Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Nov 2006 20:56 UTC, submitted by D.C. Parris
Thread beginning with comment 182564
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2006-01-06
Yes , you did , do you see me denying that you did ? No , I showed you that there is no Multi-boot and that Microsoft was convicted for making deal with OEM and that they still do so , and make them fear loosing there preferential threatment.
The absence of multi-boot isn't proof of anything. And let's get this straight: Microsoft can't charge OEMs more money because they put a competitor's software on a box. Microsoft lost that ability when it was convicted of abuse of monopoly back in 2000. You seem to think that your merely asserting something as fact makes it so. That's so wrong. Show me an OEM that feels that it's being strongarmed by MS -- either explicitly or implicitly -- so that it can be referred to the DOJ as a violation of the consent decree.
Now, if you're merely asserting that that's happening as your opinion, then that's a different story. Everyone has a right to an opinion, however right or wrong. So, which is it? Are you asserting an opinion -- or are you asserting a fact?
In the computer market this days 10$ - 20$ on a lower-end model means the cutomer go seek your competitors. Now the real problem is that you refused that as proof.[/i]