[ale] OT: submit your own anti-trust complaint against Microsoft (trollicious)

[Geoffrey]

synco gibraldter wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2003 at 6:27, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
> 
>> Troll??
> 
> 
> i suppose so.
> 
> 
>> So you don't mind buying a computer with a pre-installed OS that
>> you won't use?  You don't mind that fact that their lack of
>> security in their systems has permitted worms and viri to take over
>> the internet?
> 
> 
> you're right -- i hate that.  i couldn't get ANY laptop vendor to
> send me a laptop without preinstalling software on it.  but i don't
> blame MS for making dell do that... i blame dell for putting windows
> on there and jacking the price up by $700 or whatever they do.

I'm sorry, you're an idiot if you think this is Dell's doing.  All the 
vendors do it so they won't get screwed by the monopoly in town, 
Microsoft.  Now understand, I didn't say 'you were and idiot,' I said
you were an idiot IF....'


> though i'm sure MS loves these kinds of deals, i think the bottom
> line is that dell does it because 1) the markup is outrageous for
> their volume on windows software and

You are wrong, they get very little out of the OS.  Microsoft gets the 
bulk of it.  You need to do some research dude.

2) most people wouldn't know
> what to do if they had to install an OS on their new machine.

I didn't say sell them bare metal.  You can sell them Linux, or BEOS 
when it was around.  OS/2 when it was around.  Gee, why aren't these 
other commercial OS's still around???

Just the same, everyone who buys a computer has to learn how to use it. 
  Unfortunately, most folks aren't buying their first computer, and they 
are used to Microsoft ways.  KDE does not operate much differently.  A 
preloaded Linux box would suit most folks who aren't doing games.  There 
are alternatives to that as well.

> yes i
> hate it, but blaming ms for it is like a person who refuses to wear a
> seatbelt getting mad at a seatbelt manufacturer for allowing the car
>  manufacturer to put it in there by default.  i know this analogy is
> far from parallel, but you can see the absurdity.

No, your analogy is way off base.  The reason you see computers 
pre-loaded with Windows is because of pressure by Microsoft on the 
vendors.  This is one of the things the group of states sued Microsoft 
over and (supposedly) won. It specifically forbids Microsoft from 
controlling what OS is preloaded, but we see how much difference that 
has made.

>> It's okay if they buy their way into university systems and public 
>> school, poisoning children's views of what a stable, useful
>> computer environment should look like?
> 
> 
> i think the university systems bought their way into MS -- you think
> the universities are making money from buying ms software?  i don't
> think so.

Did I say that?  I said Microsoft bought their way into the school 
systems.  Microsoft gives away hardware and software to lock school 
systems into their grasp.

i think the university's though process was more like:
> "what OS is used and known by most people?  which OS has most of the
> software used in business [ms office junks, etc.]?"  of course they
> would love to use all linux and pay for nothing, but would all the
> students happily switch over to learn/use linux?  probably not man.

Last time I checked, students didn't decide what tools they used in 
classes, whether that was text books, desks or computer operating systems...

> i've tried showing people what linux is and how to use it and they
> have been disinterested.  MS is made for monkeys and, unfortunately,
> we live on a planet of monkeys.

That's the closest to an accurate statement you've made thus far.

>> You have to look at the history of things.  Where would computing
>> be now if Microsoft did not have total control of this business?
>> How much more advanced would it be?
> 

<snip>

> but you have to admit that right now, there is absolutely no chance
> that an average person would even know what they're looking at
> working with linux

Wrong.  My 62 year old mother-in-law is using Linux right now. Yes, I 
set it up, but that's no different then a preloaded M$ box.

-- the learning curve is much more steep and the
> GUI is not standard or easily integrated yet.

The learning curve for using a pre-installed Linux box is no more than 
that of a pre-installed M$ box, the big difference is most folks have 
already been through the M$ learning curve.


> MS had a huge head
> start in the OS department... linux has caught up VERY quickly and is
> still gaining ground.  when linux surpasses win in usability (and
> like i said: i don't expect it to be more than a few short years),
> we'll see the shift.  until then, that, in my opinion, is the reason
> why the world is still in windows.

Linux has already passed Windows in useability with the exception of gaming.

The reason the world is windows is because M$ holds a monopoly.  Why was 
it that EVERYONE used AT&T for long distance 20 years ago????

> 
>> Companies can not compete with an embedded monopoly.  You're
>> kidding yourself if you think Microsoft has the corner on
>> innovation.  There operating systems suck. Don't tell me how great
>> XP and 2000 are.  How long has it taken them to get that far?  And
>> they still crash, lock up, and puke.  Are you looking forward to
>> DMCA controlled Microsoft documents?  That's next folks.  You won't
>> be able to open a Microsoft document with a non-microsoft product
>> without breaking the law.  You think I'm kidding, do the research
>> for your self.
> 
> 
> back to the original question -- what do you mean by embedded?  and i
> don't think you can say their OSs suck... yes, they're buggy.

Oh yeah, their OS's suck big F* time.  They crash all the time, they are 
full of security problems.

yes
> they have a million holes -- and yet i've had windows 2000 on a
> machine for years and never had a serious crash or malfunction, never
> gotten a virus/worm.... i mean.... i haven't on my linux machines 
> either, but when my friends come over and want to check their email,
> they head for the windows box because linux requires too much
> overhead knowledge.

That's a crock of shit.  Sure, I took all of about 1 hour to show my 
mother-in-law around Linux.  But now I'm not going over there once a 
week to figure out why it crashed this time.

There is absolutely no difference with checking email on Outlook or 
checking email with Netscape, from a learning curve perspective.

> and no, i'm not looking forward to the mess you're talking about
> there... i'm looking forward to linux taking over.  and i know it
> will.  but i stand by my statement that microsoft has made some
> (conceptually) fantastic software and has brought the pc into the
> home and office.  it's MY contention that without microsoft, pc's
> would be as affluent as macs (not very, though i'm not saying
> anything bad about mac -- just that they're not very widely used).

They are not widely used because of the monopoly.  What you're missing 
is where would we be if Microsoft was not a monopoly.  Not if they never 
existed.  Sure, they did a lot for getting a computer into the home and 
office, but that gain has long been overshadowed by their destructive 
business practices over the past 15 years.

Fantastic software?  You're kidding right?  What the hell have they 
created that's fantastic?  Word, which changes my text because it knows 
better then I what I want to type?  Their OS because it's going to ask 
me 4 times if it's okay to remove something?

When there was nothing more then the horse and buggy, many folks thought 
it was the greatest thing going.  Too many people can not see beyond the 
current technology.  Fortunately for us there are the Henry Fords out there.

>> EULAs that permit them to access your computer at there will?  The 
>> recent windows media player update that gave them permission to
>> remove files THEY determined were pirated (RIAA).
> 
> 
>> The problem is that they've been doing it so long, people just
>> think it's okay.  If you were to put Microsoft into any other
>> business, there practices would be completely unacceptable.

I'm not arguing that point.

> i would say that if you put ms in MOST other businesses, serious
> competition would have popped up by now and swatted away their huge
> market share.  this we clearly agree on... but back to our
> differences:  i think other companies have been unable to create
> competitive software because ms meets user expectations in such a 
> complete way.  putting their flaws aside, ms knows their customer,
> what the customer wants, and knows that the monkey-style user is
> willing to pay money for pictures and clicky things.  to compete,
> someone truly has to do what ms does and do it better, which despite
> my ill feelings for their software standards, i have to admit, would
> be very hard to do.

What you need to understand is Microsoft is a marketing company not a 
software company.  They are good at marketing, very good.  They are good 
at bullying companies, very good.  Most of there software sucks.  90% of 
the functionality if Office is not used by the average user.  They 
continue to create bloatware.  Software that is 10% useful, 90% disk 
space waste.

> 
> believe me that i understand your point of view on most of these
> issues... but i still think that ms is successful in what they've set
> out to do
I do not argue that M$ is successful.  It's how they do it that bothers me.


-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...