Subject:
|
Re: Bill Gates' real crime...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 May 2000 17:32:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> It seemed to me a pretty clear-cut case of monopolistic practices. Investors
> big and small should have seen this coming miles away. Microsoft even got a
> previous wake up call, dodged the bullet on penalties, and proceeded to behave
> as arrogantly as humanly possible. Pride goes before the fall. Idunno, I just
> can't see this as the Justice Department's fault - Microsoft pretty much had
> neon signs flashing "Monpolistic tactics - Watchya gonna do about it?"
While MS may have had some anti-competitive practices, I haven't seen
anything which justifies a breakup. Some thoughts of mine on some of the
issues which have been raised:
- MS billing vendors for a copy of Windows for every machine sold: Do
you know how many vendors have sold computers with Windows installed on
them, but didn't bother to sell a copy of Windows to the customer? When
I bought my first Windows 3.x capable PC, Windows was pre-installed. I
happened to have a legitimate purchase because I also purchased a mouse
which happened to come with a free copy of Windows. At least when I
bought used laptops for myself and my mother, each one came with a
shrink wrapped license agreement (though I am suspicious that whoever
the laptops came from didn't keep track of their licenses, but that's
mostly their problem).
- "It ain't done until Lotus don't run": the 2nd Edition of Undocumented
DOS by Andrew Schulman etal. documents several ways in which MS bent
over backwards to make sure existing applications including 123
continued to run.
- I am always amused by contradictory opinions, such as many people's
complaints about tying DOS and Windows, meanwhile other people talking
about how Windows and/or DOS aren't REAL operating systems, and Windows
isn't a REAL GUI system because it runs on top of DOS.
- I always wonder where Office would be if Wordperfect hadn't
essentially blown off Windows.
- Frankly, I tend to use MS products because when I try out a
competitor's product, I find clunky user interfaces, weird
incompatibilities (oh, how I hate using X-Windows at work "how does THIS
application handle cut and paste, and will I be able to cut from it and
paste into that?"). Of course I did get started on the MS Office track
back before I ever saw Windows when I started using MS Word on a Mac (of
course I always wonder how much more relevant the Mac would be had it
been an open architechture - look at how successefull the Apple II was).
I do think that MS has done some bad things, but I'd like to see
sanctions which specifically targetted those things, rather than a
shotgun approach. Do you want the court telling you what innovations are
appropriate to integrate into an operating system?
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bill Gates' real crime...
|
| (...) Investors (...) behave (...) just (...) Two wrongs make a right? And I see lots of systems at my job that have unix, not windows. (...) I really don't want to sit and enumerate all of Microsoft's trangressions. It's a big, sprawling, complex (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bill Gates' real crime...
|
| It seemed to me a pretty clear-cut case of monopolistic practices. Investors big and small should have seen this coming miles away. Microsoft even got a previous wake up call, dodged the bullet on penalties, and proceeded to behave as arrogantly as (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
