AWSOME AWSOME NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOT!

[Ameesh]

<< Ameesh,

Donating to charity would NOT undo the damage Microsoft has allegedly otherwise done to the industry. Sure, I'm glad to see them do that, but it simply doesn't make up for anything. >>



the industry wouldnt be here if Microsoft wasnt around, the brought computing to the common person on a world-wide scale. They ship products in 60+ languages and enable the people who use their products to be more productive. If you can only see the hurt theyve done and not all the good you are extremly myopic.

 

[Linux23]

<<

<<

<< standards and protocols are not the same thing as codecs, what a ridiculous statement. >>

Please point out where I said they were the same thing.

If you can't see the similarity between protocols and codecs as open standards, then I'll assume you're not familiar with the inner workings of software. You are forgiven for your ignorance. And for the record, codecs can most certainly be open standards. >>



you drew the example that codecs are just like RFCs not me.


and once again some people like to make money for their hard work, obviously you dont, so lets leave it at that. >>




eh, as far as I know, the Corona project uses a variation of MPEG4, just with a MS brand name to it!
so, i'm not getting the hard work argument.

 

[Ameesh]

<< BillyG isn't greedy for money, but power. Hell, he has more money he knows what to do with, but he seeks power, ever more power. >>



its not like hes running for congress? what exactly are you talking about and where is your evidence? or is just based on the fact that he started and runs the most successfull company in the world?

 

[joohang]

I embrace Microsoft because:

1) Netscape was garbage so I used IE since version 3.02x. Totally fell in love with IE4 and chose other browsers as primary browsers since then.
2) As much as people attack Microsoft for their lack of support of Open Standards, they have been doing an excellent job in the past few years. Examples: W3C DOM (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), SOAP, other XML-related standards. C# is also an ECMA standard now.
3) I absolutely love C# and .NET. Programming is so damn elegant and fun. I never really liked Java, although some stuff are interesting, and I personally think that Netscape and Sun are a bunch of whiners.
4) IMO, the innovations and advancements they brought to this industry far outweighs whatever "damages" they brought along at the same time. And other than those issues with OEMs, very few of their accused issues matter to me.
5) They make a lot of excellent products and every new version has some interesting additions to it. There are some exceptions, of course, but bad products quickly fade away. Some people complain about how slowly Windows innovated and labelled Windows 98 a "service pack with a charge" but all software has major and minor version updates. The only thing I found annoying was the OEMs bundling Windows without an option to get rid of them. That bothered me quite a bit since I already owned an extra license.

That's about all I got to say for now.

 

[joohang]

<< eh, as far as I know, the Corona project uses a variation of MPEG4, just with a MS brand name to it!
so, i'm not getting the hard work argument. >>


That's like arguing that AMD engineers didn't work hard to design the Athlon since it's based on x86 any ways.

 

[Nemesis77]

Whoopee! Another closed-source proprietary thingy from the greatest company in the world! Let's all hear it for Microsoft! Remember, they only do what's best for you and me!

Trust Microsoft. Microsoft is your friend.

 

[Linux23]

<<

<< eh, as far as I know, the Corona project uses a variation of MPEG4, just with a MS brand name to it!
so, i'm not getting the hard work argument. >>


That's like arguing that AMD engineers didn't work hard to design the Athlon since it's based on x86 any ways. >>



yeah, but i'm sure AMD didn't start from scratch either. and designing a CPU and software development are two different things, IMHO.

that's like saying just because Linux is OpenSource, it would take blood, sweat and tears to modify it and make it run as efficient as possible.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< the industry wouldnt be here if Microsoft wasnt around, the brought computing to the common person on a world-wide scale. They ship products in 60+ languages and enable the people who use their products to be more productive. If you can only see the hurt theyve done and not all the good you are extremly myopic. >>



Not quite. It was IBM who came up with the PC, if you want to name one company responsible for bringing computers to home, I woud say IBM. The fact that IBM happened to use MS-OS was pure coincidence. And DOS wasn't really MS-OS, MS bought it from another company (to my knowledge, the acronym "DOS" meant "quick 'n Dirty Operating System" originally in that company. MS changed it's meaning to "Disk Operating System")

What good has MS done to the world? I honestly don't know. They have held back innovation, that's what they have done. There are systems there with far superior GUI's, there are systems with far more features, stability & performance. But since we happen to have a product that's average at best as a monopoly, it's extremely difficult for those products to gain foothold. So most of the world uses products that are simply inferior to other alternatives out there. They use it because they have no real choice on the matter.

 

[joohang]

<< yeah, but i'm sure AMD didn't start from scratch either. >>


Agreed.



<< and designing a CPU and software development are two different things, IMHO. >>


True, but I think that was a pretty valid analogy.



<< that's like saying just because Linux is OpenSource, it would take blood, sweat and tears to modify it and make it run as efficient as possible.

>>


I don't quite understand that one. *scratches his head*

I haven't seen Corona so I don't know if it's good or not, but if it's a damn good product, I don't think it matters whether people worked hard or not. If 90% of Corona is pure MPEG4, that's pretty stupid, but if it offers some superb features over existing MPEG4-based codecs, that's all that matters to me. If Microsoft developers took little effort to develop such an superb product, that to me just means that they had a great team.

 

[Ameesh]

<<

<<

<<

<< standards and protocols are not the same thing as codecs, what a ridiculous statement. >>

Please point out where I said they were the same thing.

If you can't see the similarity between protocols and codecs as open standards, then I'll assume you're not familiar with the inner workings of software. You are forgiven for your ignorance. And for the record, codecs can most certainly be open standards. >>



you drew the example that codecs are just like RFCs not me.


and once again some people like to make money for their hard work, obviously you dont, so lets leave it at that. >>




eh, as far as I know, the Corona project uses a variation of MPEG4, just with a MS brand name to it!
so, i'm not getting the hard work argument. >>




here comes all the here-say remarks

if you knew anything you would know that MPEG-4 will be using the H.26L Video Coding Technology, Corona does not.

 

[Ameesh]

<<

<< the industry wouldnt be here if Microsoft wasnt around, the brought computing to the common person on a world-wide scale. They ship products in 60+ languages and enable the people who use their products to be more productive. If you can only see the hurt theyve done and not all the good you are extremly myopic. >>



Not quite. It was IBM who came up with the PC, if you want to name one company responsible for bringing computers to home, I woud say IBM. The fact that IBM happened to use MS-OS was pure coincidence. And DOS wasn't really MS-OS, MS bought it from another company (to my knowledge, the acronym "DOS" meant "quick 'n Dirty Operating System" originally in that company. MS changed it's meaning to "Disk Operating System")

What good has MS done to the world? I honestly don't know. They have held back innovation, that's what they have done. There are systems there with far superior GUI's, there are systems with far more features, stability & performance. But since we happen to have a product that's average at best as a monopoly, it's extremely difficult for those products to gain foothold. So most of the world uses products that are simply inferior to other alternatives out there. They use it because they have no real choice on the matter. >>




when IBM had PC's they were not in peoples home, they were extremly expensive pieces of hardware only used ina very few select businesses, now because of the business descions microsoft made computing is very ubiquitous in the United states asw ell as other 1st world countries.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< when IBM had PC's they were not in peoples home, they were extremly expensive pieces of hardware only used ina very few select businesses, now because of the business descions microsoft made computing is very ubiquitous in the United states asw ell as other 1st world countries. >>



True, at first they were expensive. But then we started to get clone-manufacturers who made their own PC's at cheaper price. Ar are you going to claim that it was in fact Microsoft who was responsible for that? How exactly has MS helped make computing cheaper? They keep on releasing more and more bloated products that demand more and more resources. And while prices of every single component in a PC has dropped, the price of MS-OS has held steady. Which means that looking at the price of PC, the % of the price that goes to Microsoft is getting bigger and bigger. But that's usualyl a sign of monopoly. No component-manufacturer has monopoly, in fact, competition is cutthroat. And prices have come crashing down. The one single piece of PC where we have a monopoly is also the only area where prices have not dropped. Interesting...

Do you still remember Microsoft per-processor licenses? Basically it meant that OEM had to pay license-costs to MS for every computer they shipped. It didn't matter what software was in that PC, you had to pay Microsoft for it. OEM could ship 100% Microsoft-free PC, and they still had to pay Microsoft for licenses. Yep, MS sure has brought the price of computing down!

 

[johneetrash]

hey i live in corona near travis barker

 

[manly]

<< I embrace Microsoft because:

1) Netscape was garbage so I used IE since version 3.02x. Totally fell in love with IE4 and chose other browsers as primary browsers since then. >>


IMHO IE wasn't clearly better until version 5.0. NS 4.x is certainly a bloated browser, but I still prefer it over IE4 any day. NS 4.x failed due to some poor business decisions by Netscape, but mostly because of MS' abuse of its monopoly and strongarming OEMs; not because IE was a better product at the time. Note I'm not a Web developer, and I understand most of them hate NS 4.x with a passion.


<< 2) As much as people attack Microsoft for their lack of support of Open Standards, they have been doing an excellent job in the past few years. Examples: W3C DOM (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), SOAP, other XML-related standards. C# is also an ECMA standard now. >>


Get real. They support so-called "open standards" wherever it meets their business objectives. To say they've done an "excellent job" recently is absurd. IE is not the most standards-compliant browser (Mozilla and Opera are better). SOAP is just an RPC mechanism that slips through firewalls; you can still implement totally proprietary systems with it. C# is an ECMA standard but we all know .Net is not. There's a *big* difference between the two. Whenever you're beholden to a single vendor, I hardly would consider that open competition with choices for the consumer.


<< 3) I absolutely love C# and .NET. Programming is so damn elegant and fun. I never really liked Java, although some stuff are interesting, and I personally think that Netscape and Sun are a bunch of whiners. >>


We've discussed this a bunch of times already. C# is 95% Java so what's the huge fuss? VStudio is a very strong tool, but you worship .Net way more than it's worth. But that's your decision, and I respect that. I'm just pointing out that its not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Neither is Java.


<< 4) IMO, the innovations and advancements they brought to this industry far outweighs whatever "damages" they brought along at the same time. And other than those issues with OEMs, very few of their accused issues matter to me. >>


So what? Because they've been a successful company with net positive effects means we ignore the damages (if they are serious)? If a felon donates time and money to charities, we let him walk? Think about it for a second.


<< 5) They make a lot of excellent products and every new version has some interesting additions to it. There are some exceptions, of course, but bad products quickly fade away. Some people complain about how slowly Windows innovated and labelled Windows 98 a "service pack with a charge" but all software has major and minor version updates. The only thing I found annoying was the OEMs bundling Windows without an option to get rid of them. That bothered me quite a bit since I already owned an extra license. >>


It bothers you quite a bit that in the PC industry one company forces (major) OEMs to compel all consumers to pay for a Windows license, when some would choose otherwise. Explain to me how that's legal or in the spirit of fair competition. Actually, the courts have already ruled that it's illegal. However, the DoJ decided to slap them on the wrists and let them go their merry way because they are a successful American corporation.

Today, MS may innovate a good deal, but they have a fairly shoddy track record over many years of borrowing, copying or stealing wherever it pleases them. Arguably, their success is due more to business execution and marketing rather than products.

Finally, Ameesh vastly overstates their influence in society. Face it, if Windows had never been successfully hatched, Mac OS could well be the GUI we all know and use. And if you analyze the situation carefully, you'll realize that PCs have penetrated households because the hardware was commoditized, not because the monopoly OS cost any less. Throughout all these years when Windows licenses grew in volume, the price remained the same. I'd be inclined to say cheap PCs and the Internet (i.e. AOL and other ISPs) were more significant factors in getting PCs into homes than the Winblows 9x user experience.

MS essentially has a natural monopoly. Why you would allow a company w/ such a market position to break the law and then argue they should be allowed to do so because they provide the monopoly product is completely ridiculous and illogical.

 

[joohang]

<< IMHO IE wasn't clearly better until version 5.0. NS 4.x is certainly a bloated browser, but I still prefer it over IE4 any day. NS 4.x failed due to some poor business decisions by Netscape, but mostly because of MS' abuse of its monopoly and strongarming OEMs; not because IE was a better product at the time. Note I'm not a Web developer, and I understand most of them hate NS 4.x with a passion. >>


Perhaps it has to do with my background but I loved IE especially since version 4.x because I started coding DHTML since beta 1. I absolutely hated Netscape, although I had little against it before version 4.



<< Get real. They support so-called "open standards" wherever it meets their business objectives. To say they've done an "excellent job" recently is absurd. IE is not the most standards-compliant browser (Mozilla and Opera are better). >>


Very true, but for years it conforms to the standards pretty darn closely. And Mozilla and Opera aren't perfectly standard-compliant either, although they are very close.

On a side note, many features proprietary to IE and later became standardized (albeit some were somewhat modified) in W3C. i.e. some HTML tags, CSS attributes, DOM, etc. Perhaps this has to do with your argument on their business objectives. And quite possibly the eason IE doesn't quite conform to the standards well is probably because they initially shipped proprietary features and then pushed the standardization afterwards - which has both positive and negative effects.



<< SOAP is just an RPC mechanism that slips through firewalls; you can still implement totally proprietary systems with it. C# is an ECMA standard but we all know .Net is not. There's a *big* difference between the two. Whenever you're beholden to a single vendor, I hardly would consider that open competition with choices for the consumer. >>


So what do you think that Microsoft should ideally do?



<< We've discussed this a bunch of times already. C# is 95% Java so what's the huge fuss? VStudio is a very strong tool, but you worship .Net way more than it's worth. But that's your decision, and I respect that. I'm just pointing out that its not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Neither is Java. >>


I'll rephrase that to make it more clear. I love .NET as a whole - C# as my language of choice, Visual Studio, and the Base Class Libraries. I agree that it imitates Java in a lot of ways, but its resemblance to Java bothers me little. In fact, it got me more interested in learning some Java.



<< So what? Because they've been a successful company with net positive effects means we ignore the damages (if they are serious)? If a felon donates time and money to charities, we let him walk? Think about it for a second. >>


Well that depends on the damages and how much it relates to me. No, donations to charities do not change the fact that they broke the law, but that's up to the court to decide.

Other than my annoyance with the OEM stuff (and oh, their damn licensing ), I felt little or no damages from Microsoft.



<< It bothers you quite a bit that in the PC industry one company forces (major) OEMs to compel all consumers to pay for a Windows license, when some would choose otherwise. Explain to me how that's legal or in the spirit of fair competition. Actually, the courts have already ruled that it's illegal. However, the DoJ decided to slap them on the wrists and let them go their merry way because they are a successful American corporation. >>


To be honest, I lost track of this whole case. It grew too big and lasted too long to keep my attention. If they proved that Microsoft forced the OEMs, then that's illegal and I'm against it.

I am not quite sure what "damages" they have caused to the industry and how that influenced/impacted me.



<< Face it, if Windows had never been successfully hatched, Mac OS could well be the GUI we all know and use. >>


On a side note to that, I am interested in running that 64-bit version of MacOS X just for the GUI.



<< I'd be inclined to say cheap PCs and the Internet (i.e. AOL and other ISPs) were more significant factors in getting PCs into homes than the Winblows 9x user experience. >>


Agreed.