“Microsoft chairman Bill Gates says his company would be unable to allow manufacturers and consumers to choose which elements of its Windows operating system to install on their computers under sanctions being proposed to a federal judge.[…]The issue stems from how different portions of Windows are reliant on each other. If one piece is removed, such as the part of the Internet Explorer Web browser that makes Web pages appear, other features like the Windows Help system would break.” Read the rest of the story at Yahoo!News. You can also read the submitted Gates testimony as a PDF here. Our Take: Personally, I prefer products to be solid and in one piece, as they were designed to be. Recreating something like Linux’s dependancy hell at all levels, is naturally something that does not benefit the consumer. Or my hot temper when dealing with it. What is needed IMHO, is restrict Microsoft’s business practices, not its product line. Update: More about Gates on the stand.
…that all regular visitors of this website are used to fiddle with their system, they are not afraid to install and remove things. But the normal user of MS Windows is not like that. If something breaks, most will simply erase everything and start from scratch. So how would these guys do with a minimum system ? they’ll have to adapt and learn. On the other side, give them a full “featured” system, and they’ll stay dumb. Now add the fact that MS will drops support for open format (like mp3, or kerberos), to push the user to MS proprietary format, and you have a good monopoly going stronger.
So please, keep Windows the way it is now, so Microsoft can keep feeding me with its crap, and I can stay the normal luser.
How does the monetary value of the product, or the fact that it is “monopolized,” play any relevance? My point is simply about who should dictate which items are available for sale and which are not.
Guess what? The US is not a free market. And, frankly, there’s nothing wrong with that fact.
Guess what? The US is not a free market.
No one would argue with that (you’ll notice that I never claimed it was), but not being a “free market” is a far cry from being able to force a company to make something available for sale.
And, frankly, there’s nothing wrong with that fact.
I would be extremely surprised if you could back up that statement with any sort of rigorous foundation.