Why not leave it to the OEMs to bundle crap on your pc they do it anyway and make MS include a pamphelet explaining to retards that software bundled with there OS is not the only option and provide them with info on how to obtain alternative sofware. Nobody is making Coke or KFC give away their recipe (yes I know they are not patented). Their competition had to make a product that appealed to customers and then market it properly to gain market share.
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
It's just amazing to me that people with such a dislike for Microsoft continue to use their products. If you don't like it, don't use it!
*EDIT* The bottom line is Microsoft has better products. Many people argue that Linux is better than Windows. While that may be true in the situation they're talking about, they still haven't made it "user friendly." That's where Windows wins, and that's why they have such a strong hold on the market.
*EDIT* The bottom line is Microsoft has better products. Many people argue that Linux is better than Windows. While that may be true in the situation they're talking about, they still haven't made it "user friendly." That's where Windows wins, and that's why they have such a strong hold on the market.
The whole thing gets me angry. Most people on Anandtech forums are computer enthusiasts. That is great--it really is. But for the rest of the world, 90%+ (guessing, probably higher) of the population just want a "solution". They just want something to use the Internet, type some documents, fire off a few emails, play a bit of music while their at it.
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternatives
These operating systems come with everything a home user needs, most larger distributions come with abiword and you can grab staroffice or openoffice if you'd like. Mozilla and Firefox are freely available amongst many others. Yep they even have a TCP/IP stack (
) so you can do the -exact- same sh!t more or less.
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternatives
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
Originally posted by: DWW
The whole thing gets me angry. Most people on Anandtech forums are computer enthusiasts. That is great--it really is. But for the rest of the world, 90%+ (guessing, probably higher) of the population just want a "solution". They just want something to use the Internet, type some documents, fire off a few emails, play a bit of music while their at it.
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternativesThese operating systems come with everything a home user needs, most larger distributions come with abiword and you can grab staroffice or openoffice if you'd like. Mozilla and Firefox are freely available amongst many others. Yep they even have a TCP/IP stack () so you can do the -exact- same sh!t more or less.
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
That's a very narrow vision
A media player and web browswer are not integral to the OS.
They're integral to a complete system.
OEM builders like Dell, HP, etc should have the choice (as they once did) to install any program they want onto the system.
They could ship a windows system with netscape and some other media player etc.
Microsoft's current policies ARE anti-competitive and the EU's decision that Microsoft will have to ship windows without media player is correct. OEMs can install whatever player they want.
Also, your own US government ruled that IE in windows is anti-competitive and microsoft is trying to demonstrate that it's unremovable from the OS
What a paper tiger...
You [explitives] calling these rulings signs of communism are really ignorant. The basis for capitalism is competition and Microsoft is unfairly using their OS marketshare (which was obtained illegally BTW) Such anti-competitive behavior results in poorer products and less choice.
Just look at how much IE has innovated since 2001. Not. At. All.
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Solution to people who don't like integrated features in Windows... go buy a Lindows PC from Walmart.
*EDIT* Wait, nevermind, that won't work. I believe Lindows comes with a media player... so while they suck at it, they're still being anti-competative... they should be sued as well.
*EDIT* Wait, nevermind, that won't work. I believe Lindows comes with a media player... so while they suck at it, they're still being anti-competative... they should be sued as well.
Gibson486
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2000
- 18,378
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Originally posted by: DWW
The whole thing gets me angry. Most people on Anandtech forums are computer enthusiasts. That is great--it really is. But for the rest of the world, 90%+ (guessing, probably higher) of the population just want a "solution". They just want something to use the Internet, type some documents, fire off a few emails, play a bit of music while their at it.
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternativesThese operating systems come with everything a home user needs, most larger distributions come with abiword and you can grab staroffice or openoffice if you'd like. Mozilla and Firefox are freely available amongst many others. Yep they even have a TCP/IP stack () so you can do the -exact- same sh!t more or less.
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
That's a very narrow vision
A media player and web browswer are not integral to the OS.
They're integral to a complete system.
OEM builders like Dell, HP, etc should have the choice (as they once did) to install any program they want onto the system.
They could ship a windows system with netscape and some other media player etc.
Microsoft's current policies ARE anti-competitive and the EU's decision that Microsoft will have to ship windows without media player is correct. OEMs can install whatever player they want.
Also, your own US government ruled that IE in windows is anti-competitive and microsoft is trying to demonstrate that it's unremovable from the OS
What a paper tiger...
Yup, just because the US govt said so, it has to be right
edit: You know, if OEMs where given the choice to pick what media player to give out, they would choose Windows Media Player....
Originally posted by: Gibson486
Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Originally posted by: DWW
The whole thing gets me angry. Most people on Anandtech forums are computer enthusiasts. That is great--it really is. But for the rest of the world, 90%+ (guessing, probably higher) of the population just want a "solution". They just want something to use the Internet, type some documents, fire off a few emails, play a bit of music while their at it.
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternativesThese operating systems come with everything a home user needs, most larger distributions come with abiword and you can grab staroffice or openoffice if you'd like. Mozilla and Firefox are freely available amongst many others. Yep they even have a TCP/IP stack () so you can do the -exact- same sh!t more or less.
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
That's a very narrow vision
A media player and web browswer are not integral to the OS.
They're integral to a complete system.
OEM builders like Dell, HP, etc should have the choice (as they once did) to install any program they want onto the system.
They could ship a windows system with netscape and some other media player etc.
Microsoft's current policies ARE anti-competitive and the EU's decision that Microsoft will have to ship windows without media player is correct. OEMs can install whatever player they want.
Also, your own US government ruled that IE in windows is anti-competitive and microsoft is trying to demonstrate that it's unremovable from the OS
What a paper tiger...
Yup, just because the US govt said so, it has to be right
No, NOT just because the Govt said it, but because it is clearly a violation of trust laws which are designed to protect a competitive capitalist market.
I've edited my above post. You should read the last paragraph.
Some people have a lopsided view of what capitalism is about. It exists for the benefit of producers and consumers. What makes capitalism work and superior to socialism is competition. Capitalism isn't about a few people hitting the 'monopoly' jackpot.
As for things like media player being 'free'. Its not free. Those programmers didn't show up and volunteer their time. The rest of us are absorbing the cost of Media Player through our purchase of the Microsoft OS. So even if you never use Media Player once, you're still paying for it.
Anyway, a monopoly is a company that has full control over an industry. The ultimate evolutionary form of a Monopoly would be to have one company responsible for everything and everyone working for that company. BTW, that's also known as Communism.
As for things like media player being 'free'. Its not free. Those programmers didn't show up and volunteer their time. The rest of us are absorbing the cost of Media Player through our purchase of the Microsoft OS. So even if you never use Media Player once, you're still paying for it.
Anyway, a monopoly is a company that has full control over an industry. The ultimate evolutionary form of a Monopoly would be to have one company responsible for everything and everyone working for that company. BTW, that's also known as Communism.
Turkish
Lifer
- May 26, 2003
- 15,547
- 1
- 81
OMG. I hate all MS-bashers and MS-suers with so much passion. Being an European, I just hate these dumb fvcks. How can you be so stupid.
I feel bad for Bill Gates and rest of the Microsoft... they're NOT doing anything but provide an excellent computing experience for 90% of world's population. What's wrong with that? I know, for sure, that my mom, dad, grandma, uncle, aunt wouldn't be able to send me photos from back home if they had to use Linux, Unix, OpenBSD, etc...
grrrr.
I feel bad for Bill Gates and rest of the Microsoft... they're NOT doing anything but provide an excellent computing experience for 90% of world's population. What's wrong with that? I know, for sure, that my mom, dad, grandma, uncle, aunt wouldn't be able to send me photos from back home if they had to use Linux, Unix, OpenBSD, etc...
grrrr.
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
LOL... so what? I use MSN, AIM, and Yahoo... my point was that if people can't figure out how to download these on their own rather than feel "forced" to use Windows Messenger, maybe they need a Moron Edition to do everything for them short of wiping their arse.
Turkish
Lifer
- May 26, 2003
- 15,547
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Originally posted by: Gibson486
Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Originally posted by: DWW
The whole thing gets me angry. Most people on Anandtech forums are computer enthusiasts. That is great--it really is. But for the rest of the world, 90%+ (guessing, probably higher) of the population just want a "solution". They just want something to use the Internet, type some documents, fire off a few emails, play a bit of music while their at it.
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternativesThese operating systems come with everything a home user needs, most larger distributions come with abiword and you can grab staroffice or openoffice if you'd like. Mozilla and Firefox are freely available amongst many others. Yep they even have a TCP/IP stack () so you can do the -exact- same sh!t more or less.
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
That's a very narrow vision
A media player and web browswer are not integral to the OS.
They're integral to a complete system.
OEM builders like Dell, HP, etc should have the choice (as they once did) to install any program they want onto the system.
They could ship a windows system with netscape and some other media player etc.
Microsoft's current policies ARE anti-competitive and the EU's decision that Microsoft will have to ship windows without media player is correct. OEMs can install whatever player they want.
Also, your own US government ruled that IE in windows is anti-competitive and microsoft is trying to demonstrate that it's unremovable from the OS
What a paper tiger...
Yup, just because the US govt said so, it has to be right
No, NOT just because the Govt said it, but because it is clearly a violation of trust laws which are designed to protect a competitive capitalist market.
I've edited my above post. You should read the last paragraph.
You guys should go read AIWGuru's posts in
this thread. He has no right to speak about anything. He is a moron with duck sh!t in his mouth and in response to intoxication (and joy he gets from duck sh!t games he plays with his duck 'Sh!tty') he can't think like a regular human being.
Just ignore him. Don't take him serious.
X.
I bet they could use a mac just fine.
Ironic since MS gained its monopoly (ignoring the DOS os they got for a song) from 'reverse engineering' Apple's OS which was legally bought from Xerox. They lost the suit to apple but refused to pay for more than a decade and then finally copped out with a stock agreement. In short, they broke the law, were ruled against, ignored the ruling.
They're thugs and crooks.
People who say that real player sucks and media player is better (or in your case 'the computing experience') are very naive. Given the length of time that MS had held this monopoly and its anti-competitive (indeed anti-capitalist) practices of course the competition isn't as good (except in the browser market) How could they possibly produce as good of a product when they have been hedged out of the market?
No sales = no $$$$ for development.
Look at what happened to Corel.
The irony of the title of this thread. MS practices=communist.
-tabbed browsing
-popup blocking
-download manager
-built in proper FTP
-built in proper IRC
-built in WYSIWYG HTML editor
-email client with proper and comprehensive spam filter
etc
etc
etc
lots more.
Yes they are to make a complete system but ....*drumroll*..... that is what people are -paying- for. They want it all. People being the 90%+ of the market who aren't computer enthusiasts--you know, the ones who drive the tech economy.Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Originally posted by: DWW
The whole thing gets me angry. Most people on Anandtech forums are computer enthusiasts. That is great--it really is. But for the rest of the world, 90%+ (guessing, probably higher) of the population just want a "solution". They just want something to use the Internet, type some documents, fire off a few emails, play a bit of music while their at it.
Most home users I know aren't too computer savvy now. The user base has changed and everyone uses computers--even my 75 year old neighbor. She doesn't know how to go find music software. She doesn't have the time nor the patience or understanding for what she "needs" to play music while she types emails. These people are oblivious and just want a solution.
What happens if Microsoft is eventually forced to sell Windows without any media player, web browser, mail client (whats the difference between a mail client and browser? not a whole lot on the moral grounds) hell even a calculator because I'm DWW Math firm and I make a great little calculator that I feel I can't get a market on because everyone has one FREE. What then? The OS itself will be unusable for most people. A kernel, file system, drivers and a GUI (of course more). But that is basically it. What would they do with it. Sit around and look stupid? Not get any work done? Yep!
I'd like to think Windows is Microsoft's product and they should have every right to do what they want with that piece of software. Monopoly laws need to change and are too OLD and don't take todays technological matters to hand. Same with patent laws--OLD and must change (common use stuff like one-click shopping shouldn't be patentable!).
People whine that because Microsoft holds the desktop that it should be "regulated". Not fair I say. NetBSD, GNU/Linux, Solarix x86...all freely downloable online. I'd argue that NetBSD and GNU/Linux have even better hardware support than Windows. Plus they are -free-. So yep, there are no alternativesThese operating systems come with everything a home user needs, most larger distributions come with abiword and you can grab staroffice or openoffice if you'd like. Mozilla and Firefox are freely available amongst many others. Yep they even have a TCP/IP stack () so you can do the -exact- same sh!t more or less.
So what is stopping these people from installing Redhat's GNU/Linux or some other user friendly distribution of an Open Source operating system? Nothing. But they have nothing better to do.
And as far as making them share the source--that is not right. They spent millions upon millions (even billions over the whole lifetime of Windows) into R&D and some people can just come along and steal it? Makes it look like they are just hacks and can't roll their own. Kind of like those who think -all- software should be Open Source/Free Software just because they want to take code for sh!t they can't do.
As others have said Microsoft provides more than ample amounts of information to program software for Windows. Look how much information is on MSDN... crazy!
Ugh anyhow. I just think its a bunch of wankers trying to do this
That's a very narrow vision
A media player and web browswer are not integral to the OS.
They're integral to a complete system.
OEM builders like Dell, HP, etc should have the choice (as they once did) to install any program they want onto the system.
They could ship a windows system with netscape and some other media player etc.
Microsoft's current policies ARE anti-competitive and the EU's decision that Microsoft will have to ship windows without media player is correct. OEMs can install whatever player they want.
Also, your own US government ruled that IE in windows is anti-competitive and microsoft is trying to demonstrate that it's unremovable from the OS
What a paper tiger...
OEMs okay. But what about smaller businesses...the type that make up more than half of the sales I'd say (mom and pop shops get at least 75% of computer sales here). They are to use a bare installation without tools? What if they dont have the time AND money to develop their own collection of tools? They will go out of business if they can't offer what the bigger guys do.
And even those selling computers who manage to stay in business... do you really want to rely on all of them getting together and making a set of compliant tools that all interoperate??
Yeah free choice is great for us enthusiasts. Nothing stops me from downloading Firefox and setting it as the default browser right now.
I wasn't one of those who called it communism but I sure do think it is a step to the left. That "anti-competitve behavior leads to less choice and worse products" card is so outdated. People will demand better and get it. I can't believe how many people whine about IE. Are you for real? ...once again...HOW MUCH INNOVATION CAN A BROWSER HAVE? do you want it to rub your stomach and call you daddy? It does what it NEEDS to do and thats it folks!
As for integration of IE into the OS if you are a programmer for Windows it is -very- handy. Sure it isn't absolutely needed but a LOT of good things come of it when you're a coder.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
*raises eyebrow* The already excellent interface not changing in years does not remotely mean no advances in browser technology have taken place. You might want to do some reading on the subject.
MS's super-strict policies towards OEM builders needs to go. They also need to build in some level of de-integration to allow the end user to uninstall whatever we wish. Past that, let them throw in whatever extra value they can muster and that the market will bear.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter