If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Teacherjh wrote:
1: Several OSs work better than Windows. Windows is just sort-of adequate. Adequate is good enough for Americans. Oh, yeah. Thanks a bunch for pointing that out to all of us. Of course, that's why everyone is using them (NOT). 2: Consumer "acceptance" has squat to do with quality. It has to do with marketing and compatibility. In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, CriticalMass said:
By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here. Or maybe by going to every major computer maker in the world and telling them "If you sell even ONE computer without Windows on it, we're going to quintuple the price you pay on the ones that do have Windows on it". And thus, they went from having a large market share to gaining a monopoly by illegal means. You don't believe me, read the transcripts from the anti-trust trial. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- [unknown] |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In article , CriticalMass
wrote: In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace. complete nonsense. marketing is the key. ms is the proof. -- Bob Noel |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
CriticalMass wrote:
Andrew Gideon wrote: Anyway, even if you were correct in your assertion that MSFT achieved its monopoly through reasonable and legal means, that does nothing about the assertion that they've abused said monopoly. Or does this distinction still escape you? It does. That's a shame. As you'd know if you actually followed any of this, how a monopoly was achieved has nothing to do with whether or not it is abused after having been achieved. That is, there's nothing wrong with acquiring a monopoly (assuming nothing illegal was done en route). But *abusing* it is a crime. By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here. You really do need to look further into this if you're going to be making statements like this in public. It'll save you some embarassment. There are several ways that the monopoly was achieved. My opinion is that the most important was the first step: that IBM - having its own DOJ problems around the same time - effectively endorsed the MSFT product while leaving it free to compete with IBM. The endorsement from IBM - "nobody gets fired for buying IBM", I hope you recall - went a long way towards acceptance in the business community. Once the relationship with IBM was established, but after the clones started coming out, MSFT negotiated deals with the vendors that precluded their use of any other OS (in actuality or effectively through pricing). Any company wanting to compete with IBM in the PC market had to agree to this contract. The vendors also had to pay for the MSFT license even if a machine was sold w/o. Thus, there was no incentive even to sell a "naked" machine. Most people discuss this issue, as it is illegal behavior for a monopoly (but not for a company not a monopoly, note {8^). They discuss it because it is what became the crime. But I still find the original granting of the monopoly by IBM more fascinating. I cannot imagine why IBM would make that type of mistake...and so I wonder if this was a result of the DOJ's case against IBM for abuse of monopoly. Was this some legal tactic on IBM's part? The argument that "no one had any other choice", which you and others apparently try to make, is intellectually vacant, given that there were never any market forces preventing potential competitors from entering the fray and providing competing OSes. It was all about being compatible with IBM...which did preclude any choice other than MSFT. C'mon. Where does this bashing "the ones that make it" ever end? Gates built a better mousetrap. "Built"? You don't even know the genesis of PC-DOS? Get over it. You don't want to use it? That's fine with me. Load up Linux or something equally as goofy, and see what software apps there are out there you can run. It's your choice, big guy. Just don't try to argue that MS is junk simply because it's the biggest dog on the block. That's not a defensible position. That's absolutely true. A monopolistic product could still be a quality product. Any arguments that the MSFT product is poor must be made on grounds like the lack of security, the insufficient memory protection, the bloated kernel, etc. In my view, MS has done nothing but what any other creative company in similar circumstances would do - innovate. My cat thinks I'm God. She's about as correct as you, for the same reasons: insufficient information for intelligent analysis. What innovation? The GUI comes from Xerox, the kernel didn't have 1970s technology for safe multiprocessing until the 1990s, it's a step backwards in engineering to bundle the UI and the kernel, ... so what innovation? The only innovations I've seen have been on the business side...and these have tended to end up in court. Enron was innovative too, I suppose? - Andrew |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace. complete nonsense. marketing is the key. ms is the proof. The thing with MS is that they use to make good products but they have gotten lazy. Anyone here remember Word Perfect 5.0, Ami Pro and Word Star? You pretty much had to either recieve special training to use them or get one of hose quick key sheets to put over teh function keys When word game out (the GUI verison) it changed everything. Same with lotus vs. quatro pro(sp) vs. excel. MS came to be on top my making a better product. ONCE they got on top they started to use that fact to crush anyone/thing that even looked like a treat. MS products are just plain buggy. winXP has thousands of know bugs (MS lists them) and security is a joke. What they currently do is release beta software as v1.0, then send out service packs and LOTS of updates. So love them or hate them MS got where it is legally. But they have also used that position do carry out illegal actions. As for VALUE per DOLLAR, that would be linux. It's free, and sun office is also free. But most people are not that PC savy, they want to buy a box, plug it in an go, and you can't quite do that with linux yet (getting really really close but still not yet). I recently helped a small busniess setup an all linux LAN for about $75! Try doing that with MS As pointed out by others the best product doesn't always raise to the top. Beta was a better standard than VHS but Sony was stupid. Atari made a better PC than apple or IMB (back in the day) but again... Anyone remember amiga... MS deserves to be on top because they fought to get there, that doesn't mean they make the best product; nor does it mean that they didn't use being on top to illegally pressure other companies. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article , 'Vejita' S. Cousin
wrote: The thing with MS is that they use to make good products but they have gotten lazy. Anyone here remember Word Perfect 5.0, Ami Pro and Word Star? You pretty much had to either recieve special training to use them or get one of hose quick key sheets to put over teh function keys When word game out (the GUI verison) it changed everything. Word has *always* been a GUI word processor, and it came out as a Macintosh application first, way back in 1984. Word for Windows wasn't released until 3 years later. And you're absolutely right -- they used to make really good software, at least on the application front. Actually, most of their application software is still terrific -- I just find their OS to be abysmal. -- Garner R. Miller ATP/CFII/MEI Manchester, CT =USA= |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Associate Publisher Wanted - Aviation & Business Journals | Mergatroide | General Aviation | 1 | January 13th 04 08:26 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Concorde Finally Goes Bust!!! | Larry Fransson | General Aviation | 10 | November 11th 03 05:03 AM |
Aviation Conspiracy: AP Reveals Series Of Boeing 777 Fires!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 18 | October 16th 03 09:15 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
Aviation Historian and Photographer Bill Larkins | Wayne Sagar | Military Aviation | 0 | July 12th 03 06:05 PM |