[Cialug] Re: MS

[Chris Hilton]

Having used old versions of Netscape, I'm not terribly fond of it.  But
at least it didn't leave your computer useless after visiting a nasty
website.

On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 18:18 +0000, timwilson011@mchsi.com wrote:
> I don't have as much of a problem with Windows being a "monopoly" as I do other
> MS products.  Let's face it, for PCs, there wasn't much of an alternative when
> Windows 3.0 came out (I'm just focusing on PCs, there were other platforms, but
> those had software monopolies as well).  Sure, there was DesqView, GoldTree, and
> other add-ons, but something that at least purported to be an OS?  Not really. 
> Was Win3 an OS?  No, but at least it was better than some of the other add-ons.
>  The average user probably didn't need to leave Windows once they were in it
> (unless they had a DOS-based app).  As for the actual underlying OS, DOS was
> pretty much it.  There were different flavors of DOS, but in the end, they were
> very much the same.  Besides, people wanted ease of use (which some translate as
> GUI), and DOS wasn't it.  So it didn't matter that much if Flavor B had some
> feature that MS' flavor didn't.  NT and OS/2 were still not quite ready for
> prime-time, so that left Windows 3.0.
> 
> One of the problems I have with MS is the cut-throat tactics of the licensing
> agreements with the PC makers.  Word was no better than Word Perfect, yet MS had
> one thing going for them.  Every PC maker shipped PCs with Windows.  MS could
> (and did) dictate to them, "if you want Windows, you'll have to ship these
> products too, but we'll make you a great deal on both."  I once was told that
> someone at Gateway told a customer that Office cost Gateway about $5.  Yet to go
> out and buy it off the shelf, it was closer to $500.  Why would I (as a
> consumer) buy a computer with nothing on it, go out and buy Windows, Word
> Perfect, and Lotus 1-2-3, and spend at least $400 more than if I bought a
> computer with Windows and Office?
> 
> Then there's the "embrace and extend" philosophy.  Let's rip off someone else's
> product, change it slightly, ship it with every copy of Windows, and put the
> competitors out of business.  I still hear people saying that Netscape/Mozilla
> isn't a superior browser, and IE isn't a bad browser, there are bugs found in IE
> because that's what people are focusing on.  While the latter may be true, I
> still have issues with it.  MS is the largest software company in the world, and
> all they seem to be concerned with is extending their empire.  Hey, here's an
> idea, make the current products secure before taking on more!  In the browser
> example, the source code that started Netscape is the same code that started IE.
>  So why is it that even some of the basic stuff (such has HTML rendering) is
> still buggy in IE?
> 
> Bottom line, MS still thinks of themselves as that little software company in
> Redmond, instead of a global software corporation.  Small companies can get away
> with a lot more than larger companies can, but MS still attempts to do the same
> things as smaller companies, and somehow manages to get away with it.  I don't
> think it is a particular presidential administration's fault, I think a lot of
> the companies just were too afraid to go up against MS.  Remember the frivolous
> lawsuits of "look-and-feel"?  No one would think about doing that today.
> 
> --
> Tim W.
> > Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 
> > > I didn't say they weren't responsible, I said they are rarely offered
> > > an alternative.  You suggest this is because the consumer is not 
> > > shopping around.
> > > I ask you then, at which store is the average person getting offered a 
> > > machine running linux?
> > > What dealership do they need to visit?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris Hilton wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's true.  And if you shop for a car by buying from Ford without
> > >> shopping any other dealerships you have the same problem. It's hardly
> > >> fair to say the consumer isn't responsible because they aren't
> > >> knowledgable enough to know where to look for alternatives.
> > >> I suppose I forgot to blaim business as well, many people buy what their
> > >> business uses.
> > >>
> > I think this gets into the shortcomings of a completely free market. The 
> > strengths of a free market rest on the assumptions that the consumer 
> > base is informed. But, it all kinda breaks down if you assume that the 
> > consumer base can be easily misinformed. In this case, people shopping 
> > for computers are not informed about the concept of an OS. They know 
> > about brands hardware (to a limited degree) and resellers. 'Windows' is 
> > synonomous with 'computer'; it is not an OS to them. Thus, it is 
> > impossible for them to ask the question, "What OS does it run?" So they 
> > physically/logically can't make an informed decision. This is why the MS 
> > monopoly is bad - not because they own so much of the brainshare, but 
> > because they use that ownership to stop people from being able to make 
> > informed decisions.
> > 
> > The car market simile breaks down because it doesn't exhibit that 
> > symptom of the problem. Sure, the customer didn't do their homework. 
> > But, MS is banking on that, and encouraging that. Car dealerships don't 
> > have that luxury. They can't blot the other dealership signs from the 
> > sky so you can't see them as you drive by.
> > 
> > My $.02.
> > 
> > Chris
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cialug mailing list
> > Cialug@cialug.org
> > http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug@cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug