Steal this O.S.

[Justin]

Vista doesn't have to cost any more then XP. XP Pro cost $300 when it was
first released. That would make Vista CHEAPER then XP. Plus, since you
already OWN XP because you didn't STEAL IT then you just need the upgrade
price so you're looking at $99 or $159. Either way Vista is cheaper then XP
so your whole "to expensive" propaganda is BS from the very beginning.
There is NO APP that you currently have that requires Ultimate. So quit
flip-flopping on your basis of argument and quit whining about things you
can't afford.

You wrongly claim that you have apps you NEED to run when in fact you WANT
to run them. There is a HUGE difference!

I almost want to assume that your mind is rather clouded and I'm sure we can
all figure out what exactly that "cloud" is made up of.

 

[norm]

Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you don't want to run Windows or other
Microsoft applications, there are alternatives such as Linux and Open
Source software.


"norm" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote in message

Would you please enlighten those of us who evidently are not important
as to who "everyone of importance" is, and, more so, who/what
determines
that "everyone" is important? No doubt there are differing opinions,
but
to just blithely make such a statement seems to ignore much of what
actually happened. Does illegal use of monopoly power by ms ring any
bells as to what really happened to netscape?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf
Looks like far more than just a little kick by ms. YMMV.

MS is a monopoly. A quote from this article describes where ms has run
into problems in how it has used the power of its monopoly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices — the
U.S. Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for antitrust
violations and software bundling.[19] The slogan "embrace, extend, and
extinguish" is often used to describe Microsoft's strategy for entering
product categories involving widely-used standards, extending those
standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those
differences to disadvantage its competitors.

 

[Justin]

There is a difference between performing "monopolistic business practices"
and being a monopoly.

I think it's crap! This would be like slapping the cuffs on someone for
buying a gun and assuming they're going to kill someone. I've read up on
some of these "practices" and a lot of them seem like sound business
concepts. If you can't "cut it" in the industry you're in then tuff doo
doo!

In this case all the "monopolistic business practices" in the world couldn't
ever amount to a monopoly since there are MANY other computing choices out
there.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you don't want to run Windows or other
Microsoft applications, there are alternatives such as Linux and Open
Source software.
"norm" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote in message

Would you please enlighten those of us who evidently are not
important
as to who "everyone of importance" is, and, more so, who/what
determines
that "everyone" is important? No doubt there are differing opinions,
but
to just blithely make such a statement seems to ignore much of what
actually happened. Does illegal use of monopoly power by ms ring any
bells as to what really happened to netscape?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf
Looks like far more than just a little kick by ms. YMMV.

MS is a monopoly. A quote from this article describes where ms has run
into problems in how it has used the power of its monopoly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices — the U.S.
Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for antitrust
violations and software bundling.[19] The slogan "embrace, extend, and
extinguish" is often used to describe Microsoft's strategy for entering
product categories involving widely-used standards, extending those
standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences
to disadvantage its competitors.

 

[norm]

There is a difference between performing "monopolistic business
practices" and being a monopoly.

I think it's crap! This would be like slapping the cuffs on someone for
buying a gun and assuming they're going to kill someone. I've read up
on some of these "practices" and a lot of them seem like sound business
concepts. If you can't "cut it" in the industry you're in then tuff doo
doo!

In this case all the "monopolistic business practices" in the world
couldn't ever amount to a monopoly since there are MANY other computing
choices out there.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you don't want to run Windows or
other Microsoft applications, there are alternatives such as Linux
and Open Source software.
"norm" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote in message Richard Urban wrote:
Netscape died because their Internet browser was crap, and
everyone of
importance knows that. Microsoft just kicked them when they were
falling.


Would you please enlighten those of us who evidently are not
important
as to who "everyone of importance" is, and, more so, who/what
determines
that "everyone" is important? No doubt there are differing opinions,
but
to just blithely make such a statement seems to ignore much of what
actually happened. Does illegal use of monopoly power by ms ring any
bells as to what really happened to netscape?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf
Looks like far more than just a little kick by ms. YMMV.
-- norm

MS is a monopoly. A quote from this article describes where ms has run
into problems in how it has used the power of its monopoly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices — the
U.S. Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for
antitrust violations and software bundling.[19] The slogan "embrace,
extend, and extinguish" is often used to describe Microsoft's strategy
for entering product categories involving widely-used standards,
extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then
using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

MS was ruled a monopoly, that ruling was upheld upon appeal and MS
agreed to settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

 

[Justin]

And? The ruling was BS and a huge amount of people agree. You also failed
to read the subheading APPEAL correctly:

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's
rulings against Microsoft"
"Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper"

The end result was to "seek a lesser antitrust penalty". No monopoly.

Make sure you you also read the subheading "Criticisms of the case".

"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated
that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market
constituted a monopoly"

WTH? Since when does dominance = monopoly? Since when has a monopoly been
established when the consumer remains to have have many choices?

There is a difference between performing "monopolistic business
practices" and being a monopoly.

I think it's crap! This would be like slapping the cuffs on someone for
buying a gun and assuming they're going to kill someone. I've read up on
some of these "practices" and a lot of them seem like sound business
concepts. If you can't "cut it" in the industry you're in then tuff doo
doo!

In this case all the "monopolistic business practices" in the world
couldn't ever amount to a monopoly since there are MANY other computing
choices out there.

William wrote:
Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you don't want to run Windows or other
Microsoft applications, there are alternatives such as Linux and Open
Source software.
"norm" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote in message Richard Urban wrote:
Netscape died because their Internet browser was crap, and
everyone of
importance knows that. Microsoft just kicked them when they were
falling.


Would you please enlighten those of us who evidently are not
important
as to who "everyone of importance" is, and, more so, who/what
determines
that "everyone" is important? No doubt there are differing
opinions,
but
to just blithely make such a statement seems to ignore much of what
actually happened. Does illegal use of monopoly power by ms ring
any
bells as to what really happened to netscape?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf
Looks like far more than just a little kick by ms. YMMV.
-- norm
MS is a monopoly. A quote from this article describes where ms has run
into problems in how it has used the power of its monopoly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices — the
U.S. Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for antitrust
violations and software bundling.[19] The slogan "embrace, extend, and
extinguish" is often used to describe Microsoft's strategy for entering
product categories involving widely-used standards, extending those
standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those
differences to disadvantage its competitors.

MS was ruled a monopoly, that ruling was upheld upon appeal and MS agreed
to settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

 

[caver1]

There is a difference between performing "monopolistic business
practices" and being a monopoly.

I think it's crap! This would be like slapping the cuffs on someone for
buying a gun and assuming they're going to kill someone. I've read up
on some of these "practices" and a lot of them seem like sound business
concepts. If you can't "cut it" in the industry you're in then tuff doo
doo!

In this case all the "monopolistic business practices" in the world
couldn't ever amount to a monopoly since there are MANY other computing
choices out there.

Maybe some day you will wake up, but I doubt it. Do some serious
research. Look at the court cases. Read how MS defends their business
practices. That alone will show you that MS believes that if they do it
it is alright if the consumer or their competitors do it it should be
illegal. So MS is not so bright and shiny. Most big business is in the
same boat. Go ahead and fish with them.

 

[caver1]

And? The ruling was BS and a huge amount of people agree. You also
failed to read the subheading APPEAL correctly:

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge
Jackson's rulings against Microsoft"
"Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper"

The end result was to "seek a lesser antitrust penalty". No monopoly.

Make sure you you also read the subheading "Criticisms of the case".

"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which
stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating
systems market constituted a monopoly"

WTH? Since when does dominance = monopoly? Since when has a monopoly
been established when the consumer remains to have have many choices?

MS lost the case against AT&T, appealed to the Supreme court. They
refuse to hear it. Read MS's defense if you think they are so good.

 

[Justin]

What the heck did any of that have to do with any of this? It seems like
you are branching off in other directions. We're talking about browsers
here.

If you just want to bash MS then go ahead, knock yourself out. I don't
think anyone will care. I could be wrong though.

 

[Justin]

1. What does AT&T have to do with this discussion? That was a patent case.
2. I never said MS was great. Quit making things up.

 

[James Colbert]

Oh come on now, only my 70 year old Aunt Cathy & others like her can stay
on 98SE.

Not true. There are those who prefer 98SE to XP. It serves their needs and
does what they want. To each his own, I say.

I had to upgrade to XP several years ago, due to one particular program I
needed to run that claimed to run on 98SE but would not. Now days I have
several programs that require XP that I can't do my job without. Any
hardcore computer user will be forced into it, sooner or later, hopefully
later.

I'm what one could consider "hardcore", and I'm not forced into it. I go
willingly, but your point is taken. Most if not all hardcore users will
either migrate willingly or simply because they have to in order to do what
their needs dictate. However, if one were to put statistics on computer
users together, it's likely that the "hardcore" users would comprise a very,
very small segmant of the whole.

As I have stated in this thread, 2-3 years is my estimate (as is yours),

Actually, I said 2,3 or more, in context with those who are *still* using
98SE almost 10 years later. The context should have provided clarity.

& I will be dragged, kicking/screaming into Vista.

As is your perogative.

Hopefully not before SP2.
BTW found a student version, upgrade Home Premium for $89.00. Wonder how
much my student bookstore will charge for it? My latest XP cost $15,
comes with 64, & can be installed on three separate machines. Ongoing
education programs have their benefits!

BTW, double Mac's market share in the U.S. & it's still under 7%.

Interesting. Thanks.

James

 

[James Colbert]

Every once in a while I get a call from a Comcast or Adelphia subscriber
who has been running Windows 98 since 1998-99 and has never reinstalled
Windows 98 and wonder why their computer is so very slow now.

You might not have noticed that I was referring to 98 *SE*. A world of
difference between 98 & 98SE. It's what ME wishes it was.

As a point of curiosity, what do you tell them?

James



"Not necessarily. There are those out there who are still running 98SE
and
are completely happy with it. There are many who will continue to do so,
and
even more who will remain with XP, which won't be obsolete for quite
some
time to come (at least for many). I happen to be a technophile and want
the
latest technology, but not everyone is like that, and they will be
perfectly
happy remaining with XP for another 2, 3 years or more. Not everyone
will
feel REQUIRED to use Vista. Nor are they.

 

[norm]

And? The ruling was BS and a huge amount of people agree. You also
failed to read the subheading APPEAL correctly:

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge
Jackson's rulings against Microsoft"
"Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper"

The end result was to "seek a lesser antitrust penalty". No monopoly.

You seemed to have missed this part under the appeal section:
"However, the appeals court did affirm in part Judge Jackson's ruling on
monopolization."

Make sure you you also read the subheading "Criticisms of the case".

I did. Any decision made will have critics and they did not and do not
change any of the final results as they now stand.

"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which
stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating
systems market constituted a monopoly"

WTH? Since when does dominance = monopoly? Since when has a monopoly
been established when the consumer remains to have have many choices?

How that dominance is used the important factor. Used incorrectly, it
can bring about the results seen above.

There is a difference between performing "monopolistic business
practices" and being a monopoly.

I think it's crap! This would be like slapping the cuffs on someone
for buying a gun and assuming they're going to kill someone. I've
read up on some of these "practices" and a lot of them seem like
sound business concepts. If you can't "cut it" in the industry
you're in then tuff doo doo!

In this case all the "monopolistic business practices" in the world
couldn't ever amount to a monopoly since there are MANY other
computing choices out there.



William wrote:
Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you don't want to run Windows or
other Microsoft applications, there are alternatives such as Linux
and Open Source software.
"norm" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote in message Richard Urban wrote:
Netscape died because their Internet browser was crap, and
everyone of
importance knows that. Microsoft just kicked them when they
were
falling.


Would you please enlighten those of us who evidently are not
important
as to who "everyone of importance" is, and, more so, who/what
determines
that "everyone" is important? No doubt there are differing
opinions,
but
to just blithely make such a statement seems to ignore much of
what
actually happened. Does illegal use of monopoly power by ms
ring any
bells as to what really happened to netscape?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf
Looks like far more than just a little kick by ms. YMMV.
-- norm
MS is a monopoly. A quote from this article describes where ms has
run into problems in how it has used the power of its monopoly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices —
the U.S. Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for
antitrust violations and software bundling.[19] The slogan "embrace,
extend, and extinguish" is often used to describe Microsoft's
strategy for entering product categories involving widely-used
standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities,
and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

MS was ruled a monopoly, that ruling was upheld upon appeal and MS
agreed to settlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

 

[Justin]

You seemed to have missed this part under the appeal section:
"However, the appeals court did affirm in part Judge Jackson's ruling on
monopolization."

"IN PART"

It says nothing more.

 

[caver1]

What the heck did any of that have to do with any of this? It seems
like you are branching off in other directions. We're talking about
browsers here.

If you just want to bash MS then go ahead, knock yourself out. I don't
think anyone will care. I could be wrong though.

This is inline with the rest of the thread. AS what MS did to Netscape.

 

[Bruin]

Vista doesn't have to cost any more then XP. XP Pro cost $300 when it was
first released. That would make Vista CHEAPER then XP. Plus, since you
already OWN XP because you didn't STEAL IT then you just need the upgrade
price so you're looking at $99 or $159. Either way Vista is cheaper then
XP so your whole "to expensive" propaganda is BS from the very beginning.
There is NO APP that you currently have that requires Ultimate. So quit
flip-flopping on your basis of argument and quit whining about things you
can't afford.

Calm the **** down. Now that I am seeing Vista actually for sale, I am
seeing pricing that you are talking about. There are already OEM versions
available. When the time comes that I require Vista I am sure I can get
the pricing I want. Academic versions rock.
The pricing I got so angry about was the what was published in the media.
However, Vista Business (upgrade or OEM) costs more than what XP Pro
(upgrade or OEM) cost at release. $300 for XP Pro was the full retail
version.

You wrongly claim that you have apps you NEED to run when in fact you WANT
to run them. There is a HUGE difference!

errrr exactly how would you know what apps I need to run? There is one
piece of software I do NOT want to run, & that's Vista, until I am forced to
run it. From the very beginning I have stated that it would be 2 to 3
years before I will be forced to upgrade. If I was given a copy today for
free, the only place it would get loaded would be on a Virtual PC, just for
fun.

I almost want to assume that your mind is rather clouded and I'm sure we
can all figure out what exactly that "cloud" is made up of.

"we" ? "cloud"? Your the one claiming that you know what I need or want to
run on my machines. Maybe you should turn down that talk radio, it's
rotting your brain.

 

[caver1]

1. What does AT&T have to do with this discussion? That was a patent case.
2. I never said MS was great. Quit making things up.

Just showing you a track record of MS stealing others property.

 

[Justin]

You gave ONE record. Please provide the entire TRACK record.

 

[Justin]

I've already read all I could possibly read regarding the NS case. Nothing
you said holds water. I guess I either didn't "wake up" enough nor am I
"serious" enough for you. Oh well.

 

[caver1]

You gave ONE record. Please provide the entire TRACK record.

Do you own research or stay blind.

 

[Justin]

Sure.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft+theft+track+record

More leaks in your stories.

We all know the drill, MS steals from everyone. Especially Apple. Blah
blah blah.