Shenan Stanley said:arachnid said:*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."
No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if
they had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows
would not be as large because there is no way of proving that they
would not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small
little niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have
been larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to
sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just
doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good
computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you
know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.
Even with that (if not fictional) - they were still not forced to do
anything *by Microsoft* but by their own pocket books and greed.
They could have said, "You need us as much as we need you. We'll drop
you like *that*."
If everything above is true - they did not - and you cannot convince
me it was because of some agreement or threat.
They didn't become big just by riding Microsoft's coat-tails, nor
vice-versa.
Would a large vendor actually just doing what they want have an
impact? Yeah.. I think so.
Why didn't they (if the above is factual)?
Lack of saq or fear of having a hard time and not raking in as much
money from the other sheep?
If everything you posted is true, the hardware vendors and OEMs had no
intestinal fortitude and deserved to be run over just like other
entities with no intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they want
instead of letting others decide for them or because it is the easy
way out/in and they can make a bunch of money.
How it got to the point it is at doesn't really matter. It's there.
Until someone does something about it more than blabber on that "their
belief is 100% right, your belief is 100% wrong" - it's going to stay
the way it is. Status quo. Stagnant. The proof is in the articles
being quoted. 2001? With one comment as late as June 2002? Welcome
to the end of 2006. 'Go Go Gadget Change!'
Proving other corporations/entities are weak and can be bullied (if
anything posted above is legitimate - most of the references no longer
exist or are in Dutch - I think...) does nothing for any cause other
than prove that most are greedy sheep that will do whatever it takes
to get what they want and those who may not fall into that category
are willing to sit around and chat about it for years instead of
actually doing anything (beyond chatting about it for years.)
Martha said:What planet does Shenan Stanley live on? ??
Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2006 Nov 13]
The other interesting things is how it brings out the worst in
everyone. There ends up being little logic and much emotion. People
accusing or misinterpretations that crop up. Most everyone
ends up on the defensive instead of discussing and trying to come
to some reasonable compromise they could present in some logical
fashion. It turns into "my belief is right, your belief is wrong"
and with those blinders on - nothing ever gets done. For either
side of whatever the topic of the day might be...
Gregg said:The financial effect on the manufacturer is the same. If you pay
for one and use four, it has the same financial impact on their
bank account and yours. They are out the price for three units,
and you have gained the price of three units by not having that
amount taken from your account. You have gained financially,
negating your "fair use" claim.
Well, I'm about to gain a bunch of money by not buying Vista. Will
MS sue me for using Ubuntu instead? The reason I am switching is
their unfair EULA and buggy, draconian kill switch, phone home
anti consumer crap. So, using your "logic", I will be "stealing"
the money I don't spend at MS for Vista.
Shenan said:Actually - you cannot apply Gregg's logic in your case.
Gregg used one manufacturer/one product in his example.
I suppose Microsoft and Windows.
You used two manufacturers/products.
I suppose Microsoft/Ubuntu and Windows/Ubuntu (Linux for Humans).
If you purchase nothing from a single manufacturer and use nothing
from a single manufacturer, you did not "steal" anything from
them, you simply denied them their sale. You have that right as a
consumer. You do not *have* to buy and/or use anything you don't
wish to.
If you purchase one product from one manufacturer and use that one
product from one manufacturer in the fashion stated as legitimate
by said manufacturer - then you got what you paid for.
If you download one free (open-source) product from one
manufacturer and use that one product from one manufacturer many
times over (open-source generally allows that, by definition) -
then you got what you thought you would.
In other words - what I get out of Gregg's "logic" (example you
quoted Gregg as having said) is:
-----
If you purchase something from a company that is easily 'copied'
so that you could use it in multiple places, but said company
infers (or directly states) as part of using that single item, if
you want to use it again elsewhere - you will have to buy another,
but you choose to ignore that agreement and use it multiple times
- you are denying the company the income from said item you are
getting use out of. If the company made no such
inference/statement - then you aren't taking anything from anyone
- but using said product as intended. -----
Is the Windows OS over-priced?
That's subjective, but in comparison to "free", yes.
Could Microsoft make some better 'packages', such as selling a less
expensive "family license"?
Sure - Apple does it with their single license OS X costing $129
and a family '5-pack' costing $199.
Has Microsoft done some bad things?
Made bad choices?
Implemented bad policies and enforcement methods?
Yes.
Is the EULA that comes with Microsoft Products possibly unfair?
Could be.
Do consumers have choices other than Microsoft for their OS/other
products? Yes.
What I always find interesting about these threads (other than the
fact they get so long and seem to be religious arguments) is that
some people say they are changing to another OS (have been for who
knows how long) and others say how unfair the EULA is and how
strongly they are against it and/or how unfair it is you do not
get to read the EULA before you purchase the product(s) and/or how
hard it is to return (if they even can) after they have
opened/used the product - but those same people state how they
have several computers with several legitimately purchased
licenses of Windows. If they didn't agree with it the first time -
why'd they buy another copy (or several more copies) that they
know will have the same agreement?
There's nothing *technical* keeping someone from doing that. Sure
- switching to a new OS - there in-lies some technical know-how
and/or training. However - after years of legitimately using the
other product (sometimes in several locations) - they seem
suddenly interested/intentioned to switch to some other product.
The other interesting things is how it brings out the worst in
everyone. There ends up being little logic and much emotion. People
accusing or misinterpretations that crop up. Most everyone
ends up on the defensive instead of discussing and trying to come
to some reasonable compromise they could present in some logical
fashion. It turns into "my belief is right, your belief is wrong"
and with those blinders on - nothing ever gets done. For either
side of whatever the topic of the day might be...
Nina said:Consumers may have a choice, but it is not really a
choice. Let me explain. For things that there is a choice for, I
have at least been testing on Linux for years already. Such as
media center, here we run MythTV on Fedora Core 5. We run
apache web server and samba file sharing services on our linux
server. On my linux machine, I can post to usenet, get email, browse the
web, listen to music, and do all the basic things I can
do on my Windows machine. But lets face it, depending on how
much you use some applications/games that work only on
Windows, Linux is not equal in all aspects.
If MS hadn't forced all the major OEMs to sell only Windows on their
machines, we would have a real choice today (Like OS2Warp for
example) which could run all the same apps and games as Windows
without an emulator.
See what I mean?
All of my XP machines here at home are OEM machines purchased with
the OS preinstalled. That is why I am still in license compliancy.
Shenan said:*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if they
had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows would
not be as large because there is no way of proving that they would
not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small little
niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have been
larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to sell
that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just doesn't
present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good computer
and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you know. You
have to do it by phone for most configurations - but you can do it.
OEM's chose to go with Windows because that was what sold - what
was easy for Joe-user to understand and utilize. It was what was
widely available at the time. There is a whole host of things -
but the OEMs were not forced by *Microsoft* to choose them. They
could have walked away. They may have had to agree to things
afterwards in order to participate in and get benefits from the OEM
programs - but they were not forced to become part of the OEM
programs (or stay a part of them) of Microsoft's by anything other
than their own bottom line. They chose. Perhaps it was the only
choice they could make and still eat/feed their family - but supply
and demand played a role there. Consumers wanted computers that
were easy to use and that ran all the software they had seen and
could easily acquire/use. Windows did this. *nix and OS X and
BeOS and OS/2 Warp (which ran my DOS games like a cheetah on crack
I might add.. And yes - that is a good thing) did not offer the
consumers what they wanted, so being a person whose livelihood
depended on it meant selling what the consumers wanted and/or (in
reality) you knew they would have to have tin order to do what they
wanted with their system and then maybe come back to you and
recommend you so you can make more money.
When I sold computers for many years - I did not sell OEM products.
I told my customers they would be getting retail software - so they
would have more choice and freedom as their computers aged. I had
few - if any - arguments about the extra $100 or more - depending
on the products they chose. I chose to educate my consumers and/or
sold to those who chose to educate themselves on the few options
available to them. However - most resellers/computer shop owners
look at the bottom line. The cheaper they get their machine out
there - the more they stand to make (because of increased sales to
an uninformed (and mostly uninterested) public and because they
spent less, but can charge the same in some cases.) It only makes
sense. Business sense. There's almost always a niche market
somewhere - but in OSes - those niches are not usually enough to
feed a family. heh
I know of many OEMs (anyone can be an OEM - that just means
"Original Equipment Manufacturer") that have chosen not to sell
Windows XP. It's happened many times over the years and many OEMs
actually do give a choice other than Microsoft OSes - some you
think do not actually do - if you call them and don't just
"click-click" your way through the order. Joe-Home-User will not
do this. Joe-Home-User does not usually know enough to do this and
they may discover they wouldn't choose to do this anyway, because
of what their stated purpose is for the computer and how much time
they are willing (and able) to put into using the system when they
get it.
It is a question - in the end - of usability. No matter how it
happened (lethargy on the part of competitors, luck, good timing,
business sense, "mob-like" tactics, combination of all of these,
whatever) - Microsoft is the dominant OS. If you want to sell
computers to Joe-Home-User and eat off the profits, you choose to
sell (at least offer) the OS that has the most return for thje
end-consumer. If you manufacturer software to make your living,
you create it for the OS that is out there en-masse. Doesn't mean
you cannot sell the other operating systems. Doesn't mean you
cannot manufacturer your software for other OSes. Just means you
didn't choose the path of least resistance.
That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.
In the end - it always comes back to what the end-consumers want
and if there is a viable choice available and marketed to
end-consumers. Sure - there are some manipulative games one can
play to push that in their favorable direction for them - but that
avenue is open to everyone involved. Happens every day. If the
end-consumers don't care and expect the one that screames the
loudest at them to be the one they need - that's what they buy and
you get the situation you are in now.
You can argue back-and-forth here all you want - but what it comes
down to is the end-consumer.
If they don't buy it, then there is nothing to sell.
If today - all consumers decided they were not going to buy Vista -
they were going to sit down and learn *nix, Mac OS X, etc.. Then
the trend would shift. Software writers would start writing for
whatever OS begins to be "the market leader" and the end-consumers
could just continue using their Windows XP OS for the necessities
until the shift had been made far enough to get rid of the old
clunker and use only the new OS and all the new apps
written/adapted for it.
Will it happen? Doubtful. Humans are lazy. If it works, is there
- can be "improved upon" and some of the old stuff continue to work
for a while - yeah - they'll go down the easy path. Could it
happen? Sure. My doubtful does not close the door. Not all human
beings are lazy. Some people like learning and adapting (I hope
they still exist - or we have reached extinction and all this is
moot anyway.) The choices are there. The ability to take and run
with those choices are there. There is nothing one
corporation/person can do about any of this either way. It comes
down to the choice of many people. Microsoft did not build their
"empire" alone. Lots of people made the choice to help add a brick
or two. Millions of people have decided in the end. (end-consumers,
software writers, system builders, larger
resellers, you name it..)
As for all of your machines having been purchased with the OS
pre-installed... and you being in compliance - etc. I don't care.
I really don't. Pirate, don't pirate, use Windows, use *nux/OS
X/etc - although it may have an effect on me indirectly - I choose
to not care what you do/use. If you did business with me and I
only had Linux and Open-Office - things might be different. Otherwise -
you will make up your mind and then me discussing it
until my fingers bleed from typing is not going to serve any
purpose. It's cool that you did that. It's cool that you chose to
buy your systems with the OS preinstalled. It's cool that you
choose to use applications that run on those systems. Heck - it's
cool that you choose to use other operating systems daily too. It
kinda sucks that your choices have been somewhat limited by the
choice of millions before you. That is the choice of what OS to
run and the choice of what applications you can utilize (because
you have to be using what everyone else is using or risk not being
able to do business/communicate with them and possibly not eat.)
However - know in the end that it was your choice to buy the system
that came pre-installed with a Microsoft OS. Know that, with a
little effort, you could have made a different choice. Yes - it
would have made things tougher on you, it could have caused you
grief when using your computer to communicate with others for
personal or business reasons. You would (possibly) have had to
come up with work-arounds for choosing to be different than
everyone else. And you might have folded at some point because you
saw the rest of the world was not going to change the way you hoped
and you grew tired of adapting to work with it while maintaining
your uniqueness. It all could have happened. Or it all could not
have.
Maybe you walk everywhere - or ride a bike (non-motorized). Maybe
your car is all electric or a hybrid. Maybe you make your own
bio-diesel from the McDonald's leftover grease. Perhaps you use
solar power or some alternative in your home. Maybe you buy only
naturally grown produce (no pesticides, etc.) Use only eggs from
chickens that ate natural food and either eat no meat or only eat
meat from cows who grazed on grass/wheat/etc. Maybe you chose
beta-max instead of VHS.. Perhaps you invested in laser-disc. Maybe you
use natural gas to heat your home and your hot water. Maybe you have made
your choices to be unique all the way and just
folded when it comes to the Operating System that runs on your
computer <- I don't know.
In the end - they are all still your choices. Doesn't matter how
much effort you might have had to put in to make them, the choices
exist. They may not be as heavily marketed as some others - but
someone decided to make the tougher ones or the alternatives
wouldn't exist at all - at least not for very long. There's is
always a choice. Just because one or more is not easy does not
mean you shouldn't take that path.Shenan Stanley wrote:
*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."
No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.
Yeah, real nice guys, those Microsoft Boys.
Shenan said:Did anyone who is arguing "fair use" in this thread ever give their
definition?
(May have - might have missed it - the thread has gotten a bit - just a
tad - long.)
One that is cited on a few pages (a FEW - not a single web page floating out
there in cyberspace - but a few)?
I'd be curious as to compare the idea of fair use in different areas of the
world as defined by different sets of laws. To see the similarities and
dive deeper in to the differences and why they might exist in one place but
not another.
Throw some out there. I did a search and found some interesting discussions
on the subject - some in great length. But as that seems to have become
more of a focus here - I think it would be only fair to compare and contrast
actual accepted definitions.
Shenan said:Did anyone who is arguing "fair use" in this thread ever give their
definition?
(May have - might have missed it - the thread has gotten a bit -
just a tad - long.)
One that is cited on a few pages (a FEW - not a single web page
floating out there in cyberspace - but a few)?
I'd be curious as to compare the idea of fair use in different
areas of the world as defined by different sets of laws. To see
the similarities and dive deeper in to the differences and why
they might exist in one place but not another.
Throw some out there. I did a search and found some interesting
discussions on the subject - some in great length. But as that
seems to have become more of a focus here - I think it would be
only fair to compare and contrast actual accepted definitions.
Bruce said:"Fair Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't apply in any of the
above discussion. (It isn't even relevant, in this particular
discussion.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Release date: 2004-04-30
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
above factors.
Gregg said:I understand what you mean, but you miss my point. You STILL have a choice
in what to do while still remaining ethical. You can choose to use Windows
within the bounds of the EULA, or you can choose to use something else. The
fact that the "something else" is not as capable is irrelevant.
If you feel
that you need to use Windows, do so within the EULA restrictions, or wait
until someone develops a product that equals or excels it.
You say that, "depending on how much you use some applications/games that
work only on Windows, Linux is not equal in all aspects." Well, then don't
use those applications and games. This is YOUR CHOICE, while remaining
ethical: to use them on Windows within the bounds of the EULA, or wait until
Linux can handle your needs.
The OEMs were not "forced" to sell only Windows. They were told that if they
wnated to sell Windows, they had to do so exclusively. The OEMs CHOSE to
follow that limitation, because theyknew they coul dmake more money that way
than they could if they sold a less-capable (according to you) and less
popular operating system such as Linux. There was no FORCE involved. Yes,
there was some bullying, but they still had the choice.
Gregg said:I would choose NOT to buy the CD.
Gregg
arachnid said:*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at
my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft made it
lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD)
next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If you, as a PC OEM,
don't use the Windows boot manager or configure it to load Linux or
BeOS, you lose your Windows license and you're dead. That's why you
can't buy a multi-OS machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else
for that matter. (Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not
one that runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows OEMs
to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their machines: "We
end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge
the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it
when the computer is first booted, and the license is free. Help us
put a crack in the wall."
Do a careful examination of the OEM license agreements.No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was analyzed
by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned computer
magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License"
agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the
computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read
and click "I Accept" when installing Windows. This license is not
available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by
Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating
system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a
boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux.
The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install
on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head?
Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead,
Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include
Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated.
Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford
to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever
alternative they might want to offer.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had planned
to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by bundling IE for
"free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail, forbidding OEMs to
remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows to kill
DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS. Then to finish
the job they did the same thing they did to Netscape, bundling MSDOS into
Windows so that nobody needed to buy DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks, Microsoft
threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has stated outright that
they decided not to license OS/2 after all because of Microsoft's
intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to blackmail OEMS
into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its bootloader out, or
otherwise making it invisible and difficult for consumers to boot.
Proving other corporations/entities are weak and can be bullied (if anything
posted above is legitimate - most of the references no longer exist or are
in Dutch - I think...) does nothing for any cause other than prove that most
are greedy sheep that will do whatever it takes to get what they want and
those who may not fall into that category are willing to sit around and chat
about it for years instead of actually doing anything (beyond chatting about
it for years.)
Linonut said:You're not a greedy sheep, are you, MVP boy?
The other interesting things is how it brings out the worst in
everyone. There ends up being little logic and much emotion. People
accusing or misinterpretations that crop up. Most everyone
ends up on the defensive instead of discussing and trying to come
to some reasonable compromise they could present in some logical
fashion. It turns into "my belief is right, your belief is wrong"
and with those blinders on - nothing ever gets done. For either
side of whatever the topic of the day might be...
Gregg said:The financial effect on the manufacturer is the same. If you pay
for one and use four, it has the same financial impact on their
bank account and yours. They are out the price for three units,
and you have gained the price of three units by not having that
amount taken from your account. You have gained financially,
negating your "fair use" claim.
Well, I'm about to gain a bunch of money by not buying Vista. Will
MS sue me for using Ubuntu instead? The reason I am switching is
their unfair EULA and buggy, draconian kill switch, phone home
anti consumer crap. So, using your "logic", I will be "stealing"
the money I don't spend at MS for Vista.
Shenan said:Actually - you cannot apply Gregg's logic in your case.
Gregg used one manufacturer/one product in his example.
I suppose Microsoft and Windows.
You used two manufacturers/products.
I suppose Microsoft/Ubuntu and Windows/Ubuntu (Linux for Humans).
If you purchase nothing from a single manufacturer and use nothing
from a single manufacturer, you did not "steal" anything from
them, you simply denied them their sale. You have that right as a
consumer. You do not *have* to buy and/or use anything you don't
wish to.
If you purchase one product from one manufacturer and use that one
product from one manufacturer in the fashion stated as legitimate
by said manufacturer - then you got what you paid for.
If you download one free (open-source) product from one
manufacturer and use that one product from one manufacturer many
times over (open-source generally allows that, by definition) -
then you got what you thought you would.
In other words - what I get out of Gregg's "logic" (example you
quoted Gregg as having said) is:
-----
If you purchase something from a company that is easily 'copied'
so that you could use it in multiple places, but said company
infers (or directly states) as part of using that single item, if
you want to use it again elsewhere - you will have to buy another,
but you choose to ignore that agreement and use it multiple times
- you are denying the company the income from said item you are
getting use out of. If the company made no such
inference/statement - then you aren't taking anything from anyone
- but using said product as intended. -----
Is the Windows OS over-priced?
That's subjective, but in comparison to "free", yes.
Could Microsoft make some better 'packages', such as selling a less
expensive "family license"?
Sure - Apple does it with their single license OS X costing $129
and a family '5-pack' costing $199.
Has Microsoft done some bad things?
Made bad choices?
Implemented bad policies and enforcement methods?
Yes.
Is the EULA that comes with Microsoft Products possibly unfair?
Could be.
Do consumers have choices other than Microsoft for their OS/other
products? Yes.
What I always find interesting about these threads (other than the
fact they get so long and seem to be religious arguments) is that
some people say they are changing to another OS (have been for who
knows how long) and others say how unfair the EULA is and how
strongly they are against it and/or how unfair it is you do not
get to read the EULA before you purchase the product(s) and/or how
hard it is to return (if they even can) after they have
opened/used the product - but those same people state how they
have several computers with several legitimately purchased
licenses of Windows. If they didn't agree with it the first time -
why'd they buy another copy (or several more copies) that they
know will have the same agreement?
There's nothing *technical* keeping someone from doing that. Sure
- switching to a new OS - there in-lies some technical know-how
and/or training. However - after years of legitimately using the
other product (sometimes in several locations) - they seem
suddenly interested/intentioned to switch to some other product.
The other interesting things is how it brings out the worst in
everyone. There ends up being little logic and much emotion. People
accusing or misinterpretations that crop up. Most everyone
ends up on the defensive instead of discussing and trying to come
to some reasonable compromise they could present in some logical
fashion. It turns into "my belief is right, your belief is wrong"
and with those blinders on - nothing ever gets done. For either
side of whatever the topic of the day might be...
Nina said:Consumers may have a choice, but it is not really a
choice. Let me explain. For things that there is a choice for, I
have at least been testing on Linux for years already. Such as
media center, here we run MythTV on Fedora Core 5. We run
apache web server and samba file sharing services on our linux
server. On my linux machine, I can post to usenet, get email, browse the
web, listen to music, and do all the basic things I can
do on my Windows machine. But lets face it, depending on how
much you use some applications/games that work only on
Windows, Linux is not equal in all aspects.
If MS hadn't forced all the major OEMs to sell only Windows on their
machines, we would have a real choice today (Like OS2Warp for
example) which could run all the same apps and games as Windows
without an emulator.
See what I mean?
All of my XP machines here at home are OEM machines purchased with
the OS preinstalled. That is why I am still in license compliancy.
Shenan said:*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if they
had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows would
not be as large because there is no way of proving that they would
not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small little
niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have been
larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to sell
that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just doesn't
present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good computer
and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you know. You
have to do it by phone for most configurations - but you can do it.
OEM's chose to go with Windows because that was what sold - what
was easy for Joe-user to understand and utilize. It was what was
widely available at the time. There is a whole host of things -
but the OEMs were not forced by *Microsoft* to choose them. They
could have walked away. They may have had to agree to things
afterwards in order to participate in and get benefits from the OEM
programs - but they were not forced to become part of the OEM
programs (or stay a part of them) of Microsoft's by anything other
than their own bottom line. They chose. Perhaps it was the only
choice they could make and still eat/feed their family - but supply
and demand played a role there. Consumers wanted computers that
were easy to use and that ran all the software they had seen and
could easily acquire/use. Windows did this. *nix and OS X and
BeOS and OS/2 Warp (which ran my DOS games like a cheetah on crack
I might add.. And yes - that is a good thing) did not offer the
consumers what they wanted, so being a person whose livelihood
depended on it meant selling what the consumers wanted and/or (in
reality) you knew they would have to have tin order to do what they
wanted with their system and then maybe come back to you and
recommend you so you can make more money.
When I sold computers for many years - I did not sell OEM products.
I told my customers they would be getting retail software - so they
would have more choice and freedom as their computers aged. I had
few - if any - arguments about the extra $100 or more - depending
on the products they chose. I chose to educate my consumers and/or
sold to those who chose to educate themselves on the few options
available to them. However - most resellers/computer shop owners
look at the bottom line. The cheaper they get their machine out
there - the more they stand to make (because of increased sales to
an uninformed (and mostly uninterested) public and because they
spent less, but can charge the same in some cases.) It only makes
sense. Business sense. There's almost always a niche market
somewhere - but in OSes - those niches are not usually enough to
feed a family. heh
I know of many OEMs (anyone can be an OEM - that just means
"Original Equipment Manufacturer") that have chosen not to sell
Windows XP. It's happened many times over the years and many OEMs
actually do give a choice other than Microsoft OSes - some you
think do not actually do - if you call them and don't just
"click-click" your way through the order. Joe-Home-User will not
do this. Joe-Home-User does not usually know enough to do this and
they may discover they wouldn't choose to do this anyway, because
of what their stated purpose is for the computer and how much time
they are willing (and able) to put into using the system when they
get it.
It is a question - in the end - of usability. No matter how it
happened (lethargy on the part of competitors, luck, good timing,
business sense, "mob-like" tactics, combination of all of these,
whatever) - Microsoft is the dominant OS. If you want to sell
computers to Joe-Home-User and eat off the profits, you choose to
sell (at least offer) the OS that has the most return for thje
end-consumer. If you manufacturer software to make your living,
you create it for the OS that is out there en-masse. Doesn't mean
you cannot sell the other operating systems. Doesn't mean you
cannot manufacturer your software for other OSes. Just means you
didn't choose the path of least resistance.
That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.
In the end - it always comes back to what the end-consumers want
and if there is a viable choice available and marketed to
end-consumers. Sure - there are some manipulative games one can
play to push that in their favorable direction for them - but that
avenue is open to everyone involved. Happens every day. If the
end-consumers don't care and expect the one that screames the
loudest at them to be the one they need - that's what they buy and
you get the situation you are in now.
You can argue back-and-forth here all you want - but what it comes
down to is the end-consumer.
If they don't buy it, then there is nothing to sell.
If today - all consumers decided they were not going to buy Vista -
they were going to sit down and learn *nix, Mac OS X, etc.. Then
the trend would shift. Software writers would start writing for
whatever OS begins to be "the market leader" and the end-consumers
could just continue using their Windows XP OS for the necessities
until the shift had been made far enough to get rid of the old
clunker and use only the new OS and all the new apps
written/adapted for it.
Will it happen? Doubtful. Humans are lazy. If it works, is there
- can be "improved upon" and some of the old stuff continue to work
for a while - yeah - they'll go down the easy path. Could it
happen? Sure. My doubtful does not close the door. Not all human
beings are lazy. Some people like learning and adapting (I hope
they still exist - or we have reached extinction and all this is
moot anyway.) The choices are there. The ability to take and run
with those choices are there. There is nothing one
corporation/person can do about any of this either way. It comes
down to the choice of many people. Microsoft did not build their
"empire" alone. Lots of people made the choice to help add a brick
or two. Millions of people have decided in the end. (end-consumers,
software writers, system builders, larger
resellers, you name it..)
As for all of your machines having been purchased with the OS
pre-installed... and you being in compliance - etc. I don't care.
I really don't. Pirate, don't pirate, use Windows, use *nux/OS
X/etc - although it may have an effect on me indirectly - I choose
to not care what you do/use. If you did business with me and I
only had Linux and Open-Office - things might be different. Otherwise -
you will make up your mind and then me discussing it
until my fingers bleed from typing is not going to serve any
purpose. It's cool that you did that. It's cool that you chose to
buy your systems with the OS preinstalled. It's cool that you
choose to use applications that run on those systems. Heck - it's
cool that you choose to use other operating systems daily too. It
kinda sucks that your choices have been somewhat limited by the
choice of millions before you. That is the choice of what OS to
run and the choice of what applications you can utilize (because
you have to be using what everyone else is using or risk not being
able to do business/communicate with them and possibly not eat.)
However - know in the end that it was your choice to buy the system
that came pre-installed with a Microsoft OS. Know that, with a
little effort, you could have made a different choice. Yes - it
would have made things tougher on you, it could have caused you
grief when using your computer to communicate with others for
personal or business reasons. You would (possibly) have had to
come up with work-arounds for choosing to be different than
everyone else. And you might have folded at some point because you
saw the rest of the world was not going to change the way you hoped
and you grew tired of adapting to work with it while maintaining
your uniqueness. It all could have happened. Or it all could not
have.
Maybe you walk everywhere - or ride a bike (non-motorized). Maybe
your car is all electric or a hybrid. Maybe you make your own
bio-diesel from the McDonald's leftover grease. Perhaps you use
solar power or some alternative in your home. Maybe you buy only
naturally grown produce (no pesticides, etc.) Use only eggs from
chickens that ate natural food and either eat no meat or only eat
meat from cows who grazed on grass/wheat/etc. Maybe you chose
beta-max instead of VHS.. Perhaps you invested in laser-disc. Maybe you
use natural gas to heat your home and your hot water. Maybe you have made
your choices to be unique all the way and just
folded when it comes to the Operating System that runs on your
computer <- I don't know.
In the end - they are all still your choices. Doesn't matter how
much effort you might have had to put in to make them, the choices
exist. They may not be as heavily marketed as some others - but
someone decided to make the tougher ones or the alternatives
wouldn't exist at all - at least not for very long. There's is
always a choice. Just because one or more is not easy does not
mean you shouldn't take that path.Shenan Stanley wrote:
*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."
No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.
Yeah, real nice guys, those Microsoft Boys.
arachnid said:*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at
my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft made it
lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD)
next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If you, as a PC OEM,
don't use the Windows boot manager or configure it to load Linux or
BeOS, you lose your Windows license and you're dead. That's why you
can't buy a multi-OS machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else
for that matter. (Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not
one that runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows OEMs
to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their machines: "We
end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge
the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it
when the computer is first booted, and the license is free. Help us
put a crack in the wall."
No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License"
agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the
computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read
and click "I Accept" when installing Windows. This license is not
available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by
Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating
system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a
boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or
Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines they
sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head?
Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead,
Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include
Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated.
Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford
to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever
alternative they might want to
offer.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on how
they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as huge if
they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I would think
not, however. You cannot use the argument that if they had chose to
sell something other than Windows - that Windows would not be as large
because there is no way of proving that they would not have just gone
out of business or stayed in their small little niche market. Nor can
you say that another OS would have been larger than Windows if one of
the "major" OEMs had chose to sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices
to consumers - it just doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell,
spec yourself a good computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You
can do it you know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations
- but you can do it.That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS, anything
could have happened. There were so many ways the market could have
gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS XXII or something.
But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say that there wouldn't be
people complaining in the same manner as they are now if it had. The
names would have changed, perhaps - but no one can say that if
Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS and had gotten to rule over 50%
of the marketplace - people would/would not be complaining now or if
the price points we now associate with their OS (which I mentioned)
would even be in existence.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had planned
to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by bundling IE for
"free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail, forbidding OEMs to
remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows to
kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS. Then to
finish the job they did the same thing they did to Netscape, bundling
MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks, Microsoft
threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has stated outright
that they decided not to license OS/2 after all because of Microsoft's
intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to blackmail
OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its bootloader
out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for consumers to
boot.
Even with that (if not fictional) - they were still not forced to do
anything *by Microsoft* but by their own pocket books and greed.
They could have said, "You need us as much as we need you. We'll drop
you like *that*."
If everything above is true - they did not - and you cannot convince me
it was because of some agreement or threat.
They didn't become big just by riding Microsoft's coat-tails, nor
vice-versa.
Would a large vendor actually just doing what they want have an impact?
Yeah.. I think so.
Why didn't they (if the above is factual)? Lack of saq or fear of having
a hard time and not raking in as much money from the other sheep?
If everything you posted is true, the hardware vendors and OEMs had no
intestinal fortitude and deserved to be run over just like other
entities with no intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they want
instead of letting others decide for them or because it is the easy way
out/in and they can make a bunch of money.
How it got to the point it is at doesn't really matter. It's there.
Until someone does something about it more than blabber on that "their
belief is 100% right, your belief is 100% wrong" - it's going to stay
the way it is. Status quo. Stagnant. The proof is in the articles
being quoted. 2001? With one comment as late as June 2002? Welcome to
the end of 2006. 'Go Go Gadget Change!'
Proving other corporations/entities are weak and can be bullied (if
anything posted above is legitimate - most of the references no longer
exist or are in Dutch - I think...)
does nothing for any cause other than prove that most are greedy sheep
that will do whatever it takes to get what they want and those who may
not fall into that category are willing to sit around and chat about it
for years instead of actually doing anything (beyond chatting about it
for years.)
arachnid said:Microsoft's secret, ever-changing API's and standards rule out a Windows clone.
Even with that (if not fictional) - they were still not forced to do
anything *by Microsoft* but by their own pocket books and greed.
They could have said, "You need us as much as we need you. We'll drop you
like *that*."
If everything above is true - they did not - and you cannot convince me it
was because of some agreement or threat.
They didn't become big just by riding Microsoft's coat-tails, nor
vice-versa.
Would a large vendor actually just doing what they want have an impact?
Yeah.. I think so.
Why didn't they (if the above is factual)?
Lack of saq or fear of having a hard time and not raking in as much money
from the other sheep?
If everything you posted is true, the hardware vendors and OEMs had no
intestinal fortitude and deserved to be run over just like other entities
with no intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they want instead of
letting others decide for them or because it is the easy way out/in and they
can make a bunch of money.
How it got to the point it is at doesn't really matter. It's there. Until
someone does something about it more than blabber on that "their belief is
100% right, your belief is 100% wrong" - it's going to stay the way it is.
Status quo. Stagnant. The proof is in the articles being quoted. 2001?
With one comment as late as June 2002? Welcome to the end of 2006. 'Go Go
Gadget Change!'
Standards? What standards? You mean there are standards for Windows
behavior? Too bad nobody adheres to them, or maybe we wouldn't all be
drowning in buggy software and blue screens here in M$land.
Then after they had their competitors stopped MS started turning thearachnid said:*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:
I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at
my expense -- I deserve it.
While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft made it
lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD)
next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If you, as a PC OEM,
don't use the Windows boot manager or configure it to load Linux or
BeOS, you lose your Windows license and you're dead. That's why you
can't buy a multi-OS machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else
for that matter. (Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not
one that runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]
In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows OEMs
to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their machines: "We
end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge
the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it
when the computer is first booted, and the license is free. Help us
put a crack in the wall."
No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was analyzed
by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned computer
magazine BYTE [5]:
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License"
agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the
computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read
and click "I Accept" when installing Windows. This license is not
available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by
Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating
system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a
boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux.
The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install
on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head?
Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead,
Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include
Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated.
Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford
to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever
alternative they might want to offer.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on how
they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as huge if
they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I would think not,
however. You cannot use the argument that if they had chose to sell
something other than Windows - that Windows would not be as large
because there is no way of proving that they would not have just gone
out of business or stayed in their small little niche market. Nor can
you say that another OS would have been larger than Windows if one of
the "major" OEMs had chose to sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices
to consumers - it just doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec
yourself a good computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do
it you know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS, anything
could have happened. There were so many ways the market could have
gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS XXII or something.
But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say that there wouldn't be
people complaining in the same manner as they are now if it had. The
names would have changed, perhaps - but no one can say that if Macintosh
OS had become the dominate OS and had gotten to rule over 50% of the
marketplace - people would/would not be complaining now or if the price
points we now associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be
in existence.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had planned
to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by bundling IE for
"free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail, forbidding OEMs to
remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install Netscape.
It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows to kill
DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS. Then to finish
the job they did the same thing they did to Netscape, bundling MSDOS into
Windows so that nobody needed to buy DRDOS.
It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks, Microsoft
threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has stated outright that
they decided not to license OS/2 after all because of Microsoft's
intimidation.
It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to blackmail OEMS
into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its bootloader out, or
otherwise making it invisible and difficult for consumers to boot.
Gregg said:Going beyond? Dude, we went beyond a LONG time back!
Gregg
Gregg said:As I said, I never accused everyone of being a pirate, "...only those who
use one license to install on many computers, regardless of whether or not
they get caught, and whether or not anyone sees them click to agree to the
EULA.
A pirate is someone who profits from it. I agree. Anyone who installs it on
multiple computers with one license has not bought the other licenses, and
as far as their bank account is concerned, they have profited.
Gregg
Gregg said:Read the EULA. If it is OEM software, it is tied to the computer on which it
was first sold. They do that because the OEM version costs the consumer less
than the retail version. If you have the retail package, you can remove it
and install it on a new computer without it being illegal. You just
reactivate it. I have done that many times, and only rarely did it fail to
re-activate, at which point a 15-minute call to MS got me up and running.
That is one reason why I never buy an OEM server OS for my clients.
Gregg Hill
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.