B
badgolferman
Out of sight, out of mind.
Out of sight, out of mind.
A
Anonymous
Good point.
T
Thip
socrtwo said:
So much for the concept of free enterprise. Why not take it a step further
and we can be a Communist country? Then we would all be equal with Bill
Gates!
Dumb.
D
Daniel Mandic
Terry said:One weeks groceries $A150.
Ask a farmer how much they make on that $8 pack of hamburger.
If food was free, everyone would eat government mandated
tasteless gruel
For $A250 I can get a 1.8GHz P4 with XPPro...yet they sell the
_academic_ edition retail for $A100. Someones making a profit but
only a portion actually goes to MS.
The cost isn't in the software..unless you really need to
use a particular piece and insist on paying full retail.
socrtwo is right, it would be a very good thing for me
for about 3 minutes, then every PC would have Windows
and Office, and any possible development would rapidly dry up.
Yeeaa..
Bill Gates isn't such a Moron.
First they flamed him and the company for integrating IE into Windows,
and now they hunt Music copier over Windows.
Every Windows User is a good User. (economically seen)
There is always someone who pays for something, like over-paranoic
people who are wanting to live in peace and attractive competition.
But as ever, there is an opposite too. Being contra-paranoid :-|
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
A
Anonymous
So much for the concept of free enterprise. Why not take it a step further
More specifically, we would be "equal" with Bill because he would be as
poor as we are. The government would have all of the profit and power.
Although I would like to see the facial expression of Bill Gates if a
Soviet agent were to kick in the door of the Redmond office and say
something like "Make that operating system work correctly or you'll
fall from favor with my superiors and be replaced by someone who
will..."
More specifically, we would be "equal" with Bill because he would be as
poor as we are. The government would have all of the profit and power.
Although I would like to see the facial expression of Bill Gates if a
Soviet agent were to kick in the door of the Redmond office and say
something like "Make that operating system work correctly or you'll
fall from favor with my superiors and be replaced by someone who
will..."
S
Steven Burn
socrtwo said:
.... and then what?, go after every shareware/commercial developer to do the
same? - or is it just Microsoft you're after here?.
Nobody likes Mr Gates' success, this is no secret. However, to force him to
render his software OS would be a mistake for several major reasons (the
first and primary of which would be accountability). Whom would you have
step into MS's place?
To bring this into perspective, would you have the same done to Richard
Branson?, perhaps force him to reveal his secrets on becoming a
billionaire?. Hand over the Virgin enterprise to people such as yourself?.
Whilst we may not like it (or to be more precise, are extremely jealous of
those with fortunes beyond our own), being selfish and arrogant enough to
want to take that away from them is not a choice we or indeed anyone else,
should have. Everyone is entitled to create their own fortunes - as should
be the case.
--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
B
Brian (Groups)
socrtwo said:
Erm... sorry, but it *IS* a coincidence:
No - Middle English, from Old English n : ne
Know - Middle English knouen, from Old English cnwan.
The rest of your diatribe appears to be based upon similarly
well-researched foundations.
Brian
P
pcman
I thought Id gon back in time then. To my Amiga days when I used to
read all about big bad bill gates
lol
read all about big bad bill gates
lol
K
krazycarnie
There is a very simple way to "break Microsoft's monopoly" -- invest
the time and dollars to make a better product and give it away. Oh
wait! Isn't that what the *nix companies have been doing for the past
several year?
But then I remember a time before Windows, a time when there were
several OS's (CP/M, MP/M, TRS-DOS, AppleDOS, Amiga DOS etc, etc. etc)
A time when you had to carefully research every piece of hardware and
software to ensure that it worked together. A time when it was
necessary for a developer to write his application for every OS that he
wanted to sell it on. A time when every application worked slightly
differently on each computer.
This was true even of the early days of what is now known as the PC.
There was PC-DOS for IBM, Compaq DOS for Compaq, generic MSDOS was an
infant, and modified to work on computers from Commodore, KayPRO, Tandy
(Radio Shack for you youngsters). You could not go and buy a bunch of
components and build your own computer, or order one from Dell or
Gateway. Why not you ask? Mostly because there were no economies of
scale. A peripheral manufacturer could not count on producing say a
graphics card that would sell a million units, he may have to have
production runs on 3 or more variations of a single card and hope that
he had guessed right on the numbers.
When IBM started building PCs they published a hardware specification,
and that helped. Lotus helped with its Lotus 1 2 3, which it wrote to
work on the IBM version of PCs. Hardware manufacturers started to
build their boxes closer and closer to that spec. But even that did
not do the final job. When Windows came along Microsoft said to
software developers, here is all the information that you need to make
your programmes work on any Windows based PC. Microsoft took care of
the under laying hardware complexities. At the same time Microsoft
said to hardware developers here is all you need to do to have every
programme written work on your hardware platform. Then they stepped
back and waited. You may remember that IBM tried something like that
with OS/2 and the PS/2 (what we jokingly called OS too little and PS
too late), but it never caught on. Why not?
Well on the software side, Microsoft gave away development kits, IBM
charged thousands of dollars for their development kits... which
platform would you create for?? On the hardware side IBM would not
certify other manufacturers on their technology (does that sound like
another computer company out there?). Again which platform would you
build products for??
So while Microsoft is not perfect, the answer to breaking their
monopoly is to invest a couple of billion of your dollars into making a
product that will do everything Windows will do. Then make it so rock
solid that there it will never break no matter what a user does with
it. Then make it Open Source and become a service oriented company and
wait for people to sign up for service plans.
However if you built this better mousetrap, most people would not need
a service plan now would they? And if you built an Open Source product
how would you support the changes and hacks that everyone has put in
your product? How would you pay to develop the next versions of your
product to use the new hardware that is being developed everyday?
Just my take on the situation, but then I was doing software
development in the pre-IBM era, the pre-Windows era. I much prefer the
now to the then.
Carnie
the time and dollars to make a better product and give it away. Oh
wait! Isn't that what the *nix companies have been doing for the past
several year?
But then I remember a time before Windows, a time when there were
several OS's (CP/M, MP/M, TRS-DOS, AppleDOS, Amiga DOS etc, etc. etc)
A time when you had to carefully research every piece of hardware and
software to ensure that it worked together. A time when it was
necessary for a developer to write his application for every OS that he
wanted to sell it on. A time when every application worked slightly
differently on each computer.
This was true even of the early days of what is now known as the PC.
There was PC-DOS for IBM, Compaq DOS for Compaq, generic MSDOS was an
infant, and modified to work on computers from Commodore, KayPRO, Tandy
(Radio Shack for you youngsters). You could not go and buy a bunch of
components and build your own computer, or order one from Dell or
Gateway. Why not you ask? Mostly because there were no economies of
scale. A peripheral manufacturer could not count on producing say a
graphics card that would sell a million units, he may have to have
production runs on 3 or more variations of a single card and hope that
he had guessed right on the numbers.
When IBM started building PCs they published a hardware specification,
and that helped. Lotus helped with its Lotus 1 2 3, which it wrote to
work on the IBM version of PCs. Hardware manufacturers started to
build their boxes closer and closer to that spec. But even that did
not do the final job. When Windows came along Microsoft said to
software developers, here is all the information that you need to make
your programmes work on any Windows based PC. Microsoft took care of
the under laying hardware complexities. At the same time Microsoft
said to hardware developers here is all you need to do to have every
programme written work on your hardware platform. Then they stepped
back and waited. You may remember that IBM tried something like that
with OS/2 and the PS/2 (what we jokingly called OS too little and PS
too late), but it never caught on. Why not?
Well on the software side, Microsoft gave away development kits, IBM
charged thousands of dollars for their development kits... which
platform would you create for?? On the hardware side IBM would not
certify other manufacturers on their technology (does that sound like
another computer company out there?). Again which platform would you
build products for??
So while Microsoft is not perfect, the answer to breaking their
monopoly is to invest a couple of billion of your dollars into making a
product that will do everything Windows will do. Then make it so rock
solid that there it will never break no matter what a user does with
it. Then make it Open Source and become a service oriented company and
wait for people to sign up for service plans.
However if you built this better mousetrap, most people would not need
a service plan now would they? And if you built an Open Source product
how would you support the changes and hacks that everyone has put in
your product? How would you pay to develop the next versions of your
product to use the new hardware that is being developed everyday?
Just my take on the situation, but then I was doing software
development in the pre-IBM era, the pre-Windows era. I much prefer the
now to the then.
Carnie
B
badgolferman
Several good points were made of which the above are probably key in my
mind. They did not become a large company by osmosis. They developed
a sound business model and encouraged others to follow along.
The animosity and jealousy displayed toward Microsoft has become a
disease upon itself and it amazes me how many people just keep feeding
into it.
E
Eugene Esterly III
Luis said:
I gotta agree with you there. Our US Federal gov't does illegal things
all the time, yet they don't get in trouble for most of them.
E
Eugene Esterly III
Anonymous said:More specifically, we would be "equal" with Bill because he would be as
poor as we are. The government would have all of the profit and power.
Although I would like to see the facial expression of Bill Gates if a
Soviet agent were to kick in the door of the Redmond office and say
something like "Make that operating system work correctly or you'll
fall from favor with my superiors and be replaced by someone who
will..."
I hate to tell you but we out gov't is becoming communist. They try to
make laws banning music, movies, video games, et al. For example, the
gov't tries to ban violent video games because they say that it causes
kids to kill.
The gov't just wants to control us just like what happens in a
Communist country.
B
badgolferman
Luis said:
As popular as it is to claim President Bush has done illegal things, it
still hasn't been proven in any case directly tied to him. This is in
contrast to the previous one who was found guilty of lying to a grand
jury while under oath. Alittle more perspective perhaps.
B
Brian (Groups)
Eugene said:
I hate to tell you but I think you're confusing communism with
authoritarianism.
Communism - A theoretical economic system characterized by the
collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for
the common advantage of all members.
Authoritarianism - Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to
authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
Brian
A
Al Klein
Not as good as it can be, just as good as they care to make it.
A
Al Klein
It's not "the company", it's "all companies doing business in the US".
They can't require MS to make its code open source while allowing
everyone else to keep secrets - either business can keep secrets (the
current situation) or it can't - and no business would expose itself
like that. There's no profit in giving your product away.
All dictators do - even fictional ones like those two.
Only someone who couldn't rent a clue for 5 seconds if he had the keys
to Fort Knox would think so.
A
Al Klein
I think history will do a pretty good job of that.
The two Georges - one who couldn't tell a lie, one who isn't
intelligent enough to recognize one.
A
Al Klein
Desertion is illegal and, aside from the mealy-mouthed PR that says,
in effect, "you can't prove a thing", he's guilty of desertion.
Commander in Thief, at the very least. (Cashing a government pay
check while not being there during the hours for which you're being
paid is larceny.)
A
Al Klein
Did we? That's the question.
A
Al Klein
But remember, some are more equal than others. Did the day laborer in
Moscow really get to spend 2 weeks every month at that nice Dascha in
the country - like some others he was "equal" to?