Thread: Microsoft = The Best Operating System

There is a significant difference between the analogy between drinks and dual boot machines. If there were several competing OSes of equal value, there would be no problem with Microsoft forcing companies to boot only Windows because those companies could each tell Microsoft to go to hell (which is ironic).

(There are many other reasons why McDonalds is evil.)

Microsoft's monopoly is unfair; it's detrimental to consumers because of the business practices of large corporations - they tend to steal original ideas from startups before the startups are able to compete. In and of itself, this is clearly anticompetitive and prevents the creation of new ideas. Leveraging the power of one product to increase another product is also unfair as it causes a breakdown in the fundamental theory that the value of a product is based on its worth (granted that ease of installation and use is part of its worth, but I don't think that's truly a relevant point).

Moreover, just because it is possible to remove integration does not mean that most consumers know how to do so. In theory, it is possible to do many things that are not done because they are difficult: a a monopoly is a monopoly not because it makes something impossible but because it makes something harder than the remedy is worth. Consider that there are always competitors to the largest companies but that they are very small and consequently unable to market effectively.

Finally, measuring a monopoly's evilness by the price of its products isn't really useful. Monopolies make money because they have no competition and so have a larger market, not just through being able to raise prices to exhorbitant levels. Monopolies become monopolies through anticompetitive practices.

Yes, Microsoft does a lot of good stuff if you want to be a programmer for them. I don't say Microsoft is doing anything immoral (although they probably are somewhere), but that doesn't mean it isn't doing things that are anticompetitive and which hurt the ideals of a free market.

Bob, are you familiar with Adam Smith's philosophies and how contradictory it would be for the USA (founded partially based on his ideals) to butt in on Microsoft's monopoly?

I write for M$ based systems as the market is there for my product.
I don't like M$ though. But at 90% of the market in OS's there is not a lot of choice.

>>The intergation off there browser improved, windows greatly. It does not prevent you from uing another browser, and it is postible to remove the intergation.
Try using the help in MSVC v5 without IE on your machine and see how far you get (even if you have another browser installed as default).

Remember Double Space in Win3.1?
How about Netscape / IE in Win95?
Kodak's lawsuit in XP?
US govt asking Bill to talk to them got a "No. No time"

These are only a few. Not exactly responsible, ethical business practice.

"They don't over use there power, or over prive there Items"

Unless, of course, you actually follow their practices. Take for instance the licensing "deals" they give to OEMs who sell nothing but windows desktops. Some OEMS who were putting BeOS on their computers literally got windows cheaper buying it retail than from Microsoft.

>nv,
>now your beginning to sound like sunlight, nitpickig at everything.
>you know damn well what i mean.

I take that as a compliment. Yes, I know what you mean, and I think it's wrong. Maybe it was somewhat unclear what I meant when I said I do. I personally use it at home, and the corporation I'm working for is using for their latest project and probably every project thereafter. And seeing the ease of use, I can't think of reasons why other companies would not use it.



>>That could very well be because it's not out yet...
>Idiots, this forum is full of idiots!!! Beta 2 has been out for a long time

Yes. And a Beta is in no way a decisive argument for corporations which base their living on software. Someone making a basic desicion on a beta is a gambler or telepath. The official launch hasn't been, so I don't see your problem with his argument.

Microsoft is a monopoly, and I really have a hard time seeing how the black hole known as Microsoft's ego can really be good for the market. It's basically a given that unless you have some good patent lawers on your side, and you're a small developer, then if they can, Microsoft's going to own your idea very soon and you just walk away with a lost lawsuit.

My only problem with this is that it's really the government's job to stop this from happening, you can't just ask a company to play nice.

I really do think, however, that free software is a long-term solution to the problem. Microsoft will either have to keep juggling it's standards, in which case free software will be preferable for the sake of stability; Or Microsoft will have to slow down, which will give free software the ability to catch up and basically offer the same services, free of liscensing costs.

>>Microsoft's going to own your idea very soon and you just walk away with a lost lawsuit.
Exactly. And a huge legal bill. My lawyer charges Au$25 per 15mins. Roughly the same as the hospital bill for being charged by a wounded rhino.

>>you can't just ask a company to play nice.
Spot on again.
Look at Nike. "Our workers are all paid living wages."
Which their lawyer has just stated was not advertising but a political statement that may or may not be true. (It isn't according to the firm they hired to do the audit.)

Trouble is if we did not have an M$ we would not be here today.
Better the devil you know than 50 small OS's to write compatible code for.

Idiots, this forum is full of idiots!!! Beta 2 has been out for a long time, and the full version has been out for about a week (I'm not sure how long but i KNOW it's out, I have a few friends who haev it). Why do so many people make declarations when they have no evidence to support it?

From the irony department: Tim - the only way your friends could have it already is if they either pirated it or have MSDN subscriptions that allowed them to download it ahead of time. It is NOT available to the public at this time...

I am familiar with Adam Smith's philosophy, but that doesn't mean I agree with him. A free-market approach has been repudiated by historical circumstances. For example, during the Gilded Age the large trusts caused many people to demand regulation.

> 30 +
> 31+

Hmmm... we're on what - 85 or so? You guys were too optimistic