imported_Tango
Golden Member
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Tango
Did you read the articles?
Your avatar should be a parrot too.
This statement pissed me off.
"The court said Microsoft was unjustified in tying new applications to its Windows operating system in a way that squeezed out rivals and harmed consumer choice. "
In 2004, I don't recall any Windows MP, IE, or much else squeezing crap. I could install another default MP, Firefox browser, and a security suite offering it's own firewall.
Their comments tell the true to story on the hate mongering.
It's all totally nonsense.
If you made floormats, would you sue Ford for bundling theirs?
I like parrots, I used to have one when I was a kid.
I only asked if you read the articles because the answer to your questions was in the first 5 lines of both.
If Fords were the only cars available, and I made floormats, I would sue Ford if they would not allow me to measure the cockpit in order to build my floormats.
The court endorsed Commission sanctions against Microsoft's tying together of software and refusal to give rival makers of office servers information to enable their products to work smoothly with Windows.
Besides, floormats are accessories to cars, not complements.
MS isn't the only OS.
The point is not being the only OS. The point is being a platform which those who write other softwares must adhere to. The verdict was not about Microsoft Monopoly in the OS market. It was about the effect of Microsoft OS quasi-monopoly on other software markets.