MS sued again... f-ing communists...

[DWW]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Just look at how much IE has innovated since 2001. Not. At. All.

*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.

IE 6 came out in 2001 with windows XP. It hasn't added any new features.
Period.
On the other hand, if it weren't for MS's anti competitive behaviour, OEMs would have chosen superior product if equal choice was present (as in the netscape days) meaning that the following features would be commonplace for everyone:
-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
But they're not.

-tabbed browsing is a preference not necessarily an advance
-popup blocking you can have
-download manager? Who needs one ? I get my 700MB ISO from FTP--a better protocol thanks
-FTP? In a web browser? Keep em separate please
-IRC? That is absurb and definitely unnecessary
-Editor? This is a browser not a web "developer" (is that what they are called?) tool
-Email client? Sorry , once again it is a browser.

I'm just going to leave this thread. The stupidity and ignorance is too much for me.
Unbelievable.

Translation: "I can't respond to that without contradicting myself so I'm leaving this thread."

More like: "you're a bunch of retards who are ignoring valid points and repeating the same illogical garbage. You clearly have no understanding of the issues or any desire to learn about them so I'm not going to waste my time."

In other words "I lost ground in the thread and coudln't get any support so now I'm going to whine like a baby, act like I'm superior, do some name calling (tee hee) and pout then leave" ?

We could have had a civil discussion. Instead YOU were the one that argued my points on browser differences. I never said that you said IE had to have those. But that they were not necessarily advantageous points to make any browser better. THATS IT. I just argued how much "better" the browser you tout is.

...then you start calling me ignorant and a retard. Gee thanks.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
I'm going to sue Apple because their OS comes with that damn yellow sticky note program included, it's preventing me from using all the other wonderful yellow sticky note programs out there, OMGHI2U!

You can't do that cause Apple isn't the evil one... Microsoft is.

They're evil, sticky note monopolizing nazis!

 

[Jeff7181]

Quick passing thought - what about motherboards, and integrating components there? nForce2's MCP+T has probably kept a number of people from buying another sound card. Creative, Voyetra - both aren't liking that, but the end user will. Just plug the speakers into the motherboard.
Maybe that's relevant, maybe not. As I said, just a passing thought.

That's very relavant... and a very good point. Why hasn't nVidia been sued for being anti-competative?

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Just look at how much IE has innovated since 2001. Not. At. All.

*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.

IE 6 came out in 2001 with windows XP. It hasn't added any new features.
Period.
On the other hand, if it weren't for MS's anti competitive behaviour, OEMs would have chosen superior product if equal choice was present (as in the netscape days) meaning that the following features would be commonplace for everyone:
-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
But they're not.

-tabbed browsing is a preference not necessarily an advance
-popup blocking you can have
-download manager? Who needs one ? I get my 700MB ISO from FTP--a better protocol thanks
-FTP? In a web browser? Keep em separate please
-IRC? That is absurb and definitely unnecessary
-Editor? This is a browser not a web "developer" (is that what they are called?) tool
-Email client? Sorry , once again it is a browser.

I'm just going to leave this thread. The stupidity and ignorance is too much for me.
Unbelievable.

Translation: "I can't respond to that without contradicting myself so I'm leaving this thread."

More like: "you're a bunch of retards who are ignoring valid points and repeating the same illogical garbage. You clearly have no understanding of the issues or any desire to learn about them so I'm not going to waste my time."

In other words "I lost ground in the thread and coudln't get any support so now I'm going to whine like a baby, act like I'm superior, do some name calling (tee hee) and pout then leave" ?

We could have had a civil discussion. Instead YOU were the one that argued my points on browser differences. I never said that you said IE had to have those. But that they were not necessarily advantageous points to make any browser better. THATS IT. I just argued how much "better" the browser you tout is.

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

It's a vicious circle. Everyday people look at a computer and think Windows HAS to be a part of the deal, just as if Bell would bundle their service with every telephone that's sold on the marke (OK, the comparison is imperfect, since computers are such particular tools). But the fact is, many retailers force you to buy Windows when you buy a computer, and sometimes you just don't have a choice (either because of location or limited time available). And even if they don't force you to buy it, the price of the OS is hidden in the tag.

As for contentions that companies like Microsoft are good because they maintain a standard, THAT is ALSO a tired argument. We have scores of image files, yet they can all be used. We have both proprietary AND free music encoding algorythms, and the free ones are usually better, too. A variety would be good, because it would make people more aware of what is OUT THERE, instead of just going for the Windows/Intel platform. Simplification for the sake of simplification is never good in the long run; even if the costs are down, the quality always suffers. Look at electronics - in music equipment, the consumer no longer has options to adjust the bass/treble on his machines, instead he's fed with "presets"... the list could go on. Bill Gates recently said that in a few years hardware will be free, because all you'll pay will be the software. The implications and risks are enormous.

And when Microsoft will implement things like DRM and related initiatives, a lot of people will be crying wolf, but it will just be too late.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Quick passing thought - what about motherboards, and integrating components there? nForce2's MCP+T has probably kept a number of people from buying another sound card. Creative, Voyetra - both aren't liking that, but the end user will. Just plug the speakers into the motherboard.
Maybe that's relevant, maybe not. As I said, just a passing thought.

That's very relavant... and a very good point. Why hasn't nVidia been sued to being anti-competative?

Because you can buy a motherboard with a radeon IGP or an SIS IGP and still run all compatible software.
You can't buy an OEM PC without IE and with mozilla instead.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

Then please stop. Or at least stop cascade quoting.

 

[Jeff7181]

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

 

[BD2003]

I dont so much think that media players being bundled is the REAL problem with MS's dominance. Its the total and utter lack of innovation due to it. Lets face it, microsoft has a complete and utter lock on the desktop. OS X is there, but its only for macs, and theyre proprietary. Linux is there, but its too hard for the average user to use, and because people cant make money on it, theres no driving force behind it.

The problem is that windows is the standard, and that standard is completely and utterly proprietary, and abused as bad as it could possibly be. If you want to make software that makes money, you have to make it for windows. Windows is not an open standard, its a microsoft standard. Computing is not something cute anymore, it is practically the foundation of our society now, and ONE company controls it. And that is the reason why the desktop has barely changed since windows 95 (almost 10 years!), windows costs $299 new, and its dog slow and bloated as hell, and only recently stable enough to actually use. There have been other valiant attempts at making a new OS (BeOS was brilliant for its time), but if it cant run windows programs, it might as well not be able to run anything at all.

Imagine if we still had only one choice of phone company cause the original locked it down. Its not the best of analogys, but computing is a very different beast.

What I would like to see is the ability for other companies to build compatible OSes. I know it can be done. Not an OS that can emulate windows, but a program that can run windows programs natively. They wouldnt even be windows programs anymore, they would just be programs that conforms to a new interoperability standard. One (or even two) open standards that programs and drivers can write to. Lets face it, all desktops are basically the same. Each new OS could have its own quirks, but Id venture to guess that there would be less bugs, not more, if the standards were opened. Sure, if the standard is built on windows (which it almost certainly would be) microsoft should get a healthy license fee for a long time. But Id like to see something new rather than this same old crap. A lean, legacy free OS that isnt bogged down by old crap, and doesnt include 90% of the garbage that comes with XP that Ill never use. Computing isnt a toy anymore where a lack of competition isnt so much of a problem. Standards are quite possibly the most important thing in computing, and its like other companies not being able to build ATX cases and components when thats the one everyone uses.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Quick passing thought - what about motherboards, and integrating components there? nForce2's MCP+T has probably kept a number of people from buying another sound card. Creative, Voyetra - both aren't liking that, but the end user will. Just plug the speakers into the motherboard.
Maybe that's relevant, maybe not. As I said, just a passing thought.

That's very relavant... and a very good point. Why hasn't nVidia been sued for being anti-competative?

Because nVidia doesn't have a monoploy.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Jeff7181,

your myopic views are only equalled by your verbosity. There are many issues at hand with Microsoft, and the EU is doing what the U.S. should've done a long time ago. And bashing the Europeans, particularly the French, will not accomplish anything. You're just a retard (or at best, an inadequately raised, immature teenager) on a big forum - luckily, your frothing at the mouth is just water under the bridge. Now shut up and go back to your McDonald's/AOL/Disney/FoxNews regular schedule.

Yeah, verbosity = logorrhea. Or maybe, more accurate in your case, verbal diarrhea. Zip up, your red,white and blue is showing.

Uhm yeah, sure
Excessive words my ass. It's funny you're the one accusing him of verbosity.


AnitaPeterson for luvly v2! :disgust:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Quick passing thought - what about motherboards, and integrating components there? nForce2's MCP+T has probably kept a number of people from buying another sound card. Creative, Voyetra - both aren't liking that, but the end user will. Just plug the speakers into the motherboard.
Maybe that's relevant, maybe not. As I said, just a passing thought.

That's very relavant... and a very good point. Why hasn't nVidia been sued for being anti-competative?

Because nVidia doesn't have a monoploy.

In my opinion, neither does Microsoft. My point is, it could be said that nVidia is being anti-competative and trying to put Creative labs and the rest of the sound card manufacturers out of business. Afterall... I can't remove the soundstorm audio from my A7N8X Deluxe any more than I can remove IE from Windows XP.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Jeff7181,

your myopic views are only equalled by your verbosity. There are many issues at hand with Microsoft, and the EU is doing what the U.S. should've done a long time ago. And bashing the Europeans, particularly the French, will not accomplish anything. You're just a retard (or at best, an inadequately raised, immature teenager) on a big forum - luckily, your frothing at the mouth is just water under the bridge. Now shut up and go back to your McDonald's/AOL/Disney/FoxNews regular schedule.

Yeah, verbosity = logorrhea. Or maybe, more accurate in your case, verbal diarrhea. Zip up, your red,white and blue is showing.

Uhm yeah, sure
Excessive words my ass. It's funny you're the one accusing him of verbosity.


AnitaPeterson for luvly v2! :disgust:

His/her use of $10 words excuses him/her from being called verbose.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

capitalism fails when their is only one producer of a good, never mind you truely are an idiot.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

That's oversimplified and silly.
Let's see you apply this to a monopoly such as Debeers.
They're strong. They control the market. No problems, right?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

That's oversimplified and silly.
Let's see you apply this to a monopoly such as Debeers.
They're strong. They control the market. No problems, right?

They DO have competition now though Well... soon they will.

 

[Jeff7181]

Anyway... I'm done here for now... I have a garbage disposal to replace

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

That's oversimplified and silly.
Let's see you apply this to a monopoly such as Debeers.
They're strong. They control the market. No problems, right?

They DO have competition now though Well... soon they will.

The thing about debeers...aside from slavery and whatnot is that they control 90+% of the diamonds in the world. They stockpile them thus artificially inflating the price.
The notion that diamons are rare is completely false. This hoarding drives the value up regardless of how common large, fine, diamonds are and most people will only buy Debeers diamonds.
There are superior alternatives for less money such as Canadian Diamonds but people don't want them.
Similarly, although these synthetic diamonds may be as good, they just won't be the same thing. They won't be what people want. The deman for debeers is artificial after all...

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

capitalism fails when their is only one producer of a good, never mind you truely are an idiot.

Exactly.

That's why a monopoly is not allowed in a capitalist society.

The OP talked about how communists were trying to bring Microsoft down. if anything we, the United States (a capitalist society), have investigated Microsoft more than any country out there.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I tried for a while to talk civilly but it became clearly quickly that the...people...in the thread were very closed minded and incapable of understanding the basic premise being presented about capitalism, competition, and trust violoations.
Good thing the supreme court and European Unions have a clear understaning of such concepts.
It's simply not worth my time to discuss this with people who clearly don't have the same level of understanding (looking at it from the highschool level) It's just not a teneble discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether I, or anyone else you've addressed understands the "basic premise being presented." I understand it just fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what capitalism means. You say it promotes competition... I agree. But I DO NOT agree that Microsoft should lower their standards or help the competition if they fall behind. That's not capitalism.

And is it really capitalism if no one else can compete with a monopoly and that monopoly is using it advanatage to move into other fields.

My solution would be that MS has to sale their software with no conditions on use or resale.

In capitalism, the strong survive... they don't help the weak.

That's oversimplified and silly.
Let's see you apply this to a monopoly such as Debeers.
They're strong. They control the market. No problems, right?

They DO have competition now though Well... soon they will.

The thing about debeers...aside from slavery and whatnot is that they control 90+% of the diamonds in the world. They stockpile them thus artificially inflating the price.
The notion that diamons are rare is completely false. This hoarding drives the value up regardless of how common large, fine, diamonds are and most people will only buy Debeers diamonds.
There are superior alternatives for less money such as Canadian Diamonds but people don't want them.
Similarly, although these synthetic diamonds may be as good, they just won't be the same thing. They won't be what people want. The deman for debeers is artificial after all...

Don't forget that if a mine decidedes to sell outside of debeers the debeers will flood the market and force the supplier to sell to debeers.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AIWGuru
Just look at how much IE has innovated since 2001. Not. At. All.

*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.

IE 6 came out in 2001 with windows XP. It hasn't added any new features.
Period.
On the other hand, if it weren't for MS's anti competitive behaviour, OEMs would have chosen superior product if equal choice was present (as in the netscape days) meaning that the following features would be commonplace for everyone:
-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
But they're not.

-tabbed browsing is a preference not necessarily an advance
-popup blocking you can have
-download manager? Who needs one ? I get my 700MB ISO from FTP--a better protocol thanks
-FTP? In a web browser? Keep em separate please
-IRC? That is absurb and definitely unnecessary
-Editor? This is a browser not a web "developer" (is that what they are called?) tool
-Email client? Sorry , once again it is a browser.

I'm just going to leave this thread. The stupidity and ignorance is too much for me.
Unbelievable.

Yes, your stupidity and ignorance is unbelievable.
Jackass. Burn in hell.

X.

 

[Effen]

I'm curious. How many pro MS folks posting here don't
1) own MS stock, or
2) work for MS or sell MS products or services for MS products exclusively.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: athithi
I think the essence of the argument is that by bundling in software like Windows Media Player for free, MS is using it's OS base to unfairly capture the market for other s/w products, thereby making it difficult for companies like RealNetworks to sell their own s/w. Does MS have a pay-version of Windows Media Player? I think that alone would kill the monopoly argument.

So a company is not allowed to give away free features. Utter insanity. Ya know, now that I think about it... I think I'd rather use MAC's GUI, and the Linux Journaling file system, and the FireFox web browser... so... Windows shouldn't bundle it's GUI, file system, or web browser with it's OS anymore because they're being unfair.

Please!

I think they don't have a problem with the bundling as long as it can be 'unbundled'. MS insisted that IE cannot be unbundled from Windows (which I found exceedingly moronic considering how late into the Windows Platform MS embraced the internet). On the other hand, s/w makers should just stop making software products for the Windows platform. That way, MS would get what it wants - one monolithic product that is largely stable and gives the consumer everything he/she wants. The ISV would get what they want - a level playing field where they don't have to be a multi-billion dollar company that re-invents the OS just to be able to sell a specific software product.

i actually like windows explorer ie style