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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-04
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
Member since:2005-11-11
//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.
Member since:2006-07-04
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.
Member since:
2005-11-11
//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.