“Microsoft Corp. will have to supply the computer code for its Windows program to a group of states seeking stiffer antitrust sanctions against the software giant, a federal judge ruled on Friday. Nine state attorneys general had argued that they needed to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft’s claim it could not offer a simpler version of the Windows personal computer operating system, stripped of features like the Internet Explorer browser.” The Reuters report is at Yahoo!News.
Judge Says Microsoft Must Give States Windows Code
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This bothers me for some reason. I don’t really think they deserve this. The code is the heart of their company, it’s what makes them. And now their fate is going to lie on what some people who have never seen this code before think of it. I don’t know how you would even find a non-MS, non-MS hating, non-MS loving person who would be able to read the code and and decide what can and cannot be done with it. It would take many many people to look at it and come to a answer as to if it’s removable or not. And at the same time those people could learn all sorts of stuff about it’s workings. Who knows what that person might go off and do even after signing super strick agreements.
True this is what you might get for behaving the way they do, but having to hand over what is basicly your company and your most valuable assit and most secret info is kinda scary. Has any company ever had to do such a thing? I almost want to bet the the conclusion from those who look at the code will be inconlusive. How many lines of code is it? Also if the answer comes back saying MS was right could they possable sue over having to hand over their code? Well should be interesting.
The 98lite program that can strip out IE and other components and code to make it stabler and faster proves it can safely be done! Even if it doesn’t strip it fully out like MS says can’t be done it it does it pretty well.
I hate Microsoft, I’m most biased against them yet I don’t see just what is the point with the IExplorer. Although I’d like to wipe it off the system I understand it makes sense for an OS builder to fully integrate it. This IExplore argument is simply a waste of time and money for USA contributors/justice.
Everyone but the DOJ seem to understand that MS unfair monopolistics have to do 99.99% with OEMs binding contracts and a few cases of dumping, not with the source of any app.
I’m surprised that the source wasn’t a part of the original court proceedings – just goes to show what can happen when you have a bunch of non-techies guiding the case, I guess.
How could you prove or disprove that the browser was tied illegally into the system without examining the actual system itself?
i say that the DOJ and the states need to get MS on licensing agreements, illegal practices. IE is, even tho i dislike, a logical edition to the operating sytem. However, the way they did it, we purposefully to hurt netscape and take control of the browser market. i say they should offer a uninstall option with IE. and that distributers have the right to dump IE for netscape, mozilla, or another browser. Also, i believe that every distributer(gateway, dell, hp, compaq, etc) should have full rights to ship a dual boot, or fully non windows computer without backlash from the MSmonopoly…whatever way you look at it, microsoft is a monopoly. they have a more than comanding lead(80-90% +) on the desktop computers, along with browsers. MS ripped off java and made c++ and c# so that billy has control. Monopolies are illegal in America, i am still not against a breakup(which won’t be as earth shattering as some might think) but whatever happens, we need to take them to the cleaners!
1 leave MSOffice format open w/out encripting it
2 let use uninstall MSIE on win32
3 Don’t use illegal practice about OEM contracts and EULAs
>>>MS ripped off java and made c++
they made C++ ? Have I missed something?
Without looking at the source code, who can you tell if MS is lying or not? I wouldn’t take their word. Plus, it is obviously a lie anyways.
Of course the Windows OSes can run without IE. MS used that excuse as a way to jusitfy their squashing of Netscape by way of their monopoly.
>>>Monopolies are illegal in America,
No, get that right, monopolies are not illegal in America, in fact the USA is the most opened economy to monopolies of all the democratic countries. What is illegal, is to achieve or retain monopoly by unfair “predatory” practises.
Cisco Systems has quite a monopoly also on routers, yet with no predatory behaviour known.
Of course Windows can run without IE, that is a no brainer, and already an old MS tactic, ‘CAUSE it doesn’t really matter while they bind OEMs to sell their OS alone.
Everybody talks about IExplorer, I always preferred it to Netscape, I passed directly from Mosaic to its buyers. But what about Office Suites? OEMs are the key, not the apps, it’s through them that MS, in one of the clear dumping cases, bundled for “FREE” the MS Office, only to later have it for a retail price of $599, upgrade for $349.
OEMs, OEMs, OEMs, OEMs, OEMs, BINDING CONTRACTS, not single applications.
What does the MSOffice fileformat have to do with it? If they chose to keep it encrypted it’s their choice. If people start to bitch and sue over fileformats now, I will prolly throw my puter away.
thanks for the corection on illegal monopolies Marques…
and for when i said ms ripped off c++ from java. corect me if i am wrong…as i have yet to start learning either languages…but MS did ripoff java in some C language whether it be c++ or c# or whatever it is
C++ is an international standardized language which has NOTHING to do with Microsoft. The ANSI/ISO organizations determine what C++ does, and it has absolutely nothing in common with Java (well, except for classes, I think. 😉
Microsoft created C#. I’ve never used it, but I hear it is widely used in .NET – I don’t know if it resembled Java at all.
Microsoft’s .NET technology is designed to be platform-agnostic and use Just-In-Time compiling to run applications – does that concept strike you as familiar? It should. That is the fundamental principal of the Java programming language. The different between .NET and Java is that you can use nearly any programming language for .NET, from what I’ve heard.
I explorer is a required factor in windows because it is not only the EXPLORER but the FILEBROWSER as well which is the primary backing of windows not to mention it is part of the desktop. “Active Desktop” what does the DOJ want them to do remake the entire OS because it has encorporated software. It’s not like MS went and added a trojan that would eliminate the ability to install netscape etc. THAT IS MONOPOLISTIC all this is is freeware that MS is giving away with there OS if u dont want to use it erase the friggin ICONS and run whatever you want. Erasing the files will screw the os in alot of ways so just leave it and use what you want. They may appear monopolistic but all it is is generosity. Tell me this… If IEXPLORER WAS NOT INCLUDED how would u get to download netscape? or eudora etc????? And dont say cd’s those are extra steps. Just enjoy what they give you. I believe antitrust is what AOL is doing to trillian sorry for spelling but i got alot to do.
> Also, i believe that every distributer(gateway, dell, hp,
> compaq, etc) should have full rights to ship a dual boot,
> or fully non windows computer without backlash from the
> MSmonopoly
I didn’t know MS could pass laws? When did they pass one to force OEMs to ship computers with Windows?
Any other feature you would like to have removed besides the HTML engine?
RTF? Images? Txt?
Maybe those features are illegal too?
“How could you prove or disprove that the browser was tied illegally into the system without examining the actual system itself?”
What exactly does it mean to hae a browser illegally tied to the OS? Has someone actually sat down and figured this out in black and white? If you include a browser with an OS, how many ‘tying’ APIs do you have to write before it becomes illegal?
Also, since they’re going after Microsoft about what they include in the OS, have they actually figured out what exactly is or is not illegal to include in an OS?
Obviously, nobody has ever objected with MS included Notepad in the OS, but what if they wanted to include MS Office? How is this any different? What is it about an app that either makes it acceptable or not to ‘bundle’ with an OS?
ungoliant – guess you must be the only pc seller in the market who has been selling dual boot systems, and having a special agreement with ms to do so. (i.e., dual boot another os)
MSFT thinks it’s above the law because it has lots of money to buy crooked people and buy time.
It’s time to kick their butts in court.
ciao
yc
“I didn’t know MS could pass laws? When did they pass one to force OEMs to ship computers with Windows? ”
I gave lot of details about it in an other thread (sorry, can’t find it for a link).
To do a long story short, OEMs have the choice between :
1) Having no contract with Microsoft, so totally free to bundle any other OS. In this situation, Windows cost the full price (99$ I guess for Home edition).
OR
2) Sign contract with Microsoft to get “mass-distribution” version of Windows, at a VERY lower cost (say 25$ just for this example). But for that, they need to sign a contract that containt de clause “Forbidden to bundle with a multi-boot”.
So, By saving tons of money, it’s a given that EVERY OEMs will sign this contract, because saving 75$ per PC this is a *** HUGE *** saving. And they can’t afford to NOT ship with Windows (i.e. only Linux), because of the whole market **WANT** Windows. If you ship a line with only Linux, you can be sure to get in a lot of financial trouble, and you loose advantages against your competitors.
So, Microsoft use his monoply in an abusive way, which is illegal.
“Get’em in every way possible!”
Yeah right. What you describe is not justice, it’s fanatism. And as I know my history, fanatism *ALWAYS* bring more horror than justice. Hitler. Crusades. Inquisitions. Staline.
Justice must prevail. Like it or not.
If it is, you ass is grass!
Your company has commited horrible crimes and has been found guilty unanimously by the courts of appeals.
They should put all people involved in committing the crimes in jail!
ciao
yc
The bottom line is, they lied about IE breaking their OS. I don’t care what code they have in there, unless they’re basing their OS on code they don’t know, they can change any part of it they want. Giving out their source isn’t going to break their business, it’s not as if they havn’t had the source copy written. We’re not going to have new people coming out with windows clones in 3 months just because MS released their source and everyone copied it. Sorry, it won’t happen.
MS has EVERY RIGHT to put the browser in the friggin’ OS.
…while the real issues are ignored.
For those of you talking about Microsoft’s illegal practices, I wish you would research what you say first. Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly, but an illegally maintained one. The problems with their bundling and OEM practices goes way back. Think DR-DOS and OpenDOS, when Microsoft said that Windows 95 would not run on your computer if you were not running MS-DOS, when in fact you could replace the DOS under Windows 95 with DR-DOS, OpenDOS, or PC-DOS, or any other MS-DOS compatible OS, not just MS-DOS 7 (which is what ran under Windows 95, and essentially all the way up to Windows ME).
The problem more focuses on the practices of not allowing OEMs to install other OSes, as well as forcing them to install the Internet Explorer browser, because it was a “part of the OS”. However, for those of you suggesting 98lite and showing that its existence proves that it’s not inextricably linked hasn’t read the 98lite docs. 98lite takes the Windows 95 explorer.exe shell, as well as other components from Windows 95, and runs those on a Windows 98 base. Essentially 98lite gives you Windows 95, with a system that says “Windows 98″ and has some Windows 98 goodies under the hood. That’s all.
As far as MS having created C++ and C# from Java, you are incorrect. C# is the Microsoft counter to Java, but the two are very different. The similaries include single inheritence and the abstraction to where everything is a class, but that is where the similarities end. C# is a very small language with syntax similar to C, but no libraries. This is achieved because it pairs very nicely with .NET components, which can be likened to Java packages, but are much more powerful. (Before you start saying how .NET is the end of privacy, I hope you do some research and find out what it’s all about; ArsTechnica has an excllent <a href=”http://arstechnica.com/paedia/n/net/net-1.html“>article</a>… with most everything you need to know about .NET.)
And just remember that Microsoft is known for their predatory practices. MS-DOS is essentially a Microsoft branded version of CP/M, in the beginning at least.
— Rob
I didn’t know MS could pass laws? When did they pass one to force OEMs to ship computers with Windows?
They didn’t pass a law forcing OEMs to ship computers with Windows. However, if an OEM wanted to ship a computer with Windows, they could not have that computer shipped with dual-boot capabilities. That was not a law passed, just Microsoft’s licensing agreements, which are illegal because of the “monopoly” status of Microsoft.
— Rob
If only Apple would wise up and stop clinging to their highly priced, albeit efficient, hardware. If they open up Mac O/S X to the x86 architecture they could easily put a move in and take a big chunk out of MS’s market share. If only tho…
“What exactly does it mean to hae a browser illegally tied to the OS? Has someone actually sat down and figured this out in black and white? If you include a browser with an OS, how many ‘tying’ APIs do you have to write before it becomes illegal?”
<p>
Darius, consider this: you write a clean API for a file system, with all the usual system calls, read, write, verify, hard drive, etc. Then, if you are Microsoft, you then tangle it up with a whole set of system calls to reading urls and and accessing the net, etc. Two totally different ways of viewing data. And you make it plain and obvious that these system calls will only recognize one particular browser.<p>Then you make it so that no one can delete these system files.<p>By this time your code is no longer clean and simple, it’s worse than a ball of wool after a kitten’s gone through it. Totally spaghetti.<p>That’s Microsoft’s habit. That’s why their software’s got such a reputation.<p>”Obviously, nobody has ever objected with MS included Notepad in the OS, but what if they wanted to include MS Office? How is this any different? What is it about an app that either makes it acceptable or not to ‘bundle’ with an OS?”<p>But Microsoft never spaghettified Notepad in with the filesystem or suchlike. You can [uninstall | delete] Notepad. You can [uninstall | delete] MS Office, install an alternative Office package, or stick to running DOS programs, whatever. It’s not the same thing as embedding and mixing unrelated system calls in DLLs, so that you can never get rid of the stuff. Once Microsoft begins embedding Office into the DLLs, so that you install it willy nilly, then Office becomes – well, suffice it to say, “very high security risk” is putting it mildly.
> So, By saving tons of money, it’s a given that EVERY OEMs
> will sign this contract, because saving 75$ per PC this
> is a *** HUGE *** saving. And they can’t afford to NOT
> ship with Windows (i.e. only Linux), because of the whole
> market **WANT** Windows. If you ship a line with only
> Linux, you can be sure to get in a lot of financial
> trouble, and you loose advantages against your
> competitors.
So really it comes down to OEMs being cheap bastards and MS taking advantage of this, because OEM’s won’t buy full price OSes to give consumers choice. Remember it takes two to Tango.
To me any “illegal” bundling is the inclusion of code that undermines ability for competitive operation (for example, Apple “INTEGRATES” QuickTime, and while you can’t remove it or shouldn’t remove it for optimum use, it “CAN” be removed, and you can choose to use WMP or RealPlayer and their performance isn’t degraded in result to QuickTime’s inclusion; nor does it financially undermind a pre-existing company by leveraging new integration and business tactics to destroy them). It was proven in the first DOJ trial that installing Microsoft’s Windows ’98+ operating systems not only integrated their own Internet Explorer and codebase, but also due to the overheads of having an operating system with a web browser tied into it, you were forcefully given no choice for removal and therefore other browsers like Netscape/Opera/OmniWeb (yes there were NT versions of OmniWeb) ran at a serious performance degradation.
Not to mention, freely marketing a product against a competitor that makes it’s living by that product is a guerilla business tactic with the designed implementation that no matter if their product were as good, bad, whatever… it’s geared to “RIP THE HEART” out of Netscape and eliminate any competition. Think about it… Microsoft makes “EVERYTHING”, from mice and game controllers to game consoles to web browsers to office programs and email clients and games and… yet they just “HAD” to go out and kill Netscape? Why? Perhaps they saw an opening in there to be competed against fairly, and saw a need to put a fork in them before they rose up and eroded marketshare. Much as Microsoft derailed Java (another key component of the original DOJ trial) through their involvement, intervention, and attempts to fragment/thwart it’s progress. Much as Microsoft bullied competition.
The problem with the DOJ trial is it’s being perceived as a singular concern, but alas… it’s a wide ranging concern (including 95% of the world’s users that basically became forced to purchase Windows when competition was kicked to the ground repeatedly), and includes many companies that no longer exist (or don’t exist in the capacity they once held) due to Microsoft’s antics. Still further yet… other companies are too afraid to fight anymore because the Government has done “SQUAT” to this point in the past. One of my favorite quotes in the original DOJ trial was when WIRED magazine interviewed Steve Jobs, and Jobs basically told the DOJ attorney’s “F*** you, you sat around and did absolutely nothing for years and years and NOW you wish for us to speak… F*** YOU!!” or something to that effect. Even many clone vendors and Intel (bed buddy) stood up in the first DOJ trial… yet everyone continually wages this as Netscape vs. Microsoft. Yes, a key component in the trial… but it’s not just a Netscape issue. It’s Apple, and Intel, and Be Inc., and Gateway, and Netscape and Sun, and Caldera, et al. vs. Microsoft in a ’bout where they need all the help they can get after being f***ed over by the Government (especially the Department of Justice/Judicial Branch) for decades over concerns they’ve voiced before.
Now as far as Windows being Microsoft’s well-being, well when you own 95% of the market based on unfair business tactics that stifles competition “VIA” this product, obviously it is going to be a pretty strong stablemate in your company. However, Microsoft “IN OTHER WAYS” has forcefully ridden themselves of competition in this particular area as well; and ultimately opened it up to where they compete in a lot of markets that no other vendors in their market do. As noted before… does Apple have a TV station? How about Netscape an Office suite? AOL a Game Console? How about Logitech a web browser? Windows is “NOT” the core of Microsoft anymore. Without Windows, Microsoft could still live if it competed in the market… but the point is, does it have to when it controls the whole kit and kaboodle? Not really… because it can bundle everything, give everything away, and charge for Windows or Plus! or a bunch of peripherals. In my opinion, if this trial achieves nothing… it should “FORCE” Microsoft to compete, and give the competition that still reminds more of a level playing field to compete. It should “WATCH” Microsoft’s actions in the future, as everybody “KNOWS” what Microsoft has done is wrong… but everyone hedges as to what we should do to counteract it, and we all want to hold our hands behind our backs and say “There’s nothing we can do” when in fact, there’s “EVERYTHING” that can be done to secure a more promising, more open, more competition-oriented future.
Microsoft back in the 1980’s sold their products for whatever machines had marketshare and could retain profitability off of. The Macintosh still stands as a testament to this; even as I feel their products continuance on this platform were a “Good Will” effort (to look pretty and considerate to the DOJ) and a ploy to “CONTROL” the platform in ways untold. Now granted… they still sell for the Mac, but there was serious “GAMEPLAYING” with Apple and bullying to keep Office on the Mac platform. As a result, Apple was “FORCED” to ship IE as the default browser on their system as well. The funny thing is, the Mac which has “SHIPPED” with IE and Netscape along with AOL (uses IE but is a competitor) has given people choice overall, something that everyone on here seems to think “CAN’T BE DONE” or that you would have to resort to “DOWNLOADING” Netscape with IE (in truth, you could just use FTP since Windows has FTP access built in too
).
Microsoft has continually refused to allow this level of competition (allowing Netscape, Opera, et al. to be shipped within their OS) because it is against what they’re trying to achieve. Which is, Pinky and The Brain style; to take over the world…. at any cost, and by any means possible. Apple even shipped Outlook, IE, Netscape Communicator, and CyberDog on the same disc and used to never “default” install any of the above. It gave it’s users the “CHOICE”, something Microsoft has been in total avoidance of doing.
From DR-DOS to Mac OS, Microsoft has found loopholes and been granted almost certain immunity for far too long. This isn’t fanaticism, this is logic. Microsoft’s tactics are akin to a General Sherman going into your town, raping and pillaging, and forcing you to accomodate to their form of culture, government, and assimilate into their business line; if not… you die. If Microsoft can’t compete with you on product, it beats you to death over and over by underminding you in every other way it can find ’til you eventually slip out of weakness and it devours you because of it’s massive, all-encompassing, monolithic monopolistic form.
This gamut of illegal practices performed includes unfair licensing agreements, bundling, system integrations, unfair cost competition, etc. etc. Microsoft in the position of power they’re in can undermine and likely will “CONTINUE” to undermind the competition with each version of their OS ’til it offers the whole enchilada. People bickered over AT&T in this regard before it was split, and people bickered over IBM’s size even as they behaved far more eloquently than Microsoft ever has. Even companies it once befriended (starting to eat into Symantec’s and other companie’s area with their integrated firewall; Kodak’s area with their integrated photo application that works against pre-existing software without cooperating, and with segregating who it works closest with, etc. etc.), it’ll find ways to undermind if it means gaining that much more marketshare, and increases their selling points. This is why a cease and desist on this level needs to be performed.
Even moreso… I believe that rather than split up Microsoft which hurts our economy, or force Microsoft to pay damages (to who? Half the competition is dead), what should be done is that source code for the Windows API’s (not the whole system, just the API’s) should be “RELEASED” to the public via a GPL agreement that is beneficial to everyone, the consumer, the competition, and ultimately allows Microsoft applications to work on more platforms (write once, recompile, and run everywhere).
Microsoft can and will continue to make money off of each product in Office, off of MSN, WebTV, et al. Doing this won’t kill off MSNBC, it won’t prevent Windows Media Player from competing with QuickTime or RealPlayer. It won’t prevent Microsoft from “INNOVATING” and offering new product; unlike what Microsoft has done to their competition via F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt); by undercutting competition to the least common denominator, excessively buying out their competition, and ultimately eroding goodwill between companies as they saw fit to exile them to their own niche markets (not to mention Microsoft’s ability to generate Vaporware products to promote it’s competition to give up). If the DOJ hadn’t stepped in… would Office and IE be on the Mac? I don’t think so…
What it will do is “ELIMINATE” the bundling concerns. It’ll allow competition as these API’s could be included into Mac OS X, Linux, BeOS (as part of Palm), BSD, Solaris, Irix, etc. etc. This would mean that 95% of the applications base would be available on all systems (increases the availability of applications on all operating systems and makes the world a far more competitive, non-singular branded entity, and it allows for faster workarounds for elements like The Melissa Virus as while Outlook could be available on all, so could variations in the integration at this core). This would increase competition, it would basically do a complete turn around of the market. Microsoft could “STILL” sell Windows, Linux could offer free alternatives to Windows that ran Windows applications. Apple, Microsoft’s biggest competitor, would be able to obtain compatibility with 100’s of apps. that Microsoft’s leverage has precluded it. It effectively “ERASES” all of the bad effects of the monopoly via poor business tactics and effectively means that every player in the industry gets the rights to “COMPETE”. Which is what the DOJ is trying to enforce in this trial, is it not?
Yet, the best thing that could be achieved, is by opening the Windows API’s to a GPL license, to force Microsoft and the rest of the competition to conform and improve these API’s, while not underminding each other. Yes you can develop proprietary API’s for your system, obviously, but since 95% of the applications base out there is based on “THESE” API’s, would you really wish to stray that far from what has made you successful? Not to mention, Microsoft and the rest of the competition should be under “EXTREME SCRUTINY” for using API’s and marketing tactics to undermind each other. Just because the Federal Government played dumb the first time, doesn’t mean they can’t do their best to assure that this stupid and “costly” B.S. that lead to this trial can’t be prevented by “ENFORCING” fair trade rulings as they were intended to be enforced. Which is what should’ve been happening all along…
“…it should “FORCE” Microsoft to compete, and give the competition that still reminds more of a level playing field to compete.”
Reminds should = “remains”, sorry for the typo.
– TDM
Wesley, could you please try to explain the bit about the filesystem and system files again. I have no idea what you are talking about and obviously neither have you.
Yeah, especially coz the filesystem is still “clean” to tell it in your words, and the system files aren’t deleteable just coz SFC runs, which can be disabled.
Prior to sentencing, a Judge’s admonished to a person just convicted of a crime; “Don’t do the Crime if you can’t do the Time”. Given a little thought, I think that applies here. Some people seem to forget that a second lie is required to cover the first one, and a third one is required to cover the second one, etc.
I guess that’s what you have to learn to live with when your basic philosophy is to stifile the compatition and anahillate the enemy, (need a spell checker).
Even if you can buy into bundling is a bad thing (though nobody seems to have a problem that Apple throws in everything but the kitchen sink), as a developer this is a scary thing. You know that with this many folks in it, it will be leaked. This is MS’ intellectual property. As a developer I’ve worked very hard to build what I have. Think about how you would feel if a court decided to forcible take your code, that feeds your kids, and put it on public display. My competitors can examine it for useful features, techniques, and weaknesses. My more savvy and slimy customers can just build it without paying me a dime. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the gift of open source as much as anyone else, but unless you are in the services side of things, giving out your code doesn’t typically pay the bills.
“My competitors can examine it for useful features, techniques, and weaknesses.”
Competitors??? They’ve disposed of all significant competition on the desktop. Judicious application of FUD will take care of the rest.
“My more savvy and slimy customers can just build it without paying me a dime.”
Ultimately, why would this be different from warez? (“Savvy and slimy” = MS’ actions IMO.)
I don’t think MS will be hurt very much by this. Competitors can’t use any “hidden” info or code from the source or they will be liable. Also, MS has a -huge- cash supply – ~$30 billion IIRC. They aren’t going to miss any meals anytime soon.
MS created the mess they’re in. Let ’em lie in it.
Huh, isn’t this something?
There are people here still trying to relentlesly defend Microsoft.
After some consideration, the explanation for this phenomenon is quite obvious: either
a) These are twelve year olds that get the kicks by trying to comfuse people on line.
b) These are the people who currently own Microsoft stock, intoxicating themselves with “divident” injections, in which case they are in a state of “high” where reason suddenly follows a new set of physics and they will always be followers no matter how foul the cause. Even if Microsoft is the equivalent of a covert economic Hitler.
c) They are Microsoft employees trying to spread counter-propaganda (to catch as many “fish” as possible) thinking that their, desperate and defeated, competitors are trying same.
d) Human nature distates, that Homo Sapiens cannot be unanimous in anything. Even Mohammed, Jesus Christ, or Buddha could not achieve 100% popularity (heck, not even 70%)
“Steve, is you last name Balmer?”
Oh come on ! 🙂 That’s funny how people remember what they unlike, but not what they like. If you read my posts, you’ll see that *I don’t care* about Microsoft. I simply think that the attorneys goes against Microsoft for the *wrong* reasons. Illegal practive by including a web browser in Windows ? Whatever !
Illegaly using their monopoly as a leverage on OEMs to force them avoiding any other OSs on the market: yes they merit a huge and powerful punch in the face, in the stomach, and in .. well everywhere that hurt.
And I’m not sure Balmer use a bad english grammar as mine 🙂
“By this time your code is no longer clean and simple, it’s worse than a ball of wool after a kitten’s gone through it. Totally spaghetti.”
Ok. Microsoft flawed their source code. I still don’t see the *legal* problem of that.
“So really it comes down to OEMs being cheap bastards and MS taking advantage of this, because OEM’s won’t buy full price OSes to give consumers choice. Remember it takes two to Tango.”
hehe. Business doesn’t exist with the primary goal to help people and just causes. They exist to MAKE PROFIT. Period. And this is normal they acts like this (signing with Microsoft) because the one who didNt, have to charge 75$ more on his PCs, or lost 75$ in profits. Either case he lost big advantages in competitive forces. Dell get your share. You’re dead.
“Two to Tango” it’s abit easy I thing. It’s a given that OEM will get in this kind of contract, it’s not their role to judge this. Their role is to give the public what they want for the cheapiest price possible.
Microsoft is the one that created this situation, using their monoply status. If there were a real competition in OSs, then OEMs may choose to bundle other OS than Microsoft. But currently they have no choice.
I would like to see MacOS X under x86 world. That, IMHO, is the only single OS that may have a slight chance against Windows on the desktop.
Ahahaha you’re a funny guy right ? Now I will describe one of the groups you may belong to :
1) You’re a basement teenager that need to express your biological feeling of revolt. Linux being “cool” and Microsoft “uncool”, the choice is easy.
or
2) You have absolutely no opinion but the typical script kiddies discours “Linux is sent by God ! Windows crash every 5 seconds”.
Please, if you don’t want to use your brain and try to understand what’s going on, and what’s good, what’s bad in every OS, I know a very good forum that you don’t need to think, just blindly worship Linux and blindly hate Microsoft:
Slashdot.com
Actualy, I’ve been on the Windows platform exclusively for the past 5 years.
But that didn’t turn me into a M$ bigot…
Just a frustrated Windows user that sees no viable alternatives at this time.
As for Linux, after a few inquiries, it was spelled out to me that it doesn’t aspire to compete in the desktop market in a viable fashion. And it is more suited for computer science kids that like to play with code and flame newsgroup conversations for bragging rights.
Enough said.
Hey Steve, do yourself a favor and just ignore YC. He’s been posting to BeOS boards for years, and if there’s one person in this world who’s ever proven himself devoid of any reasonable intelligence, it’s YC.
(Although for a fun exercise, look through some archives and read some of what he’s written over the last few years. It’s kind of fun, really. I mean, it’s not really nice to laugh at the [mentally] handicapped, but in YC’s case, I don’t think you’ll be able to control yourself)
Or something like that said Charlie Parker to Miles Davies :>)
Frustrated MSWindows users (me too) unite!, OBOS on the way!
I don’t understand this IExplorer affair, I insist that is a nonsense useless path to nothing. OEMs abusive contracts is where MS rulez. But of course I am delighted to see them code tortured and hear them nonstop lying. Reminds me of the Maltese Falcon femme fatale, lie Balmer!, lie! (l’homme fatale this time). Another turn of the screw and they’ll confess!!! “Yes we can chop off IE!, YES-WE-CAN your honour! We had no choice!…”
Come on, don’t start calling you names.
u all are bitching and complaining on here. the fact is, if u dont like what ms is doing, then delete the damn ie icons, install netscape (which by the way, i think sucks, its slow, and i just plain hate the look of it) and stop bitching about everything. or just get a different os and use no ms software.
OEMs? they arent forced to ship windows and only windows, ms just says, if u want to be able to ship windows, that is all ur gonna ship or were gonna not sell u liscenses. whats so bad about that? dont we all do something similar to that at least once in our lives?
microsoft didnt make c++, and they didnt rip off java, they made c# (c sharp) based on c++, not based on java. btw, java sucks, cpp is faster and is more powerful.
i also saw something about office file types in here, dunno what the hell that was about, office has nothing to do with windows or ie.
microsoft hasnt forced themselves into a monopolistic status. sure, they may have put ie in their os to try to get people away from netscape/aol, but who cares? we all know aol fucks up any comp as much as possible, and u can never get rid of it.
this thing about forcing them to reveal their source code? thats bs. its their property, its theirs to show to who they want and no one, even the us government, can make them open it up to anyone else. if ms wanted to use it in their court case to prove something, fine, thats up to them.
thats about it, i know im forgetting something, but oh well. feel free to email me at [email protected] u may not get a response, but be assured that i will read it.