Good as well as bad news for Microsoft on the legal front. Their good news is that a judge has rejected Go Computing’s claim that Microsoft used dirty tricks to keep it out of the operating system market. However, their bad news is that an EU committee ruled on Monday that Microsoft failed to comply with a landmark antitrust decision, paving the way for fines of up to 2 million euros a day, a source familiar with the situation said.
They tricked around long enough. I will be happy when I read “Microsoft has to pay its first 2 million euro fine today”.
It’s just this company has done enough harm yet. Time for them to pay at least for the harm they still create today – by misusing their monopoly.
It boggles the mind to realize that MS could afford to pay that fine for 50 years without cutting into its operational budget…
More like 80 but who’s counting…
Ummm, in total assets, including non-cash assets, they only have 66 billion. They have 46.6 Billion in cash and equivalents. And…Microsoft is counting, as they are required to do by the SEC.
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&cid=358464
the EU said the same thing 2 years ago…
They should have complied. My problem is this points system around here, it’s being abused. Just awhile ago just because someone disagreed with my comment, they decided to click the “-” button, taking away all my points and send all my comments to the basement where no one can read them.
And I’ve noticed that usually the first and second post gets 5 points, even if it’s a useless one word comment. Talk about abuse.
Microsoft did comply, delivering documentation and source code for protocols that aren’t even in shipping products yet. The EU even admits this, but the extortionists that run the Commission will not be satisfied by anything that doesn’t put oodles of money into their pockets.
Delivering source code was (as far as i understand) never required. That they did do that under a form of restricted soul selling license is another thing has nothing to do with it.
They appointed people to judge it and those determined that it was not enough. Fair is fair, now they have to feel the price for screwing around. As long as people like the lads from the Samba project cannot use the documentation it is useless.
Please, the EU committee gets like 160 bilion a year.. dont think that the money that MS has to put up has much value to them.
If the EU wants certain deliverables, they should write up with some exact and precise specifications for what they want instead of vaguely defining something and then complaining that Microsoft didn’t read their minds to comply.
After all, Microsoft did release the inane ‘N’ versions of XP to appease the EU bigots when that was requested (and not without the committee bringing up absurd points to try and prevent compliance with that decree).
//If the EU wants certain deliverables, they should write up with some exact and precise specifications for what they want //
The EU has said they want specifications for Microsofts networking protocols to be published and made free to use, in order to allow competition.
There is an accepted standard way to document protocols. There is a standard pseudo-language for it. Every other networking protocol has such a specification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Of_Temporal_Ordering_Specific…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_language
It would take about 30 pages (estimated) for Microsoft to specifiy their protocols using the standard notations. Anyone could then implement an interoperable version of that protocol, and allow either: (1) a non-windows client (ie Mac or Linux) to log in to and use a Windows server, or (2) allow a Linux or Mac or Sun Solaris server to include a set of services to be a domain controller and allow a Windows clients to log in.
Instead of doing this, Microsoft offered first several thousand pages of unusable drivel (unusable according to the independent expert who Microsoft themselves chose), then they offered their encumbered, copyrighted source code. The EU wants neither. They just want the protocols specified in the accepted, useable ways.
Edited 2006-07-04 03:09
Fine – I accept and agree with that. They can tend to be a bit “slack” when it comes to meeting demands (however stupid some of them may be – I again refer to Windows XP N edition).
But let’s look at the networking issue from yet another perspective:
Novell Netware.
Netware is (as many of you probably know) a completely independent file server that allows for single sign-on and access to shared data.
Windows comes with basic support for Netware (as much as accessing files).
But Novell also make their own client software that allows a Windows machine to actually log-on to the network.
Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make their own Windows client software if they’re that interested in it?
Edited 2006-07-04 03:18
//Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make a Windows client if they’re that interested in it?//
(1) They do. It is called Samba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_software
“Samba was originally developed for Unix by Andrew Tridgell at the Australian National University, originally by reverse-engineering the protocol used by DEC PATHWORKS server software using a packet sniffer. Tridgell later discovered that the protocol was largely identical to that used by other network server systems, including Microsoft’s LAN Manager software, and he decided to focus on Microsoft network compatibility after that.”
What is interesting is that Windows networking is actually based on a standard, but it has been deliberately “corrupted” … made obscure … changed so that it wouldn’t work with anything other than other Windows platforms.
(2) Samba can only work in certain roles. It has limited functionality. The only reason is that it is limited is that Microsoft have deliberately made their networking obscure and hard to work with.
It is this #2 point that Microsoft has been found guilty of ant-trust actiions and required to correct. Microsoft has refused. That is why they now face fines.
Ummm… You just missed the point of my question.
I’ll rephrase it:
“Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make client software to be installed in Microsoft Windows to allow a Windows machine to logon to a Linux server?”
EDIT: Just like, as mentioned, Novell did for their Netware server.
Edited 2006-07-04 03:29
“Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make client software to be installed in Microsoft Windows to allow a Windows machine to logon to a Linux server?”
The better solution by far is to make the Linux server support an unmodified Windows client.
If they did as you suggest, then:
(1) every Windows machine would require additional software beyond what was provided by Microsoft in order to network – this is a substantial administration burden.
(2) the networking component of the Windows machines would not be supported by Microsoft. Any “Windows update” could easily break the networking component.
There may be other reasons, these are just the ones that spring immediately to mind.
(1) every Windows machine would require additional software beyond what was provided by Microsoft in order to network – this is a substantial administration burden.
This can be included in the deployment images or provided via whatever enterprise update solution an organization uses.
(2) the networking component of the Windows machines would not be supported by Microsoft. Any “Windows update” could easily break the networking component.
Updates can break other components as well which is why they should be tested before being deployed. MS supporting something isn’t a guarantee against breakage. There could also be hardware issues that arise, as happened in some environments with XP SP2 and other updates.
Very good point –
The only reason I have used Netware as an example is because I happen to work at a school with over 400 computers all connecting to Netware servers.
So yes – we DO use imaging to deploy Windows onto the machines… And YES – we DO install the 3rd-party Netware Client ourselves. And we don’t complain!
//Updates can break other components as well which is why they should be tested before being deployed. MS supporting something isn’t a guarantee against breakage. There could also be hardware issues that arise, as happened in some environments with XP SP2 and other updates.//
Doesn’t address the point.
All that is required is the specifications of what Windows does actually contain. This is required for interoperability.
It is like requiring that Ford make available the specifications of their gasoline fill inlets – so that any manufacturer of gasoline pumps can make a pump that can fill up Ford cars.
This is a perfectly reasonable requirement.
Only Microsoft would ever try to pretend that since they make the car, only they be allowed to make the fill-up gas pumps, the gas stations, the gas and the roads – and be allowed to charge charge people a gas tax and a road tax.
Doesn’t address the point.
Yes. It does.
All that is required is the specifications of what Windows does actually contain. This is required for interoperability.
This is not required for interoperability. As mentioned previously, there are extension points in Windows for third-parties to offer their own protocol support. If they really wanted interoperability, they’d use these mechanisms and a protocol that they could control and distribute to multiple platforms.
Only Microsoft would ever try to pretend that since they make the car, only they be allowed to make the fill-up gas pumps, the gas stations, the gas and the roads – and be allowed to charge charge people a gas tax and a road tax.
The car analogy sucks, but it’s MS’ system. Charging for the protocols is not unprecidented, and as stated earlier, you can simply use a different protocol.
//This is not required for interoperability. As mentioned previously, there are extension points in Windows for third-parties to offer their own protocol support. If they really wanted interoperability, they’d use these mechanisms and a protocol that they could control and distribute to multiple platforms.//
Yes it is. The judgement says so. It is only you that says otherwise.
Face it, you are just plain wrong here.
//The car analogy sucks,//
Not it doesn’t. It illustrates fairly well exactly WHY antitrust is illegal, and it illustrates why what Microsoft did is wrong, and why they lost the case, and why they therefore broke the law, and why they must now make amends.
“Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make client software to be installed in Microsoft Windows to allow a Windows machine to logon to a Linux server?”
It’s called Fedora Directory service, Novell GroupWise does and some others. Samba actually has functionality to act as Active Directory, allowing people to log in and auth. Why are you talking and blaming about things that you don’t know?
EU does the right thing, I appreciate it work. OS’s should be in shops side-by-side, Linux, MacOS, Windows, etc. Everyone have a right, right to compete. And it will be beter when competition and compatibility is there. For example: Novell SLED, Redhat EL, Ubuntu, Mandriva – this is a competition, programs are compatible between these OS’s, what about Windows ? You know what I mean..
Yeah, well, you people all need to make your minds up before you open your mouths.
Some of you are saying that “Windows should be modified to be able to log in to a Linux server without requiring add-on software”, others are saying that’s already possible…
Well Novell has bad build-in support for Netware access from Windows, so they just went out and made their own add-on software. No whinging like spoilt little school children!
//Some of you are saying that “Windows should be modified to be able to log in to a Linux server without requiring add-on software”, others are saying that’s already possible… //
No. No-one requires anything changed of Windows. All that is required is the specifications of what Windows clients already contain.
Edited 2006-07-04 04:09
Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make their own Windows client software if they’re that interested in it?
Already available, setup your Linux server using NFS plus OpenLDAP, and install Services for UNIX (SFU), which is a free download off the Microsoft website, on the end users Windows XP machine (minimum requirement, professional, but there are third party implementations for older versions), and you’ll have access to the exported home directory via Windows own NFS client.
Edited 2006-07-04 07:59
but that’s not 100%. You can’t run exe’s directly nor will file locking for shared documents on the network work correctly… Also, using a separate file browser instead of the standard Explorer is another nod to making an extra step for users.. and support headaches, just to be “different”.
Note, This would all be even better if we could write our own file system drivers, or network authentication stack code like people say other COMPANIES do. The trouble is that you have to sign NDAs and pay $50,000+ to get that access. And like the EU is finding out, MS just sends an engineer and a bunch of source, they often don’t HAVE written specs, so that makes another barrier to entry even if you could sign an NDA and pay. So it’s not really “open” just shared between buddies so big companies like IBM don’t sue them out of the water.
>Why doesn’t someone in the Linux community make their own Windows client
Because they are too happy using linux and linux clients.
Delivering source code was (as far as i understand) never required.
No, but MicroSoft got tired of people that were supposed to study the documentation claiming they couldn’t do shit with it, and opened the source to give examples of how to actually implement what the documentation talked about.
They appointed people to judge it and those determined that it was not enough.
People that are highly biased against MicroSoft and whose interests lie in that MS get fined no matter what.
Please, the EU committee gets like 160 bilion a year..
It’s not about money for EU. It’s about flexing muscles showing they can do whatever they feel like.
>>They appointed people to judge it and those determined
>>that it was not enough.
>People that are highly biased against MicroSoft and
>whose interests lie in that MS get fined no matter what.
Do you have any concrete reason to think this is the case, or is bigotry dominating your brain? Did MS not get found GUILTY in the US already of similar charges, and then let off from any meaningfull penalty by the incomming administrations capitulation to the corporation over the judiciary?
As the referee was chosen among a list of people submitted by Microsoft themselves, there goes the highly biased people theory. Of course facts alone aren’t enough to convince people strongly determined to believe otherwise …
rehdon
Its not about the money for the EU, the EU 2 million euros a day is chump change.
Its imposed the fine because Microsoft is dragging its feet.
I have no doubt in my mind that Microsoft will have put a show of compiance, but come on think about it. Microft is going to be smart they hire smart people.
They are going to give
1)as little as possible
2)as late as possible
3)as unusable as possible
4)as irrelevant as possible
5) …not at all if possible
And from their position its just the smart thing to do
I think you would be surprised how much they are spending doing this. I would not be surprised if it exceeds 2 Million euros a day.
The ‘source code is the best documentation’ arguement is garbage. Properly documented protocols is significantly more helpful then lines of code that you have to analyze to figure out what they do. Microsoft didn’t provide good documentation for parts of their os that have essentially been a black box and that’s why they are getting into trouble. If you believe that source code is enough then let me show you an example why it isn’t.
Here’s a ‘Hello World’ program, that by itself is not enough to easily figure out the purpose of the program, written in Brainf–k (use your imagination to fill in the censor):
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]
>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.
>.+++.——.——–.>+.>.
Edited 2006-07-04 02:33
Microsoft did comply, delivering documentation and source code for protocols that aren’t even in shipping products yet. The EU even admits this, but the extortionists that run the Commission will not be satisfied by anything that doesn’t put oodles of money into their pockets.
Provide me with a link to the website that has all the documentation, freely available, and in complete form, which will allow me to re-implement the said Microsoft technologies and interoperate with Microsoft products, without fault.
Unless you can provide a link to a site hosting access to the documentation, that doesn’t require an NDA to be signed, money to be transferred or ‘registration’ to be done, then Microsoft has failed to live up to the requirements of the original verdict.
Unless you can provide a link to a site hosting access to the documentation, that doesn’t require an NDA to be signed, money to be transferred or ‘registration’ to be done, then Microsoft has failed to live up to the requirements of the original verdict.
They don’t have to make it freely available. You may license it if you wish however, and several organizations have.
What I’m about to post is entirely off topic. Please feel free to mod this down, as it should be.
——
You mean this post? http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15054&comment_id=139034
Gosh I can’t imagine why something like that would get modded down. You post a bunch of complete lies about an OS, on a site called (drumroll)…OSNEWS. Nope nobody here is going to be able to tell it’s complete crap. How would we know?
And no, I’m not the one that modded you into oblivion.
Try posting on-topic then. You had four on-topic words in that rant: “They should have complied”, which is far from enough to make your comment safe from moderation. The rest of your comment was about this website, and it is an issue that should be taken up with the people who run the site and not on every article’s forum. They were correct in modding you down, as one of the very few reasons to be modded down is for being off-topic.
And yes, I know I will get modded down as well since I am also off-topic, but I accept and fully agree with that; I should be modded down just as you were.
That’s fine. Then what’s the use in even posting comments?. Go ahead, take 10 more points off.
On topic: Now I don’t really think Microsoft twisted Go’s attempt to enter the OS market. It’s not like they forcefully twisted Go’s arms or anything. My fault for not reading the article.
As far as Microsoft stealing Go’s technology, theres really no way of knowing that without looking at all the code etc. So maybe the judge was right in dismissing the lawsuit.
Must be hard for the judges to decide! Especially with it having such huge press and impacts!
http://www.arcon5.com
http://www.generationtalk.com
Apparently they had an OS 20 years ago..anyone have any idea what it was?
Read the book “Startup” – it’ll give you all you need and know and then some. It’s also a good example of why Microsoft is regarded in the negative light by so many.
how much cost to ms to buy the judge?
It’s been said before, but I’ll mention it again.
“Tall Poppy Syndrome”.
Everyone attacks Microsoft purely because they are the most dominant company within the I.T. industry.
Seriously – compare issues that they have been fined for with any other computer operating system:
Windows Media Player – Try to find a single operating system that doesn’t include one (or several) media player.
Internet Explorer – Every operating system has a browser installed. Yes – some people say that you can’t uninstall it, and that’s a bad thing. But take Mac OS X for example – sure, you can delete Safari out of the Applications folder, but there is still the entire WebKit library installed deep into the operating system. Just like in Windows!
Other misc. applications – On a default install, Windows only comes with very basic utilities (notepad, calculator etc.) and some more interesting ones (such as Windows Movie Maker). Most other operating systems come bundled with entire suites of software… Mac OS X comes with iLife (iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD etc.). Could you imagine the uproar if Microsoft included this many applications?
People really, really need to build a bridge and get over it. It’s time to leave Microsoft alone and move on people!!!
You list the following items: //Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer and Other misc. applications // but somehow manage to completely miss the point.
The problem is not that Windows includes these, but rather that at least two of them are deliberately embedded and entwined into the operating system in a way that the end user cannot uninstall them.
That is not the case for any other Media Player or Web browser on the market – they are all uninstallable. Microsoft’s are not.
Also, Microsoft’s Web Browser and Media Player include DRM technologies which are not in the interests of the end user (on whose machine they are installed).
Finally, and most importantly, Microsoft includes these technologies, makes them uninstallable – and then makes them non-compliant with standards. Not interoperable with other platforms.
Internet Explorer doesn’t properly support web standards, but it does support proprietary extensions to web standards (such as activeX). This is a clear attempt to prohibit interoperability of the web – an attempt to make it such that one requires Windows and Internet Explorer installed in order to view web content.
Similarly with Windows Media Player. This program also is not uninstallable and it comes with proprietary extensions/codecs (wmv and wma) and DRM. Further, it fails to support open formats/codecs (such as Ogg Vorbis), and refuses to download a codec for such even though it easily could. This is also a clear attempt at lock-in – an attempt by Microsoft to make it neccesary to have Windows and Windows Media Player installed in order to be able to play media content from the web.
Finally, you miss the most important part of this ruling – Windows networking. Every single Windows “client” machine has built in to it support for being part of a local area network (a LAN). But again Windows does not support open protocols so that Windows machines can be part of any LAN. Microsoft has tried to make it so that if you have some Windows clients, then you must have a Windows server in order to make them into a LAN – oh, and you must also pay Microsoft for “Client Access Licenses”. Yes, you have to pay for the clients, pay for the server, and then pay again for every client that connects to the server. Oh my!
This is all “lock-in” attempts by Microsoft. Microsoft have designed each and every one of their “interoperability” protocols to be closed, proprietary and requiring Windows. Microsoft are making a play to try to make it necessary for all computers to either: (a) run Windows, or (b) work with no other computers, and no web content.
That is anti-trust. That is illegal. This type of practice has been ruled illegal, by both US courts and EU courts.
So far, MS has been let off by the US courts and allowed to continue its illegal practices.
So far, the EU has not actually fined them, but it has not yet let them off either.
a) As I mentioned earlier, Microsoft aren’t the only company that put an internet browser in their software that can’t *completely* be uninstalled. Sure, you can remove the Safari icon, but can you completely remove the WebKit library?
b) Your saying it’s a bad thing that Microsoft doesn’t include support for certain codecs, such as OGG. If they *really* wanted to limit people to only their technologies, why do they even include MP3 support, including the ability to rip straight to MP3?
c) Media Player may not be easily removed on a standard Windows machine, but they did make Windows XP N as per EU requirements. And guess what – nobody wanted it! So clearly there is no real request to be able to uninstall these programs.
d) There was a point in time that Mac’s would only talk to each other through AFP. That’s changed now to include more support, but the fact of the matter is they only did that to make Macs compatible with Windows networks. Why should Microsoft commit time to adding support to Windows for other networks? What benefit could it possibly give them?
e) No, no, no… You DON’T need a Windows server. I have NEVER encountered (nor heard of) a problem networking between Windows and Mac OS X, or Windows and Linux. Both Mac OS X and Linux include SMB support.
“Sure, you can remove the Safari icon, but can you completely remove the WebKit library? ”
You can’t only remove the “icon” of Safari, BUT YOU CAN REMOVE THE EXECUTABLE OF SAFARI!!! YOU CAN’T REMOVE THE EXECUTABLE OF IE ON WINDOWS ‘CAUSE IT’S LIKE THE THE FINDER ON OSX!!! On Mac OS X Safari and Finder are TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAM, indipendent from each other!!!
HEY JOHNONE – BEEN USING THE CRACK PIPE HAVE WE?!?
In Mac OS X – the application “Safari” located in the “Applications” folder IS NOT THE ENTIRE WEB-SUPPORT IN APPLE. It is merely a “container” application for a “WebKit” component provided by the operating system.
In Windows – the application “Internet Explorer” located in the “Program Files” folder is, similarly, just a container for the “WebBrowser” component provided by the operating system.
You CAN delete both the “container” programs from the operating system, but YOU CANNOT DELETE THE INTERNET COMPONENTS FROM EITHER.
SO GO AHEAD AND DELETE THE SAFARI ICON – YOU’LL STILL HAVE WEBKIT ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!
And, no – Internet Explorer is not “like the Finder”. IEXPLORE.EXE is a container which by default uses the “WebBrowser” component to display content. If you type in “C:\” in the address bar, it changes to the “ShFolderView” component to show folders and files.
Conversely, EXPLORER.EXE is a container which by default shows the desktop, taskbar and Start menu. Any Explorer windows use “ShFolderView” component by default to show folders and files. Typing in a URL in the address bar causes it to use the “WebBrowser” component instead.
EXPLORER.EXE and IEXPLORE.EXE are not directly related to each other, nor does one require the other.
Edited 2006-07-04 03:56
What’s the part of “Microsoft has established an illegal lock-in of their customers” that you don’t understand? The parent post explained fairly well how Microsoft is trying to deprive you, the customer, of any possible choice. The “you can/can’t remove X, Y and Z from the OS” is a secondary techical detail.
rehdon
“Windows Media Player – Try to find a single operating system that doesn’t include one (or several) media player.”
In Mac OS X if you don’t like Quicktime or iTunes you can remove these from the OS. In Windows if you remove WMP you break the OS, ’cause WMP is a “necessary” part of Windows. This is a BIG DIFFERENCE!
That would mean some people would have to grow up.
The circus must go on!
Other companies are allowed to do these things and MS is not. This is because MS is a monopoly.
For example, if Apple decided to make their browser not interoperate properly with the the internet, it would cause no harm to other companies.
iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD come with a Macintosh, not the OS. Buy a boxed copy of OS X and the only “iWhateverTheHell” app thats marketed as being part of iLife it comes with is iTunes.
Similarly, a number of PCs come sold with the Microsoft Plus! packs.
>Everyone attacks Microsoft purely because they are
>the most dominant company within the I.T. industry.
Wrong, Microsoft is attacked because they are evil, ruthless and use their monopoly position to attack and destroy other related markets. They’ve embraced, extended and extinguished innovation and competition from many other companies over the years, which has greatly slowed the progress of the computing field.
Microsoft is a convicted felon. What’s incredible is that practically every company in the world still does business with… a felon. Would they hire convicted felons, too? Unlikely.
>It’s time to leave Microsoft alone and move on
>people!!!
It’s time to end the suffering and leave them behind, actually.
Hmmm… Convicted, yes. But that doesn’t mean squat. How many people are wrongly convicted?
And basically what you’re saying is that because Microsoft is a “monopoly” (and I emphasise the quotes there), they must never bundle software or technologies in their products because they might whipe out other businesses?
Oh my god! I just tried to make a Notepad program, but because there is already one in Windows, I’ve lost millions!!!
There are no quotes about it. They are a monopoly. And there is nothing either wrong or illegal with that. However, it CAN be illegal to use leverage one monopoly to enter another market. Note, i say can because depending on how it is done, it might be completely legal, especially in the case of an emerging market. Also, whereas Microsoft is a monopoly, it is more accurately a monopolistically competitive company, since there ARE alternatives, however, they aren’t a perfect replacement. The reason they are called a monopoly is because of their large market share.
My view…
The main problem with Microsoft is there is a level of arrogance to what they do. They take a protocol and arbitrarily change it. E.G. Java, LDAP . Furthermore, they use one dominance in one market to affect another. For instance, if Microsoft was two companies, Microsoft Windows Division and Microsoft Application Division their product lines would probably look much different. Office Division would probably have Linux editions out. Windows Division would probably have a Sun Java VM out of the box.
Now the important question is of course, what is best for the average citizen. That is the important question, since companies exist and have certain protections because the government(and by extension the people)* grant them. These protections include patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. After-all, no company has a RIGHT to profit – especially if it hurts the average citizen.
Im really not sure what to think of Microsoft though…in terms of what is a threat to open source, i think that two babysofts(play on the Ma-bell baby-bells) would probably far more agile, than Microsoft, which seems as of late, to be really being slowed down by its own girth.
-Michael Moran
PS Here are some sites which I thought might be of interest to the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
*Im speaking in terms of the USA here, but i have to assume similar laws apply elsewhere.
Well, I’ll give you an example of what *I* would consider damaging monopolistic behaviour, how it affects a great population of people, and how it differs from Microsoft.
Here, in Australia, we have one major telecommunications operator – “Telstra”. Telstra were once called Telecom, and were owned by the Australian government. However, they were sold off and became privatised.
Because they used to be government owned, Telstra are currently in possession of all the land-line infrastructure throughout the entire country.
This means that other telco’s must “rent” the lines in order to provide service.
Telstra was recently found to be charging these other companies more for the wholesale renting of these lines, than they were charging retail to their own customers.
Telstra also artifically limits the speed of ADSL1 in Australia – instead of a (theoretical) limit of 8 MB/S, we are artifically limited to a maximum of 1.5 MB/s.
Telstra charges other ISP’s for use of their ADSL enabled exchanges. The price of ADSL1 is this country is absolutely rediculous. I am on a 1.5 MB/s connection with a limit of 25 GB/month – AUD$70/month (that’s USD$52/month). And this is usually on top of a AUD$200 or so setup fee (USD$148). $200 just to flick a switch at the exchange!!!
Looking at the DSL prices in the US, there are some plans as low as USD$24.95/month for 4 MB/s connection.
If Telstra didn’t own all the land-lines, or at least charged fairly, internet here would be MUCH cheaper.
To compare to Microsoft – sure, Microsoft has a large majority or market share, but noone is forced to use any of their products. And if you do use Windows for example, you can use any 3rd-party software within Windows. Anyone can develop and sell programs for Windows without having to pay Microsoft a cent.
such is the price of experimenting with socialism.
such is the price of experimenting with socialism.
Such as the price of an idiot knowing NOTHING about government; ALL governments either directly through setting up themselves or via subsidises created these natural monopolies, be they electricity, water or telecommunications.
These telecommunications companies SHOULD experience competition from new communication mediums such as wireless, but the problem is, no matter where you are in the globe there is a band of NIMBY’s (No In My Back Yard) whiners who want cheap telecommunications, but they sure as heck don’t want a telecommunications tower anywhere near them – hence, we’re stuck in a situation that no new competition can exist due to these nitwitts.
Well, I agree with you on some of your points. Telstra is what you call a natural monopoly(I realize that may seem somewhat ironic since its formation is anything but natural). Where I live in the States we have similar problems in smaller towns, where there is only one company and the price is through the roof for broadband($55 a month for 386k down). However, an analogy to what Microsoft is doing(remembering of course that analogies aren’t perfect) would be if you had cable they wouldn’t sell you phone/internet service. Its a situation where they are leveraging their monopoly in one market(phone & DSL) to another market(in this case cable) where they aren’t primary players.
The reason I make that analogy is part of the US antitrust case was that manufacturers had to sign agreements that they couldn’t bundle non Microsoft software. That ment they couldn’t bundle Netscape, this is important because its a situation where Microsoft made no money on IE, it wasn’t in their core business. Now, I have no problem with it being included, and in fact, most people who were for the Anti-trust case thought the bundling was only a minor part(I think Be inc’s head made some comment to that effect)
The problem was that they didn’t let the manufacturers decide, in fact, they couldn’t even sell other operating systems. This is a case where Microsoft used clout in the OS industry to affect the browser industry.
Your example seems to be a clear case of a monopoly. However, there are several different ways a company can be a monopoly, and it isn’t always bad.
-Michael Moran
1) the govt helped Microsoft become a monopoly.
2) rather than the government splitting up MS into 2 sections that are more agile, let the behemoth split itself apart. They might pick 3 babysofts rather than 2.
Regardless, when the government stops helping MS, MS _will_ crumble under its own weight, and spit itself apart.
And there would not be a Linux version of Office: too unpopular, and their growth would be hindered by the “unfair” bundling of OO.o on most Distros.
//Hmmm… Convicted, yes. But that doesn’t mean squat. How many people are wrongly convicted?
And basically what you’re saying is that because Microsoft is a “monopoly” (and I emphasise the quotes there), they must never bundle software or technologies in their products because they might whipe out other businesses?
Oh my god! I just tried to make a Notepad program, but because there is already one in Windows, I’ve lost millions!!!//
No. Just no. You are utterly wrong here.
Microsoft not only “bundle” programs, but they (1) make some of those uninstallable, and (2) deliberately make them so that they do not inetroperate.
The problem is not that these programs are included, it is that they are included and they are deliberately designed so that they will only work with other Microsoft products.
There is no need to use proprietary stuff wherever computers interoperate with each other – there are lots of perfectly viable and open standards that all computers could use. Only Microsoft chooses to support stuff that only works on Windows, and also it goes out of its way to discourage use of anything that works on many platforms.
The problem is that Microsoft are using their very dominant position in a deliberate attempt to make it so that everyone must use Windows.
That is anti-trust. That is illegal. That is why they have been found guilty, and that is why they face fines.
So how does Media Player not work with anything other than Microsoft formats? I didn’t realise that Microsoft invented MP3 or MPG!
And Internet Explorer works with [most] standards-based websites, just as Firefox and Safari do.
For example: this website we’re on now… Does it only work in Internet Explorer? No.
And most websites nowadays don’t use ActiveX anyway – those that do should be shot.
EDIT: Oh, and I do seem to recall Internet Explorer being available for Mac OS, Mac OS X and Sun Solaris… And Media Player was available for Mac OS X.
No new versions of either will continue to be made, but for valid reasons:
Internet Explorer for Mac sucks. Safari and FireFox are much better.
Windows Media Player for Mac never took off, so why bother making it? In fact, Microsoft now recommend people to install a 3rd-party plugin to enable QuickTime to play Windows Media files.
Imagine that! Microsoft recommending 3rd-party software!!!
Edited 2006-07-04 03:25
//So how does Media Player not work with anything other than Microsoft formats? I didn’t realise that Microsoft invented MP3 or MPG!
And Internet Explorer works with [most] standards-based websites, just as Firefox and Safari do.
For example: this website we’re on now… Does it only work in Internet Explorer? No.//
It is not where Microsoft does support standards that is the problem, it is where it doesn’t support interoperability standards, and where it does support proprietary lock-in non-standards where there should be interoperability.
“Embrace and extend”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend
Microsoft refuses to support any open standards that would help interoperability, and it continually tries to push its own proprietary stuff as being the new “standard”.
Hence we get, for example, Microsoft trying to supplant mp3 with wma/wmv and we also see Microsoft refusing to support ogg vorbis (even though ogg vorbis is far and away technically superior).
//And most websites nowadays don’t use ActiveX anyway – those that do should be shot.//
But the point is, Microsoft are trying to introduce their proprietary protocols and formats in a web browser. They are therefore deliberately encouraging stuff on the web that requires a Microsoft product to view. They are therefore trying to use their dominant position to make it necessary for all people to use a Microsoft product (or be unable to view at least some web content).
That is anti-trust. That is illegal.
Edited 2006-07-04 03:44
Wow – that “Embrace and Extend” page is full of really bad arguments.
“…marginalizing competitors that do not or cannot support Microsoft’s extensions…”. Why can’t they? Who stops them from adding support? Perhaps some of Microsoft’s extensions to different things may have actually been worthwhile?
“…had added support for ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator…”. So why didn’t Netscape add ActiveX support? ActiveX has always been extremely well documented and easy to implement. If they had added ActiveX support, they would have been ahead of Internet Explorer: Java, ActiveX *AND* Netscape Plugins.
And your arguments:
“Microsoft refuses to support any open standards that would help interoperability…”. So, what… HTTP and HTML support aren’t “open standards”? FTP, Email etc. etc. etc. that are supported aren’t “open standards”?
“…trying to supplant mp3 with wma/wmv…”. Windows Media Player always had terrible MP3 support (i.e. playback only), and favoured WMA/WMV support. With each new version, however, MP3 support has actually *increased* – yes, you can now rip a CD straight to MP3.
//Wow – that “Embrace and Extend” page is full of really bad arguments. //
I don’t believe so. I think your post is full of really bad arguements.
Again, the problem with “Embrace and Extend” by a very dominant company is not the “embrace” it is the “extend” bit.
If the extensions are included (often irremoveably) in the OS, then many people will use the extensions (not knowing that the extensions are proprietary and Windows-only). Once a significant amount of material uses the extensions, then other people will also need to use Windows and other Microsoft products in order to access that material.
This means that Microsoft is trying to use its dominant position to make a pure monopoly. That is illegal. That is anti-trust.
Oh, and even if you happen to think the “Embrace and Extend” arguement is a bad one – the courts don’t. The fact that you might think it OK doesn’t make it OK. The fact that you might think it OK doesn’t mean that I appreciate a powerful company trying to eliminate free competition and trying to force me to use its products alone.
I make my living in IT. I don’t want Microsoft to limit my engineering choices, and foist a requirement on my customers to HAVE to use a sole-source supplier. In fact, my customers specifically state they do not want me to included products that are only available from a sole source supplier, so strictly speaking I’m out of a job if Windows is the only choice.
Well, goody – we have differing opinions. Fancy that.
Just because YOU think that it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong.
See? That argument can work both ways.
//Just because YOU think that it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong. //
No, that is true.
However, if the courts and the law of the land (actually, the law of most lands) think it is wrong, then guess what? That does happen to make it wrong!
Did you know that it’s actually illegal to own a pet pig in France and call it Napolean?
Does that sound reasonable to you?
//Does that sound reasonable to you?//
You have just shown that in some cases, legal <> reasonable.
However, that is not the case here. Antitrust is a crime, it is an illegal practice, Microsoft have been found guilty of doing this illegal thing, and now they must make amends.
Pretty simple, really.
If the extensions are included (often irremoveably) in the OS, then many people will use the extensions (not knowing that the extensions are proprietary and Windows-only). Once a significant amount of material uses the extensions, then other people will also need to use Windows and other Microsoft products in order to access that material.
Oh please, this is the “developers are stupid” argument again. It’s developers that use these components, knowing full well that they are part of the platform. They use them because they want to easily integrate with the platform and other applications, and because it saves them time and money because they don’t have to go and make their own implementation. This happens on all platforms.
Oh, and even if you happen to think the “Embrace and Extend” arguement is a bad one – the courts don’t. The fact that you might think it OK doesn’t make it OK. The fact that you might think it OK doesn’t mean that I appreciate a powerful company trying to eliminate free competition and trying to force me to use its products alone.
The court made no blanket ruling preventing MS from extending technologies. If the “free competition” doesn’t actually compete, they deserve to be eliminated. Most of MS’ competition ignored/ridiculed MS’ entry into their respective markets, then complained and later sued rather than actually compete.
//Oh please, this is the “developers are stupid” argument again. It’s developers that use these components, knowing full well that they are part of the platform.//
Oh please, that is way off.
Your average person has no idea that if they use standard Microsoft products to make a personal web page that other people wishing to view it will have to use only a Microsoft product.
Your average person has no idea that if they use standard Microsoft products such as XPS instead of PDF to put a document on the web that other people wishing to view it will have to use only a Microsoft product.
Get real.
For the umpteenth time, “Embrace and Extend” for a near-monopoly company is anti-trust, and anti-trust is illeagl.
This is not debateable, this is fact people.
//The court made no blanket ruling preventing MS from extending technologies. If the “free competition” doesn’t actually compete, they deserve to be eliminated. Most of MS’ competition ignored/ridiculed MS’ entry into their respective markets, then complained and later sued rather than actually compete.//
That is wrong. For formats and protocols require for interoperability, a company in a very dominant posiition making proprietary extensions is anti-trust, and that is illegal.
It is not me saying this .. this has already been tried and ruled on. It is illegal. Microsoft lost the case. Guilty as charged.
These are all facts, not up for debate.
Your average person has no idea that if they use standard Microsoft products to make a personal web page that other people wishing to view it will have to use only a Microsoft product.
The average person doesn’t create webpages for ptople beyond themselves and family members. In any case, they could use Quicktime or Flash just as easy as they could some MS component and still block some number of people from the full viewing experience. Before MS released IE 3.0, users could easily build a page with frames or some Netscape-only feature that blocked or impaired some number of users. It’s not an MS-only issue.
Your average person has no idea that if they use standard Microsoft products such as XPS instead of PDF to put a document on the web that other people wishing to view it will have to use only a Microsoft product.
XPS is an open, multi-platform format, likely to follow in line with OpenXML in being submitted to ECMA/ISO once v.1.0 is complete. MS and ISVs will be providing viewers on the major platforms at release. Bad choice for trying to prove MS’ platform lock-in.
That is wrong. For formats and protocols require for interoperability, a company in a very dominant posiition making proprietary extensions is anti-trust, and that is illegal.
It is not me saying this .. this has already been tried and ruled on. It is illegal. Microsoft lost the case. Guilty as charged.
Incorrect. MS still extends formats today. And, they didn’t lose the case, it was settled.
Edited 2006-07-04 04:40
OpenXML is most decidely not multi-platform.
http://www.osopinion.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=arti…
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060…
” To the best of our knowledge, the MS-provided option to integrate the converter software into the MS Office menu choices exists only for Word, and depends heavily on undocumented MS Office interfaces. Accessing the conversion software via these particular menu items may be possible, but we anticipate it would lead to a fragile implementation that could be disrupted by MS Office patches or other code changes.
For Excel and PowerPoint, integrating the converter software into the MS Office menu choices, would require reverse engineering of the operation of MS Office, and intercepting the calls to initiate the desired conversions. While this may be possible, we again expect it would lead to a fragile architecture that could be disrupted by MS patches or other code changes.
Our preferred approach is the utilization of additional menu items or toolbar command buttons, enabled with MS documented interfaces.”
I believe the same applies of XPS.
Anyone can write an application that supports Open XML or XPS – as long as that application runs on the Windows platform.
“To the best of our knowledge”?
Well that means absolutely nothing…
All the Microsoft Office programs have (and have always had) plugins that allow document conversion – many of these plugins actually come on the Office install CD.
Perhaps try writing a conversion plugin?
“Anyone can write an application that supports Open XML or XPS – as long as that application runs on the Windows platform”.
Why? They are both just based on standard XML layout. All you need is an XML parser to be able to read it, and write your own conversion or rendering code from there.
Was this your response to my question above? I don’t see how this actually affects you right-here-right-now…
//Why? They are both just based on standard XML layout. All you need is an XML parser to be able to read it, and write your own conversion or rendering code from there. //
This is not correct. The Open XML specification (for example) contains references to ActiveX in about 30 places I believe.
Read the Specs … as this person did:
http://www.topxml.com/XML/re-34771_First-impressions-of-Open-%2…
“A new draft of Open XML came out on my birthday. 4081 pages of PDF, and very impressive for anyone who has worked on specification and standards. Two things stick out: first how horrible XML Schema fragments are when stuck inline to document structure; second, how the implementation-neutral tone of the introduction is at odds with the elements for various kinds of Active X embedded objects.”
Because of such provisions in the Open XML specification there is a deep built-in dependency to having a application that supports Open XML run on a Windows platform.
Now I have a reverse question for you: Why are you so fanatical about defending Microsoft’s illegal antitrust lock-ins?
The Open XML specification (for example) contains references to ActiveX in about 30 places I believe.
ActiveX is not a Windows-only technology. It can be implemented on other platforms as well. It also isn’t required to produce a document. ActiveX is mostly used for applications that use Office as an underlying platform (e.g., A LOB app that uses Excel as a calculation engine). You won’t find it used in documents meant for wide distribution.
//ActiveX is not a Windows-only technology. It can be implemented on other platforms as well.//
It is proprietary to Microsoft, and it makes other possible competitor/implementers beholden to Microsoft. It is NOT licensed in the same way “Open XML” is. Open XML therefore achieves its lock-in only via embrace and extend.
//It also isn’t required to produce a document.//
It is not required, but it could be in a document. “Embrace and extend”, remember? If you want to be assured of being able to read all possible Open XML documents, then you will require an application running on a Windows platform.
It is designed that way. “Embrace and extend”. Lock them in. It is Microsoft through and through.
It is proprietary to Microsoft, and it makes other possible competitor/implementers beholden to Microsoft. It is NOT licensed in the same way “Open XML” is. Open XML therefore achieves its lock-in only via embrace and extend.
It is not proprietary to MS. There are implementations of COM available on other platforms. MS, themselves, did an implementation for MacOS and Unix, and there’s also an implementation from The Open Group that can be licensed.
It is not required, but it could be in a document. “Embrace and extend”, remember? If you want to be assured of being able to read all possible Open XML documents, then you will require an application running on a Windows platform.It is designed that way. “Embrace and extend”. Lock them in. It is Microsoft through and through.
It seems all you know are buzzwords. Office wasn’t embraced and extended from anything. The formats now exposed via OpenXML were created by Microsoft.
//It is not proprietary to MS.//
ActiveX is not the only component of OpenXML that assumes and requires support from the underlying platform. OpenXML is designed to be run only on Windows platforms. That is the best estimation of the software engineers who have looked at it.
//It seems all you know are buzzwords.//
Pfft. How about cooling it with ad-hominems, hey?
At least I know something.
//Office wasn’t embraced and extended from anything. The formats now exposed via OpenXML were created by Microsoft.//
Sigh!
XML was not created by Microsoft.
There is a perfectly adequate ISO standard for office formats using XML that Microsoft uses to use … their only apparent reasons for not using the ISO standard is that it is not from Microsoft, it is “future-proof” and therefore people using it would not need to upgrade any Microsoft products in the future to still be able to read their own data that they create today, and it would allow competing products on non-windows platforms.
a) He didn’t say XML was created by Microsoft, he said “formats now exposed via OpenXML” (which I assume he means the XML office document formats).
b) Any current product is future proof if you never want to upgrade. Like I said – create a document now in Office 97, and open it in 20 years in Office 97. Or, if you’re not a complete retard, try a newer version of Office. It will still work!
//He didn’t say XML was created by Microsoft, he said “formats now exposed via OpenXML” (which I assume he means the XML office document formats). //
No, but he tried to pretend that Open XML didn’t “extend” anything, which clearly it does.
//Any current product is future proof if you never want to upgrade. Like I said – create a document now in Office 97, and open it in 20 years in Office 97. Or, if you’re not a complete retard, try a newer version of Office. It will still work!//
It will not work if there is no Microsoft and no Windows available to purchase from anyone, and no x86 hardware platform on which to run ancient binary-only executables, an no source code for the applications, and no open specification for all parts of the format in which data is saved.
//He didn’t say XML was created by Microsoft, he said “formats now exposed via OpenXML” (which I assume he means the XML office document formats). //
No, but he tried to pretend that Open XML didn’t “extend” anything, which clearly it does.
Yeah, it “extends” XML, which is the whole point of XML. “Embrace and Extend” is used when you take a standard format and extend it in incompatible ways. You can’t do that with a format whose reason for existing is to be extended.
//Any current product is future proof if you never want to upgrade. Like I said – create a document now in Office 97, and open it in 20 years in Office 97. Or, if you’re not a complete retard, try a newer version of Office. It will still work!//
It will not work if there is no Microsoft and no Windows available to purchase from anyone, and no x86 hardware platform on which to run ancient binary-only executables, an no source code for the applications, and no open specification for all parts of the format in which data is saved.
So Mac Office just doesn’t exist, eh? Neither does WordPerfect or OpenOffice, or WindowsMobile and Palm devices with applications compatible with Office, or CrossOver, etc? Some x86, some not, most not MS platforms.
ActiveX is not the only component of OpenXML that assumes and requires support from the underlying platform. OpenXML is designed to be run only on Windows platforms. That is the best estimation of the software engineers who have looked at it.
Sure it is, that’s why Apple, Intel, Toshiba, Novell, and 40+ other companies are working on the standard — so they can have a Windows-only format. Do you realize how stupid that would be? There are organizations using the 2003 formats, and ISV’s selling products that create and process them without Windows or Office even coming into the picture. I suppose Toshiba didn’t give a demo using Java-based tools to transform OXML into HTML either?
XML was not created by Microsoft.
This is rediculous. I said that the formats exposed via OpenXML were created by MS, meaning the original Office formats. However, they also created the OpenXML and previous Office XML formats. You can’t fault MS for extending something that is built to be extended in the first place, or did you the “X” in XML stood for eXtensible?
There is a perfectly adequate ISO standard for office formats using XML that Microsoft uses to use … their only apparent reasons for not using the ISO standard is that it is not from Microsoft, it is “future-proof” and therefore people using it would not need to upgrade any Microsoft products in the future to still be able to read their own data that they create today, and it would allow competing products on non-windows platforms.
Wrong again. MS was working on the XML formats for Office since the 90s, before Sun acquired Star Office or had an ISO-approved format. ODF is not future-proof and cannot fully represent the functionality of MS Office. Anyone saying otherwise is lying or ignorant of the facts. Convert to ODF and you could have data loss. OXML can represent any functionality the previous binary formats could. If they just wanted you to upgrade, they’d stick with the binary formats (the binary formats don’t even change that often), and they wouldn’t have gone with XML, submitted it to ECMA and soon to ISO, nor offer bulk converters and free compatibility upgrades to Office 2000, XP, and 2003.
//ODF is not future-proof and cannot fully represent the functionality of MS Office. //
Future-proof has nothing to do with MS Office. Future-proofing means that the specification of the data format has zero dependnecies on the underlying platform. Therefore applications supporting the format can be written for any platform, including those that would conceiveably exist in the future.
//Anyone saying otherwise is lying or ignorant of the facts.//
You are deluded on this point. Having data stored in a legacy MS Office format from just 9 years ago is already in danger of being orphaned, and it requires porting to another application (one which does not obscure the data within the format).
//Convert to ODF and you could have data loss.//
Keep it in legacy Microsoft Office formats and you are guaranteed to have data loss.
//OXML can represent any functionality the previous binary formats could.//
This is easily refuted by the observation that not even current versions of MS Office can handle “any functionality the previous binary formats could” where the data was originally saved in older versions of MS Office. Moving to Office 12 is hardly going to fix that.
The previous binary formats are not standards. They are proprietary, legacy and undocumented formats. Any party interested in archival of digital information is interested in extracting data from the shackles of these legacy binary secret formats and making them future proof (ie cross-platform portable, ie openly and fully specified).
http://ooonewsletter.blogspot.com/2006/04/australian-national-archi…
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060…
If a format has zero dependency on an underlying platform, and it is fully specified and unencumbered for any use, then any possible future platform will be able to support applications (possibly re-written for that future platform) that can read and manipulate old data saved in the format.
This is future-proofing. Zero encumberances, zero platform dependnecy, full disclosure of all components of the format. No secret binary blobs. No dependencies on parts of the underlying OS.
//If they just wanted you to upgrade, they’d stick with the binary formats (the binary formats don’t even change that often), and they wouldn’t have gone with XML, submitted it to ECMA and soon to ISO, nor offer bulk converters and free compatibility upgrades to Office 2000, XP, and 2003.//
All of these formats (both OpenXML and legacy binary MS Office formats) suffer from the exact same intrinsic flaw. They all depend on a Windows x86 platform. They are not platform independent, and therefore they most decidedly are not future-proof. If anything, they are deliberately designed to require one particular (current) platform.
Edited 2006-07-05 14:37
I see you still avoid replying to this:
“Now I have a reverse question for you: Why are you so fanatical about defending Microsoft’s illegal antitrust lock-ins?”
Yes, but are we talking sysadmins, or are we talking average Joe-user at home? Are you gonna tell your grandma to recompile the latest Firefox source to improve her browsing safety?
And I’m sorry, but I didn’t actually see the above question before, so I’ll answer it now:
As I mentioned earlier, I am not a “fanatic” when it comes to Microsoft and their products. I am a “fan” of their products – I use them at home and at work, and I have no problems whatsoever with them. I actually enjoy using them.
And I’m not defending anti-trust issues per se; I simply fail to see how some of the anti-trust issues are even classified as such. I understand that they are the dominant market leader, but they are far from a monopoly (as we are constantly reminded by the large group of Mac followers and the ever-increasing Linux market share).
So many other companies are following far worse business practices, and yet they get away with it! Microsoft only gets targetted because they are particularly powerful in the I.T. industry.
What about Sony for example – market leader in the console war. Is it considered anti-trust when they sign a deal with game developers to only develop for the PlayStation 2? Therefore, in order to play a specific game, you MUST purchase one of these consoles. That seems very similar to the arguments I’m seeing against Microsoft.
As I said in my first post on this article, all I’m sick of seeing are so many Microsoft-bashing people, most of whom have absolutely no facts or examples to back-up their claims (although you have been a worthy adversary, if I may call you that ;-).
>Yes, but are we talking sysadmins, or are we talking average Joe-user at home? Are you gonna tell your grandma to recompile the latest Firefox source to improve her browsing safety?
She does nothing at all. Updates are applied automagically. (Firefox has own updater, and almost all popular linux distros has automatic update function). We are talking about old unsupported programs, firefox – is new one. You are making sense of a kid, just poping around from one topic to another, and losing to prove your opinion.. shame on you..
>I understand that they are the dominant market leader, but they are far from a monopoly
Awesome
). Do you know the percent of Windows on desktops on all over the world? No? I will not tell you 
>As I said in my first post on this article, all I’m sick of seeing are so many Microsoft-bashing people, most of whom have absolutely no facts or examples to back-up their claims
You can’t even hear.. And you are telling that you re not a fanatic. You are fanatic, cause every normal person, even Microsoft lovers, understand how it’s huge and it’s monopoly.
OK – was trying to be nice, but I can’t even carry on a conversation with you.
The grandma example was just that – AN EXAMPLE. You were talking about having to recompile programs in order to use them. I gave an example. That’s it! Just an example! I don’t particularly care whether or not a program NEEDS to be recompiled, because I am a Windows user, and it’s not an issue for me. Nor is it an issue for most people!
And yes, I realise that Windows DOES have a large market share. But let’s have a look at some of the definitions of “pure monopoly”:
“A pure monopoly is an industry in which a single firm is the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service”. Not true of Windows! If this were true, there would be NO other operating systems.
“The product or service is unique in ways which go beyond brand identity”. Not true of Windows! If this were true, there would be no other software you could classify as an operating system… operating systems are not unique to Microsoft!
“In a pure monopoly a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry”. Again – not true of Windows!
So basically, if Microsoft really had a monopoly, there would be no other operating systems.
(Definitions from wikipedia).
And finally, YOU OF ALL PEOPLE ARE CALLING *ME* A FANATIC? Have a look in the mirror buddy… You’re telling me that “I can’t even hear” because I said “I’m sick of seeing so many Microsoft-bashing people”. What the hell do you mean by that?!?
So basically, if Microsoft really had a monopoly, there would be no other operating systems.
You don’t need to be a pure monopoly (in the dictionary sense) to be considered a monopoly in the eye of the law. A clearly dominant market share is sufficient.
And, yes, you’d have to be pretty fanatical in your support of Microsoft to try to argue that they aren’t a monopoly. Or an astroturfer, of which I’m convinced there are a few that visit this website.
And if you want to talk percentages, ok:
Windows has what, roughly 90% market share?
Apple’s iPod has over 92% market share of personal MP3 players. Their illegal anti-trust tactics regarding the iTunes Music Store goes largely unnoticed (please site previous post about French government).
So again – people are just Microsoft-bashing for the fun of it. Let’s start up a post about iPod’s, shall we? Just for a nice change?
Their illegal anti-trust tactics regarding the iTunes Music Store goes largely unnoticed (please site previous post about French government).
Actually, Apple is starting to get noticed in this very regard. The recent proposed law by the French government is a good example.
OpenXML is most decidely not multi-platform.
Yes, it is. You can get the spec from ECMA-International’s website.
To the best of our knowledge, the MS-provided option to integrate the converter software into the MS Office menu choices exists only for Word, and depends heavily on undocumented MS Office interfaces. Accessing the conversion software via these particular menu items may be possible, but we anticipate it would lead to a fragile implementation that could be disrupted by MS Office patches or other code changes.For Excel and PowerPoint, integrating the converter software into the MS Office menu choices, would require reverse engineering of the operation of MS Office, and intercepting the calls to initiate the desired conversions. While this may be possible, we again expect it would lead to a fragile architecture that could be disrupted by MS patches or other code changes. I believe the same applies of XPS.
This has nothing to do with XPS or OXML. It’s about making an ODF plugin.
Anyone can write an application that supports Open XML or XPS – as long as that application runs on the Windows platform.
Wrong again. OXML and XPS are not tied to Office or Windows. The formats have been implemented on other platforms and devices.
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/TC45-2006-…
http://blogs.msdn.com/andy_simonds/archive/2005/11/30/498652.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/andy_simonds/archive/2005/10/31/487487.aspx
Wrong again. OXML and XPS are not tied to Office or Windows. The formats have been implemented on other platforms and devices.
MS deliberately made the license incompatible with the GPL so that it wouldn’t be available for Linux.
MS deliberately made the license incompatible with the GPL so that it wouldn’t be available for Linux.
I guess you’ll be surprised then. Gnumeric has an OXML filter available now. Open Office supports the 2003 formats currently. Shortly after OXML and XPS are v.1.0, you’ll see more support for both, on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
//I guess you’ll be surprised then. Gnumeric has an OXML filter available now. Open Office supports the 2003 formats currently. Shortly after OXML and XPS are v.1.0, you’ll see more support for both, on Windows, Mac, and Linux.//
Sigh! You either just don’t get it (possibly because you are a bit slow), or you do get it but you don’t want other people to.
Partly opening an OpenXML document on other platforms is not a problem.
The problem is that with Office12 a person can embed some things into a document that will make it so that the document cannot be fully opened by any application which is not running on a Windows platform.
For full support of the format, one must run on a Windows platform. The OpenXML format specification includes optional components that can only be supported by applications running under Windows.
This is the lock-in. It is not a lock-in to Office12, it is a lock-in to Windows. (Since Office12 will probably be the best solution for OpenXML on Windows, and the only solution that fully supports every bit of OpenXML is likely to be Office12, OpenXML is only indirectly a lock-in for Office12).
Nevertheless, the main point stands.
Office12 and OpenXML are therefore utterly useless for any of the following goals:
(1) cross-platform interoperability of documents,
(2) future-proofing of long-term digital archive documents,
(3) avoiding a single-source supplier for IT products, and
(4) providing real competition in the Office application market.
Edited 2006-07-05 10:02
“OpenXML is most decidely not multi-platform.
…
I believe the same applies of XPS.
Anyone can write an application that supports Open XML or XPS – as long as that application runs on the Windows platform.”
——————–
Given that the next version of Microsoft’s Mac Office will support OpenXML, I think it’s safe to say that apps can indeed support OpenXML without running on the Windows platform.
(I don’t know much about XPS, but from what little I’ve read, support for it should be readily implementable on any platform.)
//Given that the next version of Microsoft’s Mac Office will support OpenXML, I think it’s safe to say that apps can indeed support OpenXML without running on the Windows platform.
//
Sigh! This is just not correct.
MacOffice specifically states “this document includes ActiveX controls. MacOffice does not support ActiveX controls in Office documents” (or text to that effect).
So you are not correct. In order to be assured that all OpenXML documents will open with all features, you will need to run your OpenXML application on a Windows platform.
//(I don’t know much about XPS, but from what little I’ve read, support for it should be readily implementable on any platform.)//
I too am not sure about XPS. However, I do know that there is one, and only one, reason for Microsoft promoting XPS – and that reason is that XPS is not PDF.
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/18/2114252
http://groups.osdl.org/workgroups/dtl/desktop_architects/desktop_pr…
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8281593260.html
Microsoft want to avoid interoperability with open standards and other alternative platforms at all costs.
Edited 2006-07-05 09:40
Microsoft refuses to support any open standards that would help interoperability, and it continually tries to push its own proprietary stuff as being the new “standard”.
Even if this were true, so what. The existence of a standard doesn’t obligate anyone to support it.
Hence we get, for example, Microsoft trying to supplant mp3 with wma/wmv and we also see Microsoft refusing to support ogg vorbis (even though ogg vorbis is far and away technically superior).
So it’s ok for Ogg to supplant mp3 but not wma? That’s discriminatory. MS is free to not support Ogg, and they’re free to produce their own product and let the market decide. WMA/V is licensed to other platforms and devices for less than mpeg4.
But the point is, Microsoft are trying to introduce their proprietary protocols and formats in a web browser. They are therefore deliberately encouraging stuff on the web that requires a Microsoft product to view. They are therefore trying to use their dominant position to make it necessary for all people to use a Microsoft product (or be unable to view web content).That is anti-trust. That is illegal.
So Flash, Quicktime, and any other proprietary plugin should be illegal as well then, right?
So how does Media Player not work with anything other than Microsoft formats? I didn’t realise that Microsoft invented MP3 or MPG!
WMP (actually any application that supports DirectShow) can use any available DirectShow codec. It’s the main extensibility point for supporting third-party formats.
And most websites nowadays don’t use ActiveX anyway – those that do should be shot.
ActiveX is just another name for COM/OLE which can also be supported in other applications and platforms (it actually is, just usually not in non-MS web browsers). Other browser vendors could suppot it if they wanted. There is/was a Firefox plugin for it for example.
Just a couple of little comments:
“And Internet Explorer works with [most] standards-based websites, just as Firefox and Safari do. ”
Have you spent much time doing web design? IE 6 Windows requires more hacks added into standards-based code than any other browser to make it display properly.
“Both Mac OS X and Linux include SMB support.”
Which was reverse engineered from the Microsoft products as Microsoft refused to provide the specifications…
Just my point of view.
>How many people are wrongly convicted?
ah that would be sum of all those who have had their convictions overturned. Until a successfull appeal they remain rightly and correctly convicted.
Are you saying that two US courts, a unified EU government and Korea all wrongly convicted Microsoft for illegal, anticompetative activity?
When you’re a monopoly you are required to play by a different set of rules. Microsoft not only chose not to abide by those rules but went to the other extreme and specifically ignored them for the sole purpose of doing what the rules were meant to curb.
Edited 2006-07-04 18:50
“Wrong, Microsoft is attacked because they are evil, ruthless and use their monopoly position to attack and destroy other related markets. They’ve embraced, extended and extinguished innovation and competition from many other companies over the years, which has greatly slowed the progress of the computing field.
Microsoft is a convicted felon. What’s incredible is that practically every company in the world still does business with… a felon. Would they hire convicted felons, too? Unlikely. “
——————-
Um, Microsoft has never been covicted of any crime, let alone a felony. The DOJ case was a civil suit filed by the DOJ, not a criminal matter, and civil violations aren’t “crimes”. If the MS/DOJ case had been a criminal matter, a “guilty” verdict would have required a unanimous jury finding of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”, rather than the mere conclusion of a single judge based on “preponderence of evidence” (which means, 50%+1 of the evidence, a very much lower burden of proof than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard that criminal matters require). Similarly, the EU case is not a criminal matter.
So no, Microsoft has never been found guilty of or even charged with a “crime”, let alone a felony. As far as the legal system is concerned, Microosft is NOT a criminal organization nor are they a felon. Your hyperbole severely undercuts your argument.
(Besides that, Microsoft and the DOJ ultimately settled the case (after the Appeals court threw out Jackson’s remedies and ordered the penalty phase to be retried according to stricter guidelines with a fairer judge), so it’s questionable as to whether one can even say Microsoft lost the case (after all, they’re still intact, they’re still bundling IE with Windows, etc). As for the EU, the EC is not a court. Microsoft will appeal the EC’s decisions to a real court and we’ll see just how sound the EC’s judgements really are.)
The rest of your argument talking about how “evil” Microsoft is is a bunch of malarky. Your over the top rhetoric makes it seem like Microsoft is in the same league as IG Farben. Get at grip.
Because of their lobbying style point system. Everytime someone says something pro-microsoft or anti-oss(linux) they get modden down. The prevailing bias with this new voting system has turned me off completely and moved me to alternate news sites except just for old time sake i sometime come here.
Too much for the sucky voting system.
Edited 2006-07-04 01:35
I’m sure a lot of people here will look seriously at the arguments given. However, just putting ‘wrongly’ and ‘conficted’ in a post and relate it to Microsoft is just nothing but funny =)
Wikipedia has a nice listing to start with why people generally do not like Microsoft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
Edited 2006-07-04 02:00
Have you ever read the DOJ court documents rather than based your ideas on web articles?
There are two issues you don’t seem to understand. The first isn’t whether you can remove a program and it’s libraries or not, the issue is the OS designed in such a way that removing that piece removes functionality from the OS. If I remove IE from my system, sure I can surf the web, but other tools like Windows Update, office downloading etc are useless. Could MS have implemented these in a way to work with any browser, sure they could.
(with other OSes, you can almost 100% replace programs like browsers without losing anything.)
And this ties into the second issue. If you read the DOJ documents you can see a clear pattern where MS has used these kinds of tactics for many things. Sure they can say it’s just to improve the user interactivity, but anyone with any knowledge can see how this is used to lock in users and prevent them from using competing products.
The leaders at MS aren’t idiots and they know what they are doing. I don’t blame them, but once you have such a monopoly the courts sometimes have to step in the leveling the playing field to create a fair market. If they make the best product, they will win, but they have to allow fair competition and can’t use their leverage with other products to create an unfair advantage.
Many people say they earned the market share they have so why should they be punished, but lets be honest and realize that they gained market share by other factors other than just ones they created. (For example, IBM letting them retain DOS rights, Apple overpricing Macs, piracy! )
So should they be allowed free run because of those?
So you’re saying that Microsoft should be punished because Apple charges too much for their computers? Or that IBM [stupidly] let Microsoft retain DOS rights?
Do we all remember way-back-when Apple had just bought out its “Macintosh” computer? Yes – it was a revolution.
And then Microsoft bought out “Windows”.
You could hardly compare the two – the Mac was far more advanced.
So why did Windows eventually take over, and get to where it is now?
Because they chose to make the software for x86-based processors, whereas Apple stuck exclusively to 68k (well, initially anyway).
If Apple had designed their software for x86 in the first place, they would most likely be the “monopoly” nowadays. But they didn’t. The x86 became the most popular, and Windows won.
That’s life – take a risk, make a bad choice, and accept the consequences.
DON’T BLAME MICROSOFT FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S BAD MISTAKES.
Edited 2006-07-04 01:59
>DON’T BLAME MICROSOFT FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S BAD MISTAKES.
It’s capitalizing on other’s bad mistakes in the least ethical ways possible that I blame Microsoft.
The computer we should have on every desktop right now? A modern version of the Amiga. It isn’t all Microsoft’s fault that C= failed, mind you… look no further than the C= officials living in Bermuda, exiled from other countries with laws regarding shareholder theft.
dont get me wrong, but the only way a monopoly could exist is if there are politicians with their hands in the pockets of the monopoly in question. Without government help, and inforcement, a monopoly could not last very long. It is as much the politicians fault and not just MS. They turn a blind eye every now & then, or make decisions that would kill its rival.
Its a lot more noticable in small towns (ive seen it a few times). Someone is about to start a new shop, and petitions go up to “zone” that area so the new shop has to close its doors. Why? The residents nearby don’t want the increased traffic, noise, and they want the area to look nice. The petitions were also funded by the competition, which embelished a little to get the residents against the new shop. They also gave out free t-shirts.
When the government steps in to create a “level” playing field, it is acting a little too much like a communist country. It is better just to just enforce existing laws, without brown nosing, rather than engage anti-trust laws, and “level” the playing field.
The “leveling” of the playing field just makes the situation _look as if_ the company is being punished for being successful.
In the above small town example, it would have been better for the government to listen to the complaints of the new shop rather than shut it down and rezone the area as residential. It would not be good for the government to instead give the competing business a hanicap for “growing to big.” The problem is not it growing big. The problem is the goverment acting like a parent telling a child that its OK to play in mud, and then spanking them for getting dirty.
If you want to punish a business, fine them (make it hurt, but dont kill them), and make the reason known: they acted improperly, and illegally used the government to eliminate the competition. Place the politicians on trial also. They were not engaging in extreame capitalsm, they were at a level of anarchy. But, please don’t dig their face in he dirt(company breakup, forcing them to open up trade secrets, not letting do things, and letting their competition do it,) and announce that they are being punished because they are “too big”, as the politicians watch the kangaroo court on TV, while counting their blood money. Everyone will see the trial, realize its a mock court, and think that its dangerous to be successful.
If the government did not get involved uneccessarily, or if it did, not rule by its wallet, there would not be lasting monopolies. And the government would not have to spend time breaking them up.
There are two issues you don’t seem to understand. The first isn’t whether you can remove a program and it’s libraries or not, the issue is the OS designed in such a way that removing that piece removes functionality from the OS. If I remove IE from my system, sure I can surf the web, but other tools like Windows Update, office downloading etc are useless. Could MS have implemented these in a way to work with any browser, sure they could.
(with other OSes, you can almost 100% replace programs like browsers without losing anything.)
It’s called code reuse. It makes no since for MS to have or support multiple similar implementations for OS functionality when one is enough. Remove DirectX and many applications and OS functions will break as well, yet most people wouldn’t expect MS to engineer the OS so that DX is replaceable. It’s an ISV’s choice as to what systems they take dependencies upon. Each OS release includes a set of services ISVs expect to be available. If the services are removed after the fact, common sense says things will break.
And this ties into the second issue. If you read the DOJ documents you can see a clear pattern where MS has used these kinds of tactics for many things. Sure they can say it’s just to improve the user interactivity, but anyone with any knowledge can see how this is used to lock in users and prevent them from using competing products.
If you read the court transcripts, you’d see that most of the plaintiffs’ complaints were based on supposition rather than fact. The majority of the transcripts were about what MS could do rather than what they actually did, or had a greater benefit to users than anti-competitive effect to the market. This is exactly why MS was allowed to continue to do things like integrate IE into Windows.
Yes – Netscape went belly up because Microsoft used nasty business tactics. We all realise that, yes it happened, shame on Microsoft.
I am getting sick of people getting stuck into Microsoft *nowadays* for completely rediculous reasons.
Here’s a though for you all:
Windows Media Player doesn’t support OGG Vorbis (or QuickTime for that matter). There is no built-in support for viewing PDF files. And there are plenty of other examples…
This means that you *must* install 3rd-party software to play it.
So, in a way, Microsoft is encouraging you to install 3rd-party software to use media that Windows can’t natively handle.
Edited 2006-07-04 03:50
and I am sick of people crying “big bad wolf” regarding possible fines by EU. I guess a bully (MS) ran into a real big bully (EU), and now has to play nice with other kids in the schoolyard. It is just a start though, I am sure more is to follow. As far as MS deliberately breaking compatibilities with other systems, well, that is a well established fact. Nothing wrong with that, in most cases just ended up as failed experiments.
What I can’t understand is how some people here (we are supposed to be smart-ish) can say that “MS has complied with the ruling of the case and yet has been fined wrongly”. Are they implying that there is no rule of law in EU? That people can arbitrarily decide who is in compliance and who is not? Those people have obviously never had any contact with the outside world, and need to crawl back in the basement of their parents 😉
You mean like how people arbitrarily decide guilty/not guilty when they sit on a jury, irrespective of whether or not they live in their parent’s basement?
Edited 2006-07-04 04:10
1) That’s not arbitary: they have to sit through that long boring part where people present evidence
2) It’s backed by the weight of law, so even if it were arbitary, it would still be lawful.
You’ve been posting an awful lot today. To my eye, it seems every other post if by you. Either the fatigue is getting to you or you’re trolling, because you appear to be having an awful time holding on to a coherent argument. Given your posting frequency, lack of coherence and laughable inability to grasp even basic, well established concepts such as the rule of law, I’d say you’re troll.
Nearly half the posts in a 120 post thread. That’s not a bad hook-rate but the ratio is terrible. You are not a very good troll.
//As far as MS deliberately breaking compatibilities with other systems, well, that is a well established fact. Nothing wrong with that//
Au contraire, there is everything wrong with that.
This is illegal for a company with a dominant market position. This is what gets them in trouble in the first place.
It is not just “could be illegal” – it IS illegal. It has twice been found so by the highest courts of two major juisdictions. There is no question about it, this is illegal practice.
There is even a nme for it. It is called “anti-trust”.
Seriously, Microsoft… Here’s a hint – cut your losses and RUN – I cannot believe you need or even want the European market so bad you are willing to put up with this much bull.
I mean it… if the EU tries to fine MS, just close shop in the EU. Kind of hard to prosecute a company that no longer operates in your realm.
I love how the French government was going to pass a bill to be able to sue Apple for being anti-competitive with the iTunes Music Store.
Then rumours came out that Apple would stop trading altogether in France.
Then suddenly the bill was altered slightly, just enough to allow Apple to continue trade.
Could you imagine if it was Microsoft instead of Apple?
>Could you imagine if it was Microsoft instead of Apple?
Nope
. Microsoft is evil, I know that a lot of people just hate them. Just look at the posts here, you re the only one, the only windows zealot arguing with other ordinary users, you are on the Bill’s side, you are in the dark side, you do not really understand what MS means, what means freedom, what means legal & ethics, what means antitrust – all this together called – fanatism 
. Apple is not a monopoly, goverment of France didn’t want to get Apple away, but Microsoft is another case, EU wants equal conditions for IT business in Europe, iTunes – is different. Don’t mix water with vodka 
Edited 2006-07-04 04:27
Thanks! But no, I’m not the only “fanatic” in this discussion, and no, I’m not really a “fanatic” either.
Microsoft is continuously bullied and bad-mouthed, and I happen to like them and their products, so I’m putting my two cents in.
//Microsoft is continuously bullied and bad-mouthed//
Being found in breach of the law is not “being bullied”.
Sheesh!
Oh, what, and saying that Microsoft is “evil” is a well-founded statement?
I wonder what the reaction would be if I set up a “Linus Torvalds is the devil 666” page…? Probably get DoS attacks within 5 seconds of publishing it.
Edited 2006-07-04 04:36
//Oh, what, and saying that Microsoft is “evil” is a well-founded statement?//
Two points:
(1) I haven’t said that. All I say is that they broke the law.
(2) Some people would have it that to break the law is evil. Who am I to say one way or the other?
Having said that, I must say, I really don’t like it when some large company is trying to force me into a position where I must use their product – particularly when there is every indication that they include things in their product that are demonstrably against my best interests even though I am the one paying for their product.
Did you mention at all whether or not you do use Microsoft products?
If you are using Mac OS X or Linux, can you please give an example of any way in which this whole anti-trust issue has affected you?
Granted, any examples you provide (or fail to provide) may not represent the greater population, but I’m interested to see why you’re so adament about this.
EDIT: Oh, and I wasn’t specifically saying that you had said “Microsoft is evil”, just noting that it had been mentioned in this discussion. And that is my reference to “being bad-mouthed”.
Edited 2006-07-04 04:44
//Did you mention at all whether or not you do use Microsoft products?
If you are using Mac OS X or Linux, can you please give an example of any way in which this whole anti-trust issue has affected you?
Granted, any examples you provide (or fail to provide) may not represent the greater population, but I’m interested to see why you’re so adament about this. //
Basically, it is my living, my job, that depends on not falling into Microsofts proprietary lock-in.
I not only have to “use” IT products – I have to embed them into larger enigineering systems.
Sometimes I have to make a system that is “supportable for 30 years”. Supportable means “obsolesence proof”. The only way to demonstrate “obsolesence proof” is to imagine, in the future, that a particular supplier is defunct. Now, in your system, how would you replace the bits that come from that supplier if they break down after the supplier is defunct?
For a computer that is part of one’s system – one demonstrates how one would use an alternative computer from a different supplier and port the application and its data to another platform.
Part of one legacy system that I have is already in trouble over this. Part of the software development uses a large database that is in Microsoft Access 97. Already with XP machines the database is not portable – and that is within just the one platform!
I would not have this problem if the data and macros were in an open document format where the data could be ported across platforms and applications to manipulate the data could be made for any platform.
It is going to cost me a lot of time effort and money to fix this problem. The problem has been created for me purely by Microsoft’s attempt to lock people (and their data) in to Microsofts platform.
I am specifically tasked to design this type of lock-in out of the systems I design and build. It is my job.
OK – so your work relies on open standards to survive.
That’s fine, but generally speaking additions to existing implementations needn’t necessarily break older versions. There is no reason why an older version of a program shouldn’t be able to open a file from a newer version, and simply disable any content it doesn’t understand (as is the case with Microsoft Office files from Office 97 and up). Try opening a PowerPoint 2003 file in PowerPoint 97 – still opens and plays, but some advanced transitions don’t work.
And I’m curious by what you mean with Access 97 and Windows XP – are you implying that Office 97 won’t work correctly in Windows XP? This is simply not true – we have several labs at work still using Office 97, and they’re all running Windows XP with no problems.
I got even problems with MS Word. File created in Word 97, don’t even opened in Word 2k3. Access 97 is not working in newer MS Office’s. For example: At work I have MS Access 2000 files, and they are working normally with Office XP. But there’s no support for Access 97 files.
Well that really strikes me as odd… I have never had any problems with opening older files.
In fact – looking in Microsoft Word 2007 BETA, the Open File dialogue clearly says “Word 97-2003 Files”. In fact, with the right conversion filters installed, you can even scroll down further to see “Word 6 and 95 Files”.
And all versions of Access have in the Tools menu, then Database Tools, the option to convert to different file versions. (Not sure about 2007 though – haven’t had a look).
EDIT: Generally speaking, Microsoft do not add many actual new features to the file format; rather, they add features to the various Office programs (such as new formatting styles, wizards, tools etc.).
Edited 2006-07-04 05:29
>And all versions of Access have in the Tools menu, then Database Tools, the option to convert to different file versions. (Not sure about 2007 though – haven’t had a look).
That’s what I mean. It doesn’t work. And why so many formats? Can’t they just make one compatible format?. There’s more luck in Excel, where all formatsa are compatible. But word and access not.
BTW, the topic is different. The topic is that MS doing its business illegal, and it should be punished enough well.
//Well that really strikes me as odd… I have never had any problems with opening older files. //
There is not generally a problem with older files on newer windows systems.
However, once you have moved the file to the newer Windows system, it is no longer useable on the older Windows systems.
(Of course it goes without saying that the data is not useable at all on non-windows systems).
I cannot tolerate this type of forced lock-in. It suits Microsoft (requires older systems to all be updated), but I cannot tolerate it in my systems.
//There is no reason why an older version of a program shouldn’t be able to open a file from a newer version//
I have to make systems capable of running in a world where there is no Windows at all, and no Microsoft.
Arguing for “a newer version of Access” won’t cut it.
//And I’m curious by what you mean with Access 97 and Windows XP – are you implying that Office 97 won’t work correctly in Windows XP?//
No, I am syaing that if you have some machines with Win2k, some with WinNT, and some with WinXP, and you install Access 97 on all of them – then if any WinXP user makes a change to the “design” of that database (could be as innocuous as sorting or filetring a table) then the database is rendered unreadable for Win2k users and WinNT users.
Old data lock-in formats are not supportable even across different versions of Windows, let alone cross-platform.
Yes, well, I actually said “older version should open a newer file format”. Notice that the word “SHOULD” is in that sentence. And in most cases, they do.
As for cross-platform use rendering the file unreadable, I’m definately going to look into that simply because that sounds rediculous.
Oh, and by the way – if you’re so adament about using open-specification software, why are you using an Access 97 database? Why have you not migrated to something else yet?
//Oh, and by the way – if you’re so adament about using open-specification software, why are you using an Access 97 database? Why have you not migrated to something else yet?//
I didn’t use it. I said it was a legacy system.
I am now forced to migrate it to something else. Utter waste of my time and money, all because Microsoft wants lock-in.
OK – so you have an Access 97 database, so at some point you *WERE* using a Microsoft-based system.
Somewhere along the line, it has changed to a non-Microsoft-based system.
Well I’m sorry, but Microsoft’s business model suits them… Entice the clients to update to get the new features. If you stick with JUST Office 97 forever, it will always open its own files!
Whoever decided to swap to a non-Microsoft system must have known the implications.
But it would be the same in reverse… What if I had a FileMaker pro database on a Mac? Then I’m stuck with it!
//Well I’m sorry, but Microsoft’s business model suits them… Entice the clients to update to get the new features. If you stick with JUST Office 97 forever, it will always open its own files! //
Two problems with this:
(1) “Microsoft’s business model suits them” … maybe it does, but it doesn’t suit me and I’m the customer, and it also happens in some cases to be an illegal practice.
(2) //If you stick with JUST Office 97 forever, it will always open its own files!// Nope. Use an Access ’97 file using Access 97 on a Windows XP client and that same file can no longer be read by a Windows 2k client nor a Windows NT client both also using Access 97.
It appears that Microsoft embed some part of the Windows system DLLs into the file format!
Yeccch. Unsafe and non-portable.
Who on earth would support this rubbish?
OK:
(1) Fine – it doesn’t suit you. You. But this is also how MOST businesses operate… If a company were to bring out a software product, and then never, ever update it again, how are they going to make profit? So of course they’ll update it, add new features, and then people WILL buy the new version.
(2) As I mentioned, I will look in to this, because it sounds rediculous. We have different versions of Office at work, and it was only recently that all machines were updated to Windows XP. We did have a few Windows 98 and 2000 machines… Never had a single reported case of files not being able to be opened.
But if you want to talk about compatibility (and therefore long shelf-life), Windows XP can STILL run programs from Windows 2, and even from MS-DOS 3.3.
There is no way you can argue that Windows isn’t the most backward-compatible operating system out there (and yes, this is the reason for some of its problems).
So once you start with a Microsoft product (or a product from any vendor that writes Windows software), you are fairly well guaranteed you won’t run into too many problems down the track.
Can you even run ANY Linux 1.x programs on a 2.6 kernel?
EDIT: Or for that matter, are you guaranteed that a program designed for a 2.6 kernel will run on two different distributions using the 2.6 kernel?
Edited 2006-07-04 06:09
>Can you even run ANY Linux 1.x programs on a 2.6 kernel?
Kernel is not the case. Kernel is core of Operating System. Application’s depends on other stuff. You know, I have a stuff in my old hard drive’s /usr/local from Mandrake 8.1, Redhat 6x time. And those programs just run fine now, on Fedora Core 5!
Edited 2006-07-04 06:25
//But if you want to talk about compatibility (and therefore long shelf-life), Windows XP can STILL run programs from Windows 2, and even from MS-DOS 3.3. //
Correction – some programs.
//So once you start with a Microsoft product (or a product from any vendor that writes Windows software), you are fairly well guaranteed you won’t run into too many problems down the track. //
Already demonstrated false. In any event this arguement does not meet the primary “obsolesence proof” requirement of not relying on a single vendor. You are stuffed if Microsoft ever goes bust, you have lost all of your data.
//Can you even run ANY Linux 1.x programs on a 2.6 kernel? //
More to the point the question is are there any that you can’t? Linux systems achieve an enormous compatibility advantage through access to the source code.
Just re-compile your application and you are good to go.
OTOH relying on binary-only stuff from a single-source supplier – bound for trouble. Most decidedly NOT obsolesence-proof.
//Or for that matter, are you guaranteed that a program designed for a 2.6 kernel will run on two different distributions using the 2.6 kernel? //
If you have the source it is no problem whatsoever.
Therefore, having the source is the very best approach to obsolesence-proofing.
Using Windows very much precludes that “best approach”.
Can you even run ANY Linux 1.x programs on a 2.6 kernel?
Sure you can…not all will, but many would. And I’m talking about binary executables here. Since there is access to the source in most case, the point is moot.
EDIT: Or for that matter, are you guaranteed that a program designed for a 2.6 kernel will run on two different distributions using the 2.6 kernel?
Of course you can…as long as libraries are available. In the case of an executable with static libraries, then the kernel version isn’t relevant (drivers excluded).
Whoever decided to swap to a non-Microsoft system must have known the implications.
That is the very definition of vendor lock-in, though, isn’t it? You’ve basically validated hal2k1’s entire argument with this statement.
Sure, you’ll get DDoS – cause you are wrong. It will be same as if you write things like: Green Peace sucks!, Freedom is evil!, Die humans!, Bill is godfather, etc.
Windows is doing illegal by occupying the market, for example gaming market. I use linux everyday, and I don’t need windows at all, I can play some games on linux box, but not all of them, and I know a lot of people who is stick with windows only for its apllications support. Games, graphical apps, music editors, CAD systems, etc. All these issues are came from MS’s business strategy, it took off the freedom, the freedom for choise. You are forced to buy windows just to use 3rd parties. Don’t they ?
Edited 2006-07-04 05:02
No, Windows is NOT “occupying” the game market.
There are more and more games available for Mac OS X and Linux.
And there is nothing stopping game writers to include platform support for operating systems other than Windows.
Both Mac OS X and Linux have native OpenGL support, so there is no reason they can’t have 3D applications (including games).
EDIT: Interesting video clip I saw the other day. A company is writing a physics engine that utilises the PhysX cards. The engine will be made available to Windows and Mac OS X. So this means that any games that use this engine can be ported much easier.
Edited 2006-07-04 05:05
Generally I agree with you, but:
“And there is nothing stopping game writers to include platform support for operating systems other than Windows.”
There is. They can’t afford another bunch of programmers to port game to another platform, cause the main game market – is windows, and this marketowner, should share some place for others.
And I agree, and very happy that more and more games are becoming available under free OS
So people can spend countless hours writing free (as in beer) open-source software and not make profit, but yet nobody will port a game to another platform?
If anyone is to blame in that instance, it is the software producers.
Just have a look at the console market… Most new games come out with versions for XBox, XBox 360, PlayStation 2, and GameCube. That models seems to work well, and you couldn’t argue that Sony has considerable market advantage with consoles.
“”
I wonder what the reaction would be if I set up a “Linus Torvalds is the devil 666”
“”
no one would care less
I agree. So does Belgium gov. and it seems many other gov.. Oddly though, I didn’t know Massachusett is not in the states, or maybe even in the states people and gov. are moving away from MS 🙂
>> Oddly though, I didn’t know Massachusett is not in the states, or maybe even in the states people and gov. are moving away from MS 🙂
Well, the Commiewealth of Taxachusetts is NOT your typical American state – it and Commiefornia are the pretty much socialist police states compared to their neighbors… Trust me, I grew up in Mass – and there’s a reason I live in New Hampshire now…
Like no income tax, no sales tax, and government employess I’m willing to trust… Case in point, a lady friend takes home more working a convenience store overnight here in NH than she did at 40K/year salary in Mass. What a difference crossing a border in the same COUNTRY can make.
Unlike Massachusetts with it’s corrupt officials who make more than most Federal employees – and that’s BEFORE you figure in Mob payoffs, Business kickbacks, and welfare state mentality.
Seriously, when I heard about the Massachusetts move towards open document, the only thing that went through my mind is “Ok, who’s getting a kickback on this and from where?”. It sure as hell had nothing to do with the ‘freedom’ of the people or ‘anti-microsoft’ policies… I know that state too well for that.
>Or for that matter, are you guaranteed that a program designed for a 2.6 kernel will run on two different distributions using the 2.6 kernel?
Yes! There’s a thing called LSB (Linux Standard Base). It means that all software is running on all linux distributions, it means competition, it means the right market. As I mentioned before, software developed by Novell will run on Redhat, Ubuntu and others! What about Windows ? I’m not sure, how its supporting win16 applications, or old DOS programs/games (with 100% processor load)
OK – maybe for console programs, but I’m talking more along the lines of GUI programs (because I think we can all admit that 99% of users use a GUI).
In that case, you’d better hope that your Gnome install will run that KDE program, and that all the other little dependencies are installed.
And as for 16-bit programs – not at all! Just ran an old 16-bit copy of SimTown (used to love it 😉 and my computer was only at 1% (which was actually taken up by Task Manager itself).
16-bit programs only use processing power if they’re actually doing something (true of any program though).
EDIT: Oh, and I see you answered about programs running on different distros, but what about 1.x programs running on current kernel?
Edited 2006-07-04 06:30
>Oh, and I see you answered about programs running on different distros, but what about 1.x programs running on current kernel?
Again: programs are not depend on kernel, they depend on other staff (mostly on libraries).
GUI: You can still easily run GTK1.x programs on newest GNOME. Audacity for example. Other stuff is linked with Desktop Environments, and they are the part of it. And surely. There’s no cases when u use Koffice 1.5 on KDE1.x, cause they bundled together, and upgraded together when DE is upgraded.
Yes, but if I’m using Ubuntu (for example) with Gnome, can I still run KDE programs (any of them) without too much config?
All I’m saying is that you have a greater chance of a Windows program running on different versions and on different machines that you do a Linux (GUI) program.
>Yes, but if I’m using Ubuntu (for example) with Gnome, can I still run KDE programs (any of them) without too much config?
Be sure of that. Installing application through package manager in ubuntu, gets all needed stuff to run it. Its very simple, just a few clicks, and you are now running Kopete in your favourite GNOME
//All I’m saying is that you have a greater chance of a Windows program running on different versions and on different machines that you do a Linux (GUI) program.//
You might be saying it, doesn’t make it true.
Portability of functions, data and applications is part of my job, remember.
Binary-only proprietary programs are the problem. Data saved in obscured, protected formats. Systems that communicate only via obscure protected proprietary protocols. These are the nasties that we must avoid.
There is no such problem on Linux.
Edited 2006-07-04 08:18
Yes, but if I’m using Ubuntu (for example) with Gnome, can I still run KDE programs (any of them) without too much config?
Yes. Selecting, let’s say, “amaroK” for installation in Synaptic will automatically install all required librairies. No configuration needed. None. Nada. Zip.
All I’m saying is that you have a greater chance of a Windows program running on different versions and on different machines that you do a Linux (GUI) program.
No, you don’t, actually. But in any case that’s not what you originally said. You specifically mentioned kernel versions, then changed your tune to talk about Gnome/KDE applications. (Not that it matters, you’re wrong either way.)
Ummm, no, actually (moron).
What I originally (and have continued to) say is that Windows programs are more compatible between different versions of Windows and between different machines, than Linux programs are between [insert word here].
ONE example I gave was programs that were written for kernel 1.x won’t run properly under 2.6 kernels (too many changes in the kernel).
I also give a SECOND example with KDE/Gnome programs, but that was more of a question as I didn’t know (hence why I wrote “can I still…”).
Earlier, I mentioned that current Windows XP SP2 has no problems running many programs from as far back as Windows 2 and MS-DOS 3.3. And this is far better backward-compatibility than Linux.
EDIT: And *NO*, I’m not including the option of recompiling old source code to run under current versions, because this is a REDICULOUS requirement fr an average (or even intermediate) user to achieve. I am PURELY talking about BINARY programs. Windows is far better at BINARY backward-compatibility.
Edited 2006-07-04 14:51
Ummm, no, actually (moron).
Flattery will get you nowhere (and insults will get you modded down).
What I originally (and have continued to) say is that Windows programs are more compatible between different versions of Windows and between different machines, than Linux programs are between [insert word here].
And I disagreed with that. A program that ran under a version 1.X kernel will likely still run on a modern kernel if libraries are statically-linked. (Drivers being a notable exception.)
ONE example I gave was programs that were written for kernel 1.x won’t run properly under 2.6 kernels (too many changes in the kernel).
Unless the program itself makes use of very specific kernel functions, then there’s no reason it wouldn’t run under a new kernel.
I also give a SECOND example with KDE/Gnome programs, but that was more of a question as I didn’t know (hence why I wrote “can I still…”).
But that is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with the OS, but rather with Desktop Environments.
Earlier, I mentioned that current Windows XP SP2 has no problems running many programs from as far back as Windows 2 and MS-DOS 3.3. And this is far better backward-compatibility than Linux.
“Many”, not all. This is the same thing as for Linux, where “many”, not all programs written in the days of Kernel 1.X will still run (in their binary form) with a modern kernel. The fact that you would consider this “better backward-compatibility” on Windows’ part simply shows your heavy pro-MS bias.
EDIT: And *NO*, I’m not including the option of recompiling old source code to run under current versions, because this is a REDICULOUS requirement fr an average (or even intermediate) user to achieve. I am PURELY talking about BINARY programs. Windows is far better at BINARY backward-compatibility.
I was also talking about binary compatibility, and Windows doesn’t have better backward-compatibility at all. In fact, it requries you to jump through all sorts of hoops to run some old programs (complex configuration options that still confuse me to this day).
Dismissing having access to source code simply shows your bias: compiling programs isn’t hard for intermediate users at all, but that’s besides the point. The point is that distro maintainers can recompile old programs to make sure they still run with modern distros, so the programs will still be available if they are of use.
Note that anyone still wanting to run Linux programs from 10 years ago is very likely an advanced user in the first place…
I’m very happy to see that.
The EU is the only instance that does something against microsoft.
so you could say, “see apple! iLive, etc., everything is included”. But take a closer look.
What is microsoft doing for security in their own operating systems? No I’m not talking about tools, tools the EU want to stop; I’m talking about general security in the OS, do you believe the biggest software company in the world wouldn’t be able to built a high security OS for customers?
So it’s right that the EU does something to MS, it’s the bill for that.
//What is microsoft doing for security in their own operating systems? No I’m not talking about tools, tools the EU want to stop; I’m talking about general security in the OS, do you believe the biggest software company in the world wouldn’t be able to built a high security OS for customers? //
It is not as simple as that.
It turns out I do believe that the biggest software company in the world isn’t able to build a high security OS for customers that at the same time is fully backwards compatible at a binary API level with x86 binary-only applications that those customers already own and want to continue to use.
If Microsoft want to release a new OS that doesn’t preclude customers from running all their old (binary only) applications, then yes Microsoft cannot make that new OS secure at the same time.
One or the other. Backwards compatible, or secure. Not both at the same time – I believe it can’t be done.
So the question boils down to this: would you buy a new Windows OS (or a new PC with a new Windows OS) that was secure but which wouldn’t run the other software you already had … or would you buy buy a new Windows OS (or a new PC with a new Windows OS) that would run most of the other software you already had but which wasn’t secure against viruses, worms and rootkits?
It seems to me you are stuffed either way.
Edited 2006-07-04 12:52
I see the OSS fundies and MS haters started to mod down any posts that would go against their crusade and/or reality.
Go go computer addiction!
Actually, posts get modded down when they’re off-topic, or insulting, or both (as is the case with that last post of yours).
En passant, chialer sur les modérations, c’est vraiment pathétique…
je me demande combien d’abuseurs on des comptes additionels pour abuser du systeme de votes.
My last post wasn’t off-topic nor insulting, I was merely pointing out the obvious.
Your last post was about the moderation system, which is off-topic.
Then, you referred to “OSS fundies” who are on a “crusade” and live in a different “reality”. These are insulting words.
I would have moderated you down myself if I had any mod points left (unfortunately I don’t, and I only one account).
Just because the majority of OSNews visitors choose to disagree with the Microsoft propaganda, doesn’t mean the voting system is being abused. It may just mean that the shills and astroturfers are in minority…
The moderation bit isn’t off-topic. The abuse problem is in THIS comment section.
About the OSS fundies thingy? MS has drones, Mac has zealots and Amiga has cultists. It’s the perfect name for OSS fanatics. And where do fanatics live? In another reality. Fits like a glove.
BTW, the majority of OSnews readers don’t comment. If they did then there would be higher numbers of comments. So how can you say that they choose to disagree with “Microsoft propaganda”? BTW this isn’t the 40ies, it’s called marketing now.
The moderation bit isn’t off-topic. The abuse problem is in THIS comment section.
Except there isn’t any abuse at all. You see it as abuse because the moderation goes against your own bias. And it is off-topic, no matter which way you put it: the topic for this thread is “Microsoft Wins Antitrust Suit, Faces EU Fines” – nowhere in there does it mention OSNews moderation.
About the OSS fundies thingy? MS has drones, Mac has zealots and Amiga has cultists. It’s the perfect name for OSS fanatics.
Maybe one day you’ll realize that insults are not compatible with rational debate, and that none of these epithets are necessary. Until then, carry on flaimbaiting (and getting modded down for it).
BTW, the majority of OSnews readers don’t comment. If they did then there would be higher numbers of comments.
My bad, I meant “posters”, not “readers”. With this correction, my point still stands, however.
So how can you say that they choose to disagree with “Microsoft propaganda”? BTW this isn’t the 40ies, it’s called marketing now.
A rose by any other name…
Except there isn’t any abuse at all. You see it as abuse because the moderation goes against your own bias. And it is off-topic, no matter which way you put it: the topic for this thread is “Microsoft Wins Antitrust Suit, Faces EU Fines” – nowhere in there does it mention OSNews moderation.
But there was abuse. There was moderation based on emotion/preference and not logic/rational.
Maybe one day you’ll realize that insults are not compatible with rational debate, and that none of these epithets are necessary. Until then, carry on flaimbaiting (and getting modded down for it).
Hehehe The last time I read a rational post on this site, the post was modded down less than 2 mins. I even pointed it out in a post shortly after. People are soo intolerant on this website. LOL
I realized long ago, like most, that OSNews comments are on par with /. without the Soviet/GNAA/BSDdying spam. Most of the interesting/technical minded people left OSNews long ago. Guess why? They were feed up with moderation abuse and the lack of it. Who did the abuse? The bozos who mod down anything that they don’t agree with.
But there was abuse. There was moderation based on emotion/preference and not logic/rational.
Such as…?
Report it, if you think it’s that bad. Meanwhile, your posts continue to be off-topic and I shall continue to moderate them as such.
Hehehe The last time I read a rational post on this site, the post was modded down less than 2 mins.
You mean, I rational post that you agreed with. There have been many rational posts that were modded up in this very thread. But of course, anything that’s even mildly critical of Microsoft or has anything nice to say about Linux is irrational in your view.
Most of the interesting/technical minded people left OSNews long ago.
I guess that’s why you’re still here. Maybe if you ask your supervisor nicely he’ll affect you to a different website…
Padooooooon….this was fart on your face
Keep whining Microsoft will prevail.
Your favourite Linux on desktop is eating shit…amen