To play a bigger role in the development of computers — as well as software — Microsoft has formed a major new division to produce specialized versions of Windows and build prototypes of computers of the future. Called the Extended Platforms Division, the group has 900 employees assembled from the Windows, research and business-productivity divisions. It also includes industrial designers and evangelists who will pitch the concept computers to manufacturers.
Computer Development is New Focus at Microsoft
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
1 engineer and 899 marketing guys?
About the idea though. Microsoft seems to be going the Mac way of dominating hardware AND software. Great. Just what we need. And I suppose OSS folks will be stuck on x86 mainly?
How about all the major players in the industry team up and create a new open standard for future computers? 64bit processor(s), fast memory, SCSI and S-ATA, etc, etc. The world does need an alliance that will push the industry forward but these would have to be open standards.
we all know how much they “innovated” with their Xbox /sarcasm… it sure look nothing like an usual PC … sarcasm/
if they want to “innovate” by putting regular pc’s in a new dress, they might want to take a look at http://www.mini-itx.com
Well, if they can design something that Windows is fully compatible with we may be won something. They use as an excuse of stability the wide range of hardware they have to support.
One thing I like about is when they do hardware they do it well…
I hope everyone is now done with their sarcasm and non-productive comments regarding this news item. It gets tiring to see all this trolling each time we have a Windows story. Really.
I haven’t taken a keen interest in technology for long enough to remember the introduction of the PowerPC Processor but I understand at the time it might have split the desktop market.. with major development on both the CHRP/PPC and PS2-compatible/X86 Computer families.
Windows NT was ported to the new processor family…etc.. but it all failed.
With the failure of Microsoft to make Windows secure on standard hardware ( WPA too easily broken, DRM crackable )..where next for them?
they have already committed Windows XP 64-bit to the Intel Itanium instead of the more backward-compatible Athlon 64
Games writers are announcing linux support for Athlon 64 bit, I notice. Could there be a split coming for real?
Windows taking USB2, PCI Express and Itanium while Linux concentrates on PCI-64 and Athlon Sledgehammer?
… as long as you aren’t cynical about Microsoft.
(or the powers-that-be)
“Games writers are announcing linux support for Athlon 64 bit, I notice.”
URL’s ?
s/you’re/your
The goal of such a program might be to replace the open i386-based hardware platform with something new that Microsoft would license to OEMs. So Microsoft could make a new machine called an MS Box, and license it to Dell, CHomPaq, and others to sell their own versions of it. A new OEM couldn’t simply start selling MS Boxes; they’d have to sign up with Microsoft. Basically it’s a new application of Microsoft’s strategy with the PocketPC and TabletPC (and to some extend X Box) platforms, but in this case it could shift market share away from normal desktops.
This would be a bad move for the industry. It would allow Microsoft to develop the new platform as proprietary because each OEM who wanted to sell MS Boxes would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This would effectively make it impossible for more than one OS to share the new platform (and by extension, OSNews would have a lot fewer things to talk about). It would also kill all the local computer retailers who build custom machines – everyone would have to buy their MS Boxes from a large, established and Microsoft-approved OEM.
Many people have remarked that early 90s Macs were superior to Windows machines, and that it would have been better if Apple had become the dominant software company. I disagree: I like things under a Microsoft-dominated industry a lot more than I would under Apple because Microsoft is a purely-software company. By taking these Apple-like moves they could ruin the commodity computing industry as a whole.
Good points there from Ed Holden.
The thing I’d point out though is that Microsoft can’t make exclusive supply contracts since pretty much all of whatever platform they’d standardise on would be standard parts….
Its hard to buy a G4 in the shops but thats because the market is tiny. No-ones going to close off the supply of Intel chips just because Microsoft wants to be sole OS vendor for them.
About the only thing they could own is the software… and the BIOS. And frankly.. if it means they can make pre-packaged Computers where the hardware and software are tied then the reliability would be astounding.
Think of it as a low-maintenance solution rather than an IT product and for home users its not a bad idea.
and it leaves the PC market free of Windows influence…and gives the OSS community a real reason to develop even better emulation technology.
Wow, they might even run on as many platforms as NetBSD…
M$ said that Unix is too fragmented and now they will create a fragmented Windows world. There are Win3.1, Win3.11, Win95, Win98, Win982nd, NT3.x, NT4.0 Workstation, NT4.0 Server, W2k Prof, W2K Server, W2k Adv Server, XP home, XP Professional, Win2003, PocketPC, WinCE, ….
M$ never like diversity. The NT port for non-x86 architectures was saboted and all PocketPC-device makers ane not happy with the excessive standardization of “M$ standards”, like Mc Donald’s.
Windows in non-x86 hardware has no interest for anyone.
Just to reply to ~CdBee~ about the monopolies question:
You’re right that a tightly-bound hardware / software platform might be good from a usability perspective. But I think you’re taking for granted that the i386 hardware platform would remain open. This isn’t necessarily true. For example, you can’t install the Mac OS onto any PowerPC computer because it requires Apple proprietary hardware that exists in addition to the processor itself. And you can’t easily install GNU/Linux onto an X Box without an (illegal) mod chip. So even if the new MS platform(s) center on Intel hardware, that hardware can still be designed to prevent use by other non-MS software.
It’s gotten to be that any dissident opinion is called “trolling”. Or better yet, “bashing”. If a person has a strong opinion about anything, let’s just attack that person, right? And let’s call it “freedom of speech” while we’re at it.
In reality, it’s just one more effort by the media to silence the citizens of the world. This site’s rules contain items about “mindless” attacks on Microsoft, using vulgar language, and a few other similar restrictions. They don’t say that protesting a harsh global monopoly is not allowed.
This is in the face of a company that is recognized worldwide as an illegal monopoly and as a completely amoral entity that has been caught many times for stealing ideas, code, staff, illegal price fixing, illegal bundling, etc., amongst many other crimes.
Wasn’t there a conference in Thailand recently to gather like-minded individuals to build a really excellent Asian version of Linux so that these countries could get out from under the yoke of Microsoft? Isn’t this effort funded in part by the government of Japan and other Asian governments? Can it really be that almost all the people in almost all the countries of the world wrong about Microsoft? Somehow, I doubt it.
From the recent news on Microsoft’s antitrust investigation in the European Union:
The European Commission confirmed yesterday that it would study the new case but not merge it with its ongoing investigation. This concerns allegations that the firm deliberately made the Windows operating system incompatible with other firms servers and media products to exclude them from the market.
Microsoft has argued that the complaints have already been settled by US anti-trust authorities in a 2001 settlement with the company.
While the CCIA in private wants the European Commission to break-up Microsoft, competition lawyers said that this was unlikely and that harshest penalty would probably be changes to Windows, says the FT.
The Commission also has the option of fining a firm up to 10% of its global turnover, which would be a huge sum for a company that earns over 30 billion each year.
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=9347
It seems every day there is news about Microsoft that has to do with their chilling effect on global peace, prosperity, and innovation. I don’t consider it wrong to post this news when it comes to painting a fair balanced picture of Microsoft other than the posting of gushing Microsoft press releases as news/journalism.
So I assume all the commentary on Microsoft’s foray into computers should be “wow, that’s great! i want to pay more for my computer and have no choice of what software will run on it!” Or maybe just “great spin on that one, microsoft!”. Oh yeah, that strikes me as one more bland place to get corporate news only with corporate-approved discussion of corporate press releases. What’s the point? Aren’t there already tons of websites for corporate-friendly PR and news?
thanks…. that possibility had somehow escaped me.
Scary.
“This is in the face of a company that is recognized worldwide as an illegal monopoly and as a completely amoral entity that has been caught many times for stealing ideas, code, staff, illegal price fixing, illegal bundling, etc., amongst many other crimes.”
If they have broken the law then why don’t you sue them or something instead of posting unrelated vitriolic opinions here every time a MSFT story is posted? This is a tech news site, not a political activism site. There are plenty of anti-globalization political sites where you can rant about the evils of MSFT to your heart’s content.
If you have nothing relevant to say regarding the specific topic of this story and are just using it as a platform for peddling your anti-MSFT agenda then why don’t you just STFU instead?
Looking at how technology impacts the lives of people and looking into the companies that make technology is talking about tech news, Gil. Technology would mean nothing if it didn’t affect people.
It is disingenuous of you to try and restrict discussion of Microsoft to technical terms only when this website is clearly anything but a technical-information-only website.
Microsoft’s products touch much of the world and Microsoft as a company is widely recognized to having had and currently having a chilling effect on the evolution of software for personal computers. As Microsoft expands into new areas, it is important to point out what has happened in the past. There are jobs and lives at stake when a company has to compete against Microsoft. You know this very well. So it is definitely “news” when Microsoft forms a new division to go after additional market segments of the hardware business.
I don’t have to sue Microsoft because they’ve broken the law. Countless other companies and governments have done that for me. With rare exception, Microsoft has always been found guilty of breaking the law. As law is based on moral principles, it is mere logic to conclude that Microsoft is an amoral enterprise.
There are many efforts going on all over the world to do everything it takes to get rid of Microsoft. It’s not about me, it’s about what is actually happening in the world. People are sick and tired of not having any choice, of paying rapacious licensing fees, and having Microsoft spy on them.
I’ve certainly recently written a few things about Microsoft that are my attempt to bring some sort of objectivity to the news on Microsoft. There is more to journalism than simply reposting Microsoft press releases or putting positive spin on everything Microsoft does.
I might also mention that there are also plenty of Windows fan boy sites where Microsoft lovers and Microsoft shareholders can pat each other on the back on how their company has broken the law yet again and gotten away with it.
A neutral website will have both positive and negative comments. If you are so unhappy with anything negative being posted about Microsoft, perhaps you should simply pay off the editors here to delete all the negative posts on Microsoft. Or buy the entire site. You’ve got the money to do whatever you want.
But as long as Microsoft remains as it is today, there will always been people all over the world talking about Microsoft, mostly not having anything good to say about the company. Beyond massive illegal profits, that is what Microsoft has earned.
You cannot show me one non-purchased and truly positive article about Microsoft because no one has anything good to write about the company. No one likes working with Microsoft, from little companies to Microsoft. No one trusts Microsoft, especially other governments. This is reality, pal. Trying to shut people up about it won’t work.
It’s gotten to be that any dissident opinion is called “trolling”.
No, trolling is offering up a controversial and completely not-backed-up “opinion” for the sole sake of pissing people off and/or starting an argument. The intent is to get angry with people and have them get angry with you. An intelligent dissent is a far different beast; its intent is to persuade.
If a person has a strong opinion about anything, let’s just attack that person, right?
When that opinion is no more than “other Slashdot readers tell me to hate Micro$oft, so I’ll hate them too. Everything they do is shit!!!!!”, you’re darn right I’m not going to respect it in the slightest.
This is in the face of a company that is recognized worldwide as an illegal monopoly and as a completely amoral entity that has been caught many times for stealing ideas, code, staff, illegal price fixing, illegal bundling, etc., amongst many other crimes.
I like how all of his allegations either aren’t proven (when was the last time MS was convicted of stealing code?), aren’t crimes (“stealing staff”, “stealing ideas”), or are considered crimes on the books but shouldn’t be (antitrust). Talk about convincing yourself with rubbish. My favorite, though, is that he not only uses an “etc.”, but also a “amongst many other crimes.” Ran a little low on ideas for the list, eh? Personally, I hold my opinions to higher standards, but to each his/her own.
Can it really be that almost all the people in almost all the countries of the world wrong about Microsoft? Somehow, I doubt it.
You mean, “almost all the people who read Slashdot in almost all the countries in the world”. Obviously, there are a lot of people who like Microsoft and their products, or they wouldn’t purchase them by the millions.
It seems every day there is news about Microsoft that has to do with their chilling effect on global peace, prosperity, and innovation.
I would love to hear your intelligent ideas about Microsoft’s effect on global peace. When you’re done with that, we can move onto prosperity and innovation.
My first thought when I read this news was to consider it a good thing. Indeed, a lot of the problems we face with Windows can be traced back to the crazy amount of hardware and drivers that you can combine on a system. The more things there are, the less likely they will be tested together. True, a better OS design would limit the negative interaction, but that’s not the point here. They’re not going to re-engineer the OS. So, I think that MS’s recent attempt to get companies to have their drivers certified was a good idea for increasing reliability. Granted, every driver I have had to install or update since that certification program started, has been uncertified. So what’s the point?
Maybe MS engineers, forced to keep the OS architecture, seeing that the certification process hasn’t worked, has recommended simply eliminating a large number of devices to deal with. The act of narrowing the available hardware on which to run the OS would make testing a lot easier. Even Apple can’t test everything that’s available for their OS, but they can test a far greater percentage. Why shouldn’t MS want that kind of percentage of “certifiable reliability?”
Then I read the comments here (some of them very objective and based on reality, I feel). I thought about it for a moment. I realized that under a Microsoft like what we’ve known up to today, this could be a bad thing. Assuming that they would use their industry influence to “force” people/companies into using only their hardware, with questionable license fees, and “forcing” the status-quo away from open architechtures to closed MS designs… It is all very possible. Maybe even probable.
Frankly I would love to see computers actually be reinvented, given new blood and new designs to get us away from the current state of things (which I think is a huge disgrace). If MS becomes another Apple, part of me says “Good for them!” and wants to leave it at that.
The other part of me worries how this would affect the rest of the computing world. How would it affect those of us that are not interested in “the Microsoft way” (just as we may not be interested in “the Pepsi way” or “the TGI Fridays way” or “the Toshiba way” or “the AT&T way” – consumer choice).
We see how the market for alternative architectures is nearly non-existant already, due to the nearly non-existent alternative OS market and the cementing of some software to one, non-licensable, hardware design.
My concern: Will I be able to run alternatives such as BeOS, QNX and Linux in a world of two competing “locked” architectures? Would the market drop out on open architectures if Microsoft’s OS and Software stopped being supported on them? Would there be “open computing” any more? Open Source can create software without investment. But not hardware. There’s no chance that the open source movement would maintain an open hardware market for the “alternative people.”
Hell, if Microsoft stopped doing all the things they do to make me hate them, I wouldn’t care. The likelihood of that happening is VERY slim (about like the likelihood of me getting to have a vacation on Mars before I die).
On crime —
There’s one other great Microsoft defense. Reduce any discussion down to arbitrarily fine points which have little or no meaning. This way, it is easy to fund the best lawyers and go to court, appealing and appealing until you finally get to the point where Microsoft’s very large political contributions make the whole case moot. And Microsoft will make you argue every point, from the creation of protons and neutrons to atoms to molecules… etc… just to prove there is a very large hand in the cookie jar.
For the record, Microsoft last got busted for stealing code in the Stac case. There may be other cases, but this was the most blatant.
It could be Microsoft will get convicted again in the Sendo case. If not explicit code, at least designs, plans, and other IP.
Microsoft has gotten busted numerous times for stealing code. They stole the NCSA code for Mosaic and then had to license it later, they stole the BSD networking code and then were forced to use the proper license later, the list goes on, those are the ones on the top of my head. This is why there is the “etc”.
On Slashdot —
It must be that Slashdot is the most popular computing site all over the world then, right? If the Japanese, Thai, Chinese, Taiwanese, German, many South American, and other governments are all funding efforts to move off of Microsoft, it’s because they are all raving Slashdot readers? I doubt it.
Again, a Microsoft tactic to belittle the people that harbor any sort of anti-Microsoft sentiment. This tired old game is over. Everyone sees how Microsoft attacks and demonizes those people with negative opinions about them.
The people who are putting in an effort to move away from Microsoft are not lesser people. Nor are the people who read Slashdot lesser people. They may have anti-Microsoft opinions, but I will bet that most of those opinions are warranted.
On global peace and prosperity and innovation —
These things go together. I am not going to play the Microsoft games of “tell me all about the intricate and minute details of why the proton is a part of the atom…”
Why don’t you tell me and the world why Microsoft is trying to weaken the anti-spam laws in Washington state —
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vor…
Or tell me why there the tech workers in Washington are organizing so that Microsoft doesn’t offshore all their jobs —
http://www.washtech.org/wt/
Or tell me why Microsoft is putting in all sorts of RM/DRM/IRM into their software so no one will ever be able to subpoena information from Microsoft again? Not to mention that information in general will become more costly for all human beings.
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/14337/1.html
The list goes on.
On millions of people purchasing Microsoft —
Another disingenuous comment from the Microsoft world. Of course millions of people buy Microsoft. They don’t have any real choice! That is what a monopoly is! Don’t treat the readers like they are idiots. Although it may be close at times, this is not quite television. Yes, even when there was Standard Oil, people bought millions of gallons of gas. Imagine that.
It’s rather interesting what happens when you create an open forum where people can actually safely share their own opinions instead of being force fed what the media gives them. You find most people don’t like Microsoft and would like to have a choice of what they can do with their computers.
Another word for it is freedom. And people have shown throughout history, freedom is a good thing, worth fighting for, worth speaking out for. It is no different now. People are fighting for the right to freely use their PC’s in the way that they want to, not the way that Microsoft wants them to. This is the good fight.
Obviously, there are a lot of people who like Microsoft and their products, or they wouldn’t purchase them by the millions.
Most of these purchases come from Corporate upgrades, patching the legion of holes that we all know exist in all software but tend to particularly affect MS, being able to run the latest Office, and now because they are pretty well obliged to under Licensing 6.0.
The other point of sale for Windows is when it is bundled with computer from the big OEM’s or high street shops. Of the many worthy OS’s that are regularly featured hear how many come pre-installed from a major manufacturer, rather than having to be downloaded and installed (sometimes complied as well)? This is after all where most people get there computers from. As Eugenia has said (in a thread about the Apple iApps) before most people are not willing to download software and would much rather use that that comes pre-installed for them with there machine. So long as it is good enough to do their work with.
But back on topic. This could be a problem for the computer industry. These while these boxes will probably more stable than current PC’s, they will probably get this the Apple way by being manufactured from a narrow set of components. The component manufactures that get into this select group will be laughing all the way to the bank but the ones left out could have problems. More importantly it will be less important for the ones inside this group to compete as they have a guaranteed cash cow. Without real competition technologies progress considerably slower so the rapid rate of progress in hardware components that we are all used to would also slow.
A good example of this is IE, it won the browser war by being better than Netscape 4.x (plus some nasty and well documented abuse of monopoly power). But since it won the rate that it has progressed has fallen way behind Mozilla, Opera, and the others (tabs, full CSS 1-2, gesture navigation). Compare the changes between releases 1,2,3,4 (when there was competition) and the current releases. Another of course would be PowerPC on the desktop. Apple is the only client and their business is guaranteed so there is less incentive for Motorola to progress the chip, than if they where say Intel or AMD who have to compete against each other for the OEM’s contracts.
Legit on topic criticisms of any kind are welcomed by everyone and no one is disputing that.
But if all you are going to do is fill up space with lots of generic, unrelated anti-MSFT propaganda then please spare us, OK?
Of course, we should all stay on topic. When we’re talking about Microsoft, it would seem talking about Microsoft is a valid on-topic topic, right? Or are we back to the lawyer-fine narrow definition of what exactly the topic is?
If Microsoft is boldly entering a new market that has significant monopoly implications then talking about these implications and Microsoft’s history is suddenly off topic? Seems rather strange to me.
It’s only when someone posts anything negative about Microsoft that the Microsoft marketing team comes out to label these posts — and only these posts — as “off topic”.
Furthermore by labeling only anti-Microsoft posts to be “propaganda”, it only demonstrates the depth of Microsoft’s hyprocrisy. Microsoft’s massive PR campaigns are the only thing that could be called propaganda here. A few posters talking about human interests, human rights, and open markets is hardly a propaganda campaign. The number of posts we are talking about is very small. So why the big fuss?
You can still buy OSNews and have them delete all the negative and neutral posts about Microsoft if seeing any anti-Microsoft messages bothers you so much.
Michael, please spare us.
The point is that all your comments here ARE off topic. The fact that your ant-MSFT propaganda is about Microsoft DOES NOT make it an on topic comment.
I can just moderate down all these comments for being so much off topic. No, we don’t delete around here, except for racism, vulgarity etc. but the point is, that your comments are OFF topic.
Please, if you have something useful to say, come forward and say it. Otherwise, save your comments for a Linux-only web site. OSNews is not a Linux site, it is a generic OS site, and Windows will get the exact same amount of respect as any other OS on the planet. End of story.
And Microsoft will make you argue every point, from the creation of protons and neutrons to atoms to molecules… etc… just to prove there is a very large hand in the cookie jar.
In other words, if they argue against your claims, they’re stalling, because they’re guilty before the trial. Nice legal system you propose.
For the record, Microsoft last got busted for stealing code in the Stac case. There may be other cases, but this was the most blatant.
Ah yes, you mean the 93-94 (i.e. ten years ago) case where they settled out of court rather than appeal after a court ruled that Stac had suffered harm from Microsoft’s actions. Pretty minor for how you’re referring to the company, if you ask me. Plus, again, I love the “etc.” you leave on there to mask your inability to name other cases.
If the Japanese, Thai, Chinese, Taiwanese, German, many South American, and other governments are all funding efforts to move off of Microsoft, it’s because they are all raving Slashdot readers? I doubt it.
They can move away from Microsoft because it might be cost-effective, or because the competing software better suits their needs. This doesn’t prove they hate Microsoft, invalidating your use of it as “evidence” in that claim.
On global peace and prosperity and innovation —
These things go together. I am not going to play the Microsoft games of “tell me all about the intricate and minute details of why the proton is a part of the atom…”
I didn’t ask about intricate and minute details. Even a high-level discussion of how Microsoft is disrupting global peace would be fine. I notice that you haven’t backed up that statement yet, and the rest of your reply (including your links) have nothing to do with it, either.
Your spam link gives an error, so I couldn’t read it, but I guess spam somehow affects world peace?
Or tell me why there the tech workers in Washington are organizing so that Microsoft doesn’t offshore all their jobs
I like how you generalize one guy’s opinion article to “the tech workers in Washington”. That alone is bad enough, but it’s also bad that you seem to think that offshoring software development is a bad thing. How is it bad to lower the cost of software? Do you have any insight into global trade and the benefits for all it provides?
Not to mention that information in general will become more costly for all human beings.
Sure, information that the producer doesn’t want to become free. Getting rid of intellectual property would be the end of the arts, yet you call protecting intellectual property to be hurting our prosperity?
The list goes on.
Another “etc.”, and you still haven’t addressed the “How Microsoft hurts world peace” issue at all. Priceless.
Of course millions of people buy Microsoft. They don’t have any real choice! That is what a monopoly is!
For one, Microsoft wasn’t always “a monopoly.” So if people hated Microsoft, they wouldn’t have made it into one in the first place. (Your “they steal software” example comes from a decade ago, so I assume you believe they hated them back then, too). Also, there are many areas in which people have complete choice, yet they choose Microsoft anyways. A good example that comes to mind is the X-Box. It isn’t selling nearly as well as the PS2, to be sure, but it’s still sold millions of units. No gamer was forced to pick the X-Box; quite the opposite, in fact.
Don’t treat the readers like they are idiots.
Pot, Kettle. Black.
Yes, even when there was Standard Oil, people bought millions of gallons of gas. Imagine that.
There is still no known workable alternative to oil. In many, many scenarios, there are perfectly workable competitors to Microsoft products.
You find most people don’t like Microsoft and would like to have a choice of what they can do with their computers.
Of course lots of people that spend their time posting opinions to tech websites don’t like Microsoft; hating Microsoft is inscribed in geek culture these days. In every post you talk about people being brainwashed by the media, yet you don’t seem to like to acknowledge that all sorts of anti-Microsoft people are simply nerds who have been brainwashed by the Slashdot-ish propoganda. Moreover, I can’t help but be amused at how you generalize “tech people posting to tech websites” to “most people”, just as you generalized one man’s editorial to “all Washington tech workers” earlier. Who’s the one treating the readers like idiots here?
People are fighting for the right to freely use their PC’s in the way that they want to, not the way that Microsoft wants them to. This is the good fight.
Of what freedom is Microsoft robbing you?
I think you need to study the term “freedom” a little more. By your rhetoric, I could just as easily say that “Being able to buy a car from BMW without an engine is freedom. Freedom is a good thing. Worth fighting for.” It’s a pretty basic principle–though often overlooked by the people who want to ignore it when they don’t like one of the parties–that I can’t force you to sell me something that you don’t want to sell me. If the industry decides that they don’t want to sell PCs without Windows, for example, or without DRM, tough. You have no right to force them to sell you a PC that comes without those things.
I think such people wish to continue existing trend:
“What is e-mail? Ahh, i know, this is Outlook”
“What’s browser and Internet – That’s IE”
etc.
So, attacking anti-MS critizism is equivalent to turning OS(es)news into “The OS news.”
But once it happens, i really doubt there will be any real reader for such site. Like there weren’t real readers for e.g. USSR “newspaper” Pravda(Truth). Except, maybe, readers from CIA.
Not to be a jerk, but I don’t see any off topic/trollish comments above your first post Eugenia. All they wrote were the obvious shortcommings of a MS computer and one even gave a suggestion for a better solution.
The worst comment, “we all know how much they “innovated” with their Xbox /sarcasm… it sure look nothing like an usual PC … sarcasm/” is dripping with sarcasm, but quite true. It is after all, just a normal PC turned incompatable for the sake of incompatability.
They were expressing their concerns based on MS’s long history of doing what is best for the company and usually worst for the advancement of computing in general.
I’m not advocating mindless trolling, but I’m afraid that MS’s goodwill has been eroded by their bottom line to the point that MS advocates on an alternative OS site will be quite rare.
Mutiny
This story is one where the technical and the political are so closely intertwined that the technical becomes political and the political becomes technical.
The first question one asks is: is this proposed MS stategy part of it overall strategy to maintain their illegal monopoly. Will they put proprietary chips in their MS hardware that is primarily designed to inibit the use of other operating systems – on the basis of MS’s past history this is their obvious intention. The technical is political – the political is technical. All of MS’s technical decisions are determined by the need to use anticompetitive means to maintain an illegal monopoly.
They want a monopoly proprietary hardware with the MS OS locked by IP control on specific hardware components and the consequent elimination of open architecture hardware.This would then result in the elimination all operating systems that compete with MS on IA – rms is right its all about freedom.
MSFT has almost single-handedly created the only open hardware platform in the computing industry. This would never have happened with Apple, Amiga, Be (original BeBox), NeXT or any other so-called contender to becoming the dominant standard who did not open their hardware platforms to competition.
MSFT intentionally did everything in its power to make PC hardware a multi-vendor commoditized industry in a world of closed (and expensive) proprietary hardware systems. They did this because they wanted everyone to be able to afford to own a PC.
Now some of you are saying that MSFT is going to reverse its direction 180 degrees and go the Apple route of making hardware closed so that it can raise prices? That doesn’t make any sense.
This move is just to add new standards to the PC hardware platform that will be just as wide open to any hardware vendor as they have ever been (like PC99, etc.) in order to make PCs better (Tablet PCs, Media Center PCs, etc.). That is it.
I don’t know much about this hardware stuff, so this probably sounds dumb, but here goes anyway.
How much of their war chest ($40 billion last I heard) would they have to throw around to produce a new processor, motherboard chipset, and basic peripherals?
Is there anything truly stopping them, if they had the will to do it, from just leaving the x86 platform altogether and creating something totally new?
I mean I know it would cost a huge amount of money, I’m just not sure how much. They could get peripherals for sound/video/etc from elsewhere, maybe buy up a hardware company to design the motherboard, hire Intel/Amd/whoever to produce the new processor for them. What I’m asking is how much? Ball park figure.
Interesting point is that this would actually make it _easier_ for OSS projects. One of the few things about Linux that everyone agrees is weak is driver support (And X :>). Limited hardware diversity would mean an easier time supporting that hardware properly.
MSFT has almost single-handedly created the only open hardware platform in the computing industry. This would never have happened with Apple, Amiga, Be (original BeBox), NeXT or any other so-called contender to becoming the dominant standard who did not open their hardware platforms to competition.
Classic Microsoft doublethink –>
The rules of the Inner Party are held together by adherence to a common doctrine. In a Party member not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. But it is also necessary to remember that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one’s memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, “reality control.” In Newspeak, it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well.
Microsoft didn’t invent any of the original PC hardware.
To date, Microsoft has had a very minor role in the development of PC hardware.
This claim is absolutely outrageous and the mark of incredible hubris.
Microsoft came in at the last moment with an OS and was very lucky. In fact, Microsoft didn’t even write the OS they licensed to IBM; Microsoft bought it from someone else.
Microsoft has spent their entire existence playing catch-up to the hardware that is on the market. How long after the 386 chip was released did it take to get a real 32 bit OS from Microsoft? We’re talking about the company that caused the concept of “vaporware” to be invented!
So much for all that hard labor in the trenches single-handedly building the PC platform. What a crock. Microsoft has slowed down almost everything so they can maximize their control and their profits.
It is a well known fact that Microsoft licensing placed a de facto tax on personal computers as Microsoft both wielded monopoly power and charged OEMs for Windows whether or not the OS was actually shipped on the computer. All this came out in the antitrust case and in previous court cases. Microsoft was found guilty of illegal licensing schemes, illegal bundling schemes, and other infractions of the law.
If Microsoft put any effort into creating a larger PC base it was only to decrease the risk of their betrayal of IBM and increase their licensing base. Microsoft did not further a multiple vendor PC industry so that other operating systems or applications could be run on these PCs.
What has Microsoft done _on its own_ that has been open?
Xbox? Nope, closed with an army of lawyers to attack you if you try and use the hardware for anything but what Microsoft wants you to.
Microsoft Mouse? Microsoft didn’t even make the new mouse driver functionality available to other mouse vendors, shutting this market down and forcing other mice vendors to reverse engineer what Microsoft had done.
Microsoft Keyboard? Again the same old driver issues as the Microsoft Mouse.
Tablet PC? Support available to Linux developers? Nope. Closed box again.
Media Center PC? Support available for any OS other than Windows? Nope.
Microsoft is a master of blackwhite doublethink. Every analyst and industry expert knows that Microsoft has built their empire on closed systems, by owning and controlling API’s, and other proprietary interfaces.
Ask any venture capitalist who’s been asked for funding for a PC software startup in the past decade. In the name of “integration”, most opportunities for thriving utility markets have been extinguished by Microsoft’s desire to have a piece of the pay. Usually at the expense of the “competition”. Microsoft has killed vast opportunities for open systems and open software by building everything into the OS — exactly what landed Microsoft in antitrust court!
Microsoft has absolutely no interest in creating commoditized systems, especially software systems. Microsoft even listed in its last company report the danger of open source on _pricing_. As commoditization drives down prices, you can be sure Microsoft is coming up with new schemes to maintain their margins. The last thing they want is a low cost OS alternative available on what Microsoft considers “their” platform — the PC.
This new computing initiative of theirs is certainly designed to close down computing to commoditization and to create more systems where only Microsoft OS and apps will run. Because Microsoft has a monopoly on OS software and office software, it is easy for Microsoft to manipulate the market and create these systems that they will force users to migrate to.
In simple business terms, Microsoft has already admitted the dangers of commoditization to their company. This new effort is not just a polish job on their old efforts. New situations demand new tactics and so Microsoft is being forced to create new closed platforms.
After these new platforms are established, Microsoft will then do their best to kill off the current PC platforms so there will be no cheap hardware to run Linux or other operating systems on.
If Microsoft went to all the time and trouble of making a new platform from scratch, what makes you think that they would allow an open source OS or apps to run on the platform?
Microsoft is in the OS and Apps business, don’t forget. And they are paranoid of anything that even remotely resembles competition and will do anything to kill it.
And the technical answer… even a cutting-edge chip fab is merely $4B. With the interest rates being what they are, Microsoft could fund the whole project on the interest on their cash holdings. So economically, it is quite feasible for Microsoft to create their own computing platform.
This is to Gil Bates, Michael, and, to a certain extent, Eugenia.
I get the vague idea that you have slightly different opinions on this Microsoft hardware/software bollux.
This is to Gil Bates and Michael.
You seem to spend a great deal of time trying to out-minutia each other. Your blathering arguements were tiresome on page one, ridiculous by page two, and totally pathetic by page three.
Market research indicates that this will sell. Market results will tell the tale. Either MS makes a go of its own hardware/software or it won’t. In either case, your myriad lawsuits will increase as Dell, HP, Intel, AMD, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, join the chorus.
Just think of how many nits you can pick then!!
Capitalism (as it is currently practised) is inherently rotten, which is precisely what allows MSFT to get away with the things it does. No more, no less.
I’m sorry, but attacking MSFT is going to do absolutely nothing to defeat crapitalism itself in its current form or transform the system in any way whatsoever. You are wasting your time if that is your ultimate goal. You have just chosen MSFT as your easy scapegoat for the pervasive system-wide corruption that is passed off as international ‘economy’.
You might try learning something about usury-based central banking and continue on from there if you are at all serious about fixing crapitalism:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/
Good luck with the “good fight”. Your notion that it is MSFT that is at fault for corrupting the pure principles of crapitalist economics is laughable, but I guess that is what makes you feel like a real hero. Go for it.
While MS doesn’t seem to really innovate hardware, they do have a knack for making rarer types of hardware (ie. tablet PC) more mainstream. I personally find the new tablet pc designs extremely attractive. Now granted, they don’t make a lot of sense for most people. Hell, they don’t even make much sense for me. But I still feel a deep techno-lust when I see one. They’re pretty.
Oh well, I can’t even afford a normal laptop. Let alone something that new and fancy. Even if I could, I would probably lean towards a ti-book or something. I get to use Windows more than I’d like as it is. I have no OSX
.
Thanks for the website link. I can only be who I am and that is something of an idealist. And I believe that effort matters. In an open system, everything does count.
A large player like Microsoft could make a big change in a direction that is much better for people rather than just using “crapitalism” as some sort of excuse for their behavior.
I’ve known for a long time that capitalism was subverted from Adam Smith’s original concepts of it. Smith always intended Wealth of Nations to be accompanied by Theory of Moral Sentiments, not taken on its own. Capitalism without morality = crapitalism.
As for making an effort, I’ll leave this off-topic with these words:
“I must admit I personally measure success in terms of the contributions an individual makes to her or his fellow human beings.”
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
— Margaret Mead
It’s all right to troll according to Eugenia as long as it is Linux you are trolling.
The evidence
The Troll
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2935&limit=no#78025
Eugenia supports it
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2935&limit=no#78030
Why it the origional post is a troll
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2935&limit=no#78649
This isn’t the first time she has done it either. Don’t live by a double standard Eugenia it will fling back and smack you in the face.
Oh, give us a break for Christ’s sake! What a whole load of manipulative crap!
What James Warkentin wrote was not trolling AT ALL. It was his 100% ON TOPIC for that story, and his opinions was VALID concerning the desktop (at least in the topic discussed there).
Instead, what we get *here* today is a whole lot of off topic flames against me and against others. Give it up already! Get on topic PLEASE, for a change.
Our topic here is MS’s new focus on computer development, not me or you or SUN or Java. Get over it and ->think<- before you post.
This will just enable Microsoft to put Palladium in PC’s
No gamer was forced to pick the X-Box; quite the opposite, in fact.
I would gander a little flexibility here. Microsoft specifically bought gaming companies (that were Mac-only in one case I know of, Bungie) specifically to ensure that there would be games that ONLY came out for the XBox (not, only forever, but only within the time span that really matters, eg the first six months of marketing the game). In that Bungie case, the game was from a well known company that had a fan following and the game itself was eagerly anticipated. Then WHAM Microsoft suddenly owns it. All the people who decided to buy the game were then forced to play it on XBox. No, I don’t have sales figures of who bought the XBox just for Halo. This also isn’t the only game company or game product that Microsoft took over ownership of simply to ensure the XBox would sell some units afteral.
You might not call it forced, but when the company is Microsoft, this kind of tactic implies abuse of their monopoly power (the monopoly gives them the option of simply buying whatever they need to ensure sucess, regardless of product merit). But then, I seem to recall that you don’t believe monopolies are bad(?).
Yawn. This is the way console buisiness works. Take Square for instance, and it’s final fantasy series. First Nintendo *owned* them, then they managed to release a title or two for the PC, then sony *owned* them. I’m sure they are the only example. This is what’s done on consoles.
I agree with Eugenia, you guys and your os wars are all full of it. Get a grip, we are talking about *operating systems* here. There are so many more serious political issues in the world to care about. Get out of your holes for a bit.
Sure it’s very likely microsoft is a monopoly. I think in a lot of cases it’s very clear they also abuse this power. But this does not invalidate the effectivness, whether stolen or not, of their operating systems and hardware.
On that note, I’d be very very happy if they were able to produce a small quiet pc, with at least a geforce 4 mx in it. I think the market is in desperate need of such a beast. I know that there are many small quiet computers out there, but none really have all the peices yet.
The nforce chipset comes really really close to fitting the bill but unfortunatly building a quiet computer with amd is difficult. I tried, in a desktop machine, and it is fairly quiet, but my heatsink is also HUGE, not what you’d want for a small pc.
Alex
Eeep, don’t drink and post. I meant they “I’m sure they are _not_ the only example” in my above post.
Alex
Gil:
Your last post about capitalism is right on. The thing is, how does one attack the beast right there in general? How does one convince others that this system is damned wretched and that they must use a different system? It’s too vague. There are too many support systems in place to ensure zero change and people are programmed to respond to you with “you’re a communist then??”
You need to work on those support systems. Some of those are the huge corporations that are wielding the negative effects or negative options of the system. Stop them, make an example of them, or at the very least, open people’s eyes to what they are and what they are doing. Its more concrete and people can see it (it’s not easy, look how this thread has gone! complaints of off-topic and propaganda!).
Michael:
I really appreciate your posts here. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but then it is very hard to maintain a hole-free argument and to give concrete details for each point when you’re typing in a forum. Especially when those that wish to tear down your argument are extremely good at knowing how to discredit and poke holes, regardless of the merit of their intentions.
I think you are not entirely on-topic, but I also think you are being relevant. But it’s not my news site. In this situation, I disagree with Eugenia, but there’s nothing to be done about it. She laid the rules down and we either play by them, scrape by (like I apparently do somehow) or get told about it. From where I was sitting, it looked to me that your initial post about all this was triggered by what seemed to be Eugenia’s attempt at quieting the people who don’t look upon news about Microsoft in any way but negatively. Is it right for them to be that way? I don’t know. Is it right for an abused cat to assume all other humans are dangerous? It’s all about perspective. Those who do not personally feel offended and abused by Microsoft will not understand the reactionary behavior, I guess.
When I started this whole “I like computers” thing, I wasn’t against Microsoft. It took me until about 1997 or 98 before I was no longer neutral. It wasn’t because people on Slashdot told me to hate MS and it had nothing to do with my interest in alternative operating systems. Years later, I’ve evolved to hating most of the computer industry. Not just MS. In the last two years, my hatred has come to rest on my government, the complacency of the people of my country and the economic system my country uses. The only way I know to fight all of these from my lowly and useless position is to work within my area of specialization: the rotten computer industry. I don’t think I’ve accomplished much beyond educating a handful of people on the realities of the industry. Someone here might suggest that to be “indoctrination” because the best way to discredit those who fight disinformation and intellectual brainwashing is to accuse the accuser of doing it. Being the dominant side, who do you think wins by default?
There is a difference, again, as soon as Microsoft is a player (I hate to keep using the “but this is different” card… but … uhem… it is). Sony is a huge company with fingers in every market, so I am not sure about what light to show them in. They have done a lot of dumb things that ended up hurting themselves only. As far as I know, they didn’t use their market strength and money reserves to force BETA, Minidisc, memory sticks and HIFD standards into industry acceptance. But, due to their size and the many markets they are strong in, my jury is still out on that one.
My point… I don’t think they are the same as MS. Nintendo and all the other game system companies were never monopolists over several markets at one time, using that position to enter and eventually rule other markets. I don’t think your argument works because of the difference is scale and behaviors of these companies. That’s the whole point behind “illegal monopoly.”
Yet, all it takes is one person to declare how completely wrong anti-trust laws are and the whole issue is defeated. Don’t ya love it?
On that note, I’d be very very happy if they were able to produce a small quiet pc, with at least a geforce 4 mx in it. I think the market is in desperate need of such a beast. I know that there are many small quiet computers out there, but none really have all the peices yet.
I am in no way related to the company, but today I will order a Shuttle XPC SN41G2 which features exactly what you mention. I have seen it at a housemate and I wanted it too, it is small, pretty (as far as hardware goes) and runs reasonably quiet due to something called a heatpipe. At the same time it supports up to a AMD XP 3000+.
Now on a more on-topic note: Have the anti MSFT trolls actually read the article? If you do so you’ll see that the goal is NOT gaining control of every piece of hardware out there, but actually find new ways to commoditise computers and consequently sell the OS to go with it, which is not necesarily a Bad Thing and businesswise quite smart. If you feel endangered by such stuff help porting your favorite OS to the same hardware and make it BETTER. I’ll look forward to using it. And no, I am no Microsoft apologist and actually enjoy running (gentoo) linux more than win2K, but that doesn’t mean that Windows 2000 isn’t a rather decent product.
When I started this whole “I like computers” thing, I wasn’t against Microsoft. It took me until about 1997 or 98 before I was no longer neutral. It wasn’t because people on Slashdot told me to hate MS and it had nothing to do with my interest in alternative operating systems. Years later, I’ve evolved to hating most of the computer industry. Not just MS. In the last two years, my hatred has come to rest on my government, the complacency of the people of my country and the economic system my country uses.
Jace,
You’re not alone.
If you do so you’ll see that the goal is NOT gaining control of every piece of hardware out there, but actually find new ways to commoditise computers and consequently sell the OS to go with it, which is not necesarily a Bad Thing and businesswise quite smart.
Remco,
That’s a little naive especially since it’s only been a week since Microsoft pulled out of the OpenGL ARB. The leadership they exhort shares much with the leadership they showed when pushing D3D. They’ll do the research, provide driver frameworks, and near unlimited support, which will all be useless if you’re using a non-Microsoft sanctioned API or OS.
First off, I’m not going to lose sleep over the fact that a hardware platform may or may not run an open source OS. They are just tools, people, not ways of life. If the new hardware can’t run the OS you want, go buy different hardware. This new platform is not going to be the “end all be all” of hardware, no one is going to drop making PCs. Microsoft would be stupid in pulling an Apple.
Out of the computers in the early to mid 80’s, the one thing I liked was that I knew the software I bought was going to work for my platform. That’s the joy of proprietary-very small chance of failure. Of course those were the days of single tasks and not having a hundred things running at once on your PC, but that’ neither here nor there
. It just gives another choice of hardware for the buyer. A little extra security knowing that things will probably work better (at least you’d HOPE it’d work better) as Microsoft had their hands in the development of the new hardware. Would I buy one? Don’t know, it depends what’s all included. Though I am a cheap skate, so probably not. Let’s just see how this plays out before judgement is totally laid out.
(off-topic, I know)
Capitalism (as it is currently practised) is inherently rotten
That you think capitalism is currently practiced shows that you have a lot to learn about what true capitalism is, rather than just “free market when the government thinks it will benefit people.” I don’t say this as an insult, but rather as an encouragement to read up more about it. Same goes to you, Jace. It’s pretty easy to be upset over how some particular situation is (such as the fact that most computers run Microsoft software), but it’s quite another to be able to justify forcing people to act in the way you want.
There is nothing mysterious about usury. Who do you the US $6 Trillion dollar debt is actually owed to? Get a clue.
Could you please point me to worthwhile reading on what true capitalism is, then? I’m not being sarcastic. I have read several comments here that make reference to “true capitalism” that had intended to include a moral system along with it (which American capitalism apparently lacks, miserably) and this left me wondering about it. I didn’t pay much attention in school because the information sucked, so if you have any seriously decent reading material I could find at a library, please point me to it. If I understood more about the system as it is supposed to be and more about what it actually is now, I can discuss it more intelligently with others. Or at least be well-armed for debate.
One more thing, if you don’t mind me asking: what is it that you do for a living that you have the position that you do in regards to all of this (ie capitalism, anti-trust, profitability)? It might make your commentary fit a better context for me if I knew. You don’t have to tell, this is a public forum. I’m just asking in case you don’t mind sharing.
Could you please point me to worthwhile reading on what true capitalism is, then?
Whatever the writer means it to be, i.e. not yours.
>>>>Could you please point me to worthwhile reading on what true capitalism is, then?
You people do realize that it’s all academic now because all of us are going to die really soon from the upcoming World War III.
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 in Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist started WWI. Yesterday, the Serbian Prime Minister was assassinated. WWIII is coming and the only thing that will survive is cockroaches — and cockroaches don’t practice capitalism.
While different people certainly claim conflicting things about what capitalism actually is, Ayn Rand and those sharing her beliefs put out a ton of documentation on what it is, and why it is the only moral system.
Simply put, it’s hard to argue with the definition, “Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights.” Yes, that’s right, a social system; it’s impossible to have a disparity between your “economic system” and your “moral system”; it all makes up one social system.
For some good information, there are a million essays and whatnot out there, but Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” is a collection of good ones, I’m told (I haven’t had the time to get through it yet, thanks to midterms and such). Or, for those who like convenience, http://www.capitalism.org is a great primer, complete with FAQ that mentions the Microsoft case and all that.
The way I like to think of it, capitalism is the system of not being able to force someone at gunpoint to do anything; people are left to do whatever they wish, so long as they don’t violate the rights of others. What we have now isn’t capitalism; it’s a mix of some capitalistic ideals and some socialistic ideals, where people are arbitralily forced to do many things (or forced to not do many things they should be allowed to) based off of the whims of a group (often of a religious nature).
As for me, I’m a soon-to-be-graduating student in computer science at UC Berkeley. And yes, I realize the delightful irony of someone with views like mine living in a city where you’re almost expected to be socialist.
As for Gil, I don’t know what on earth you’re replying to. Usury laws? The website you mentioned? They all reference central banking and the world as it is now; I didn’t see anything that addressed true capitalism, although I’ll admit that I took a somewhat cursory glance. “Get a clue”? Pot, kettle. Black.
If you don’t understand what usury is yet, then I am not even going to bother explaining it to you. You can read the site material at the link I posted if you want to. Or not.
Once you get out of school and into the real world, you will find out PDQ what Ayn Rand’s insanely selfish “positivism” theory is really all about.
While different people certainly claim conflicting things about what capitalism actually is, Ayn Rand and those sharing her beliefs put out a ton of documentation on what it is, and why it is the only moral system.
The free market is completely amoral insofar as it rewards size not virtue. The morality is contained within the regulation.
Okay, the Ayn Rand thing… Bad association here. The one person who most severely screwed up my personal life for about two solid years was pretty much in adoration of Ayn Rand. All I could see in Rand’s work (that which was shared with me by this girl) was a grotesque level of selfishness.
It wasn’t just her with this screwed up mentality. There were others around the same time. It was like I was bathing in them. Selfish, self idoling jerks in search of ego gratification and identity. Oh yeah, and their obsession with being existentialist (that was the time in my life when everyone around me, who thought they were intellectuals, believed that anything bizarre was existential, not knowing what the hell they were really talking about). In the end, it was all just a pile of crap, as far as I am concerned. These people were despirate for an identity that they thought was their own original and intellectual position. These people were convinced that they needed to control everyone and everything around them, yet sever any relations with those around them that had been there prior to the “new better me” era, just to have the life they thought they wanted for themselves. Wanna-be intellectuals that couldn’t even tie their emotional shoe laces yet.
It was the control issues and selfishness that lead to this girl screwing me up for quite a while. Not that Rand was the cause (my naivety about just how insincere people can be was part of it too), but the association factor irks me quite a bit.
Many people I have found that really identify with Ayn Rand have a lot of personal identity and relationship issues to work out. Not saying that this is you. It’s just that there’s that association factor. It’s hard to break the connection for me. It was a hard lesson to learn (about certain types of people).
I think anyone who is basing their life or their personal policies or moral position off of Ayn Rand has a lot of self-discovery in store for themselves and a lot of conflict and pain to cause for themselves and others.
To me, it’s like the wanna-be psychologist that thinks Frued is a great example to live by.
It was the control issues and selfishness that lead to this girl screwing me up for quite a while.
Rand’s philosophy is indeed based on the belief that selfishness is a virtue; however, this is a point where people taking only a cursory glance at her beliefs often stumble. She uses the term differently than it is commonly used, and without the negative connotation. To many people, selfishness means the desire to improve one’s own position to the detriment of others, which is most decidedly not how she uses it. Is it a bad thing to want to be more educated? To want more money for yourself and for your children? Or, fitting in with the topic of this site, is it bad to use what you consider a better OS? If you use Windows, that means more developers for Windows, and more applications for the majority of the world, for example; it benefits many people, albeit rather slightly, if you use Windows. Are you therefore immoral for using the BeOS?
I think anyone who is basing their life or their personal policies or moral position off of Ayn Rand has a lot of self-discovery in store for themselves and a lot of conflict and pain to cause for themselves and others.
You say this referring to people you know who claimed to like her beliefs, yet you mention that the problems stemmed from their need to “control everyone and everything around them”, which is in direct contrast to not only her beliefs, but to everything I’ve said here. I claim(ed) that capitalism is moral precisely because in it you can’t force people to do anything other than respect your rights and those of others.
You certainly don’t have to tell me, but I am interested in what time in your life all this happened. For example, I knew some people in high school who were pretty screwed up emotionally, and one of their responses was turning to Communism. Does this make Communism inherently bad? Certainly not. Just because the people might have been doesn’t mean the beliefs they claimed to have are. I could just as easily, using what you wrote as a guideline, say:
‘Many people I have found that really identify with Karl Marx have a lot of personal identity and relationship issues to work out… I think anyone who is basing their life or their personal policies or moral position off of Karl Marx has a lot of self-discovery in store for themselves and a lot of conflict and pain to cause for themselves and others.’
…because these people had problems. This is all the more true since, as you described it, their actions seemed to be in direct contrast with the beliefs they claimed to have.
I mean no disrespect, and I understand how it can be when you have emotional connotations with ideas, but you’re going to lead a rather misled life if you judge all ideas solely by a few people who claimed to accept them.
I will email you privately, since this forum is pretty much unread at this time. Thanks for responding and letting me know!