things become cheaper and faster. How does it benefit Microsoft? If technology slows down, they can save money by not having to do too much research only to have that technology become obsolete soon after it was worked out. I never claimed that Microsoft was nice.

zenbooty

07-02-2001, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by molecularfire
I'm not denying that Microsoft cheats. Name one successful company that doesn't.

There are a few, I'm sure. But just because every big company does it, that means we should just accept it and turn a blind eye? We should be holding all companies accountable. The fact that we don't is just indicative of how corrupt our regulatory bodies have become. If this kind of thinking were dominant throughout history, we'd still be slaving in locked-up sweatshops for 18 hours a day from the age of 7 on. We'd still have big boss taking us to the polls and intimidating us to vote HIS way.

As for using it's girth to push aside smaller companies, yeah it does that too. I have never had a fight with someone bigger than me who didn't try to use his size to his advantage. He'd be pretty stupid in my opinion if he didn't. I bear big people no ill will. They put in the effort to get buff that I didn't. I put in the effort to become fast that they usually don't and have no problem using that to my advantage. I'd be insulted if someone didn't use an advantage that they had in a fight.

So you think bullies are a good thing? We have antitrust laws for precisely the reason that they are not a good thing. Monopoly is anethema to a healthy capitalist economy. When one company achieves monopoly, no competitor has a chance to even get started up, and you stop technological advance in its tracks. Just look at the phone company and electrical companies. They've been using the same technologies for decades. Some technologies for over one hundred years! This is a good thing?

As for whether Microsoft's monopoly status will help or hurt the progression of technology as a whole, why should Microsoft care about that.

Of course they don't. That's why we have regulations regarding monopolies and antitrust. Because the corporations only care about their own profit and nothing else, and we need a check against that for the good of everyone else. Its not Microsoft's country. Its OURS.

I've never fought with someone who was particularly concerned that if they hurt me what repercussions it would have to society as a whole. It benefits us to have technonlgy progress and to have things become cheaper and faster. How does it benefit Microsoft? If technology slows down, they can save money by not having to do too much research only to have that technology become obsolete soon after it was worked out. I never claimed that Microsoft was nice.

You're arguing my point here. Microsoft, through its illegal antitrust activities, benefits at the expense of everyone else, most importantly the consumers who comprise our country. That is why Microsoft must be held accountable for its actions which breaks the laws of the land.

ChrisMG187

07-02-2001, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Chinpoko_Mon

Originally posted by froggystyle
personally i like two buttons on my mouse and i dont much like the interface that apple offers i think its annoying..maybe cause in used to the ms interface. But ill tell you this much. I like the fact that i can cut, copy, paste, open, delete items off my desptop without having barely move my mouse at all. I like the two buttons they allow more options and if you were never to use the right button you could still do everything you can do on a mac just using the left button.
But the things is NOT everyone likes what you like, so it's just important to allow people to have a choice. This is what America is all about. Choices.... MS is trying to take away our basic freedom of choice.

That makes them very un-Constitional, which once again, is why they are in court. You say that Microsoft is taking away our basic freedom of choice. If microsoft does become the only OS out there (not likely), you will still have a choice. Who says you have to use a computer. Owning a computer is a choice. Using a computer is a choice.

Chinpoko_Mon

07-02-2001, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by ChrisMG187

Originally posted by Chinpoko_Mon

Originally posted by froggystyle
personally i like two buttons on my mouse and i dont much like the interface that apple offers i think its annoying..maybe cause in used to the ms interface. But ill tell you this much. I like the fact that i can cut, copy, paste, open, delete items off my desptop without having barely move my mouse at all. I like the two buttons they allow more options and if you were never to use the right button you could still do everything you can do on a mac just using the left button.
But the things is NOT everyone likes what you like, so it's just important to allow people to have a choice. This is what America is all about. Choices.... MS is trying to take away our basic freedom of choice.

That makes them very un-Constitional, which once again, is why they are in court. You say that Microsoft is taking away our basic freedom of choice. If microsoft does become the only OS out there (not likely), you will still have a choice. Who says you have to use a computer. Owning a computer is a choice. Using a computer is a choice.

well.. I guess taking away is a bit strong.
Let me re-phrase... MS is limiting our choices and create an environment where it would be tough for new choices/options to come about. MS is not going for competitive advantage, they are going for complete domination.

And the whole thing about choosing not to use a computer. We shouldn't have to loose other choices (the use of a computer), just because we're being forced to choose one path.(e.g. If MS becomes the only OS out there) That would be sad if that was to happen. No one company should ever be allowed to corner the market, that's bad for consumers. That point we should all be able to understand.