Leave the XPers alone

[lucidguy]

<< What monopoly? Microsoft is not a monopoly. >>



Microsoft is a monopoly. Judge Jackson ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly, and until and unless an appeals court overturns this decision, Microsoft is and will remain a branded monopoly by the US Justice system.

At this point in time, if you ask whether Microsoft is a monopoly, the answer is yes. Courts have ruled it a monopoly, and the decision has not been overturned.

 

[Noriaki]

Just for the record:
Bah. The US courts also ruled OJ Simpson was innocent. And awarded some old millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee on herself. They've also sent people to jail for beating a burgler while in his house.

I could give two sh*ts what the US justice system thinks about anything.

Nevertheless I will concede you the point. Microsoft is a monopoly.

Still you didn't answer my question, so I will repeat it:

Why is it irrelevant to compare IBM to Microsoft?
Software costs a few cents for a CD to distribute.
Hardware costs a couple of dollars per unit to manufacture.

Neither cost anywhere near what they sell for to make. And both fill in that extra gap from pretty much the same sources.

Ok MS is a monopoly, IBM isn't.
But all the hard drive manufacturers do the same thing IBM does.
Collectively all hard drive manufacturers have a &quot;monopoly&quot; (using the term loosely) on producing hard drives. And all of them charge more than it costs to produce it, why isn't that &quot;stinky&quot; to.

 

[CocaCola5]

The GPL is anti-ownership, this is not the same as anti-business(perhaps for Microsoft). What is wrong with having a public software vitality that rivals the private side? Sure, this is horribly bad for a company like Microsoft but what are they going to do, ban public software(Open Source) in the US? This is funny, I really like to know how Microsoft plan to do this.

 

[lucidguy]

<< Software costs a few cents for a CD to distribute.
Hardware costs a couple of dollars per unit to manufacture. >>



If I take your hard disk, you no longer have your hard disk.

The transfer of the utility of a hard disk from one person to another requires the exchange of physical substance. Until we all get nanotech matter replicators, phsyical objects will always have some inherent value in and of themselves because only one person can use one object at any given time.

In contrast to this, if you have an idea, and if you tell me about your idea, you still have the benefit of your own idea. If you think up a clever algorithm, and if you describe your algorithm to me, you still have the benefit of your own algorithm. If you write a program, and if you give me a copy of it, you still have your program.

An entire planet could use copies of the same program, and none of them would have to give up the utility of that program for any other person. All of them could use the very same program at the very same time.

With physical objects, there is a real scarcity that justifies a certain price and a certain profit margin. In today's networked world, there is no scarcity of bits. Bits can be transferred and copied and reproduced at asymptotically no cost. Copyright law tries to impose an artificial scarcity of bits where none exists. This is a sham, and the American public will not stand for it.

The GNU GPL has done a great job of exposing this sham so far, and will continue to do so in the future.

Unique, physical objects have value. Unique, personalized service has value. Anything else that has been made to have value through the sham of artificial scarcity has no value, and will be marginalized and made irrelevant by free (speech and beer) alternatives.

 

[Noriaki]

Yes I suppose.

But if you could get a hard drive for $10, it wouldn't have much in the way of value. It wouldn't be &quot;free&quot;. But if a hard drive only cost $10 I wouldn't have much problem giving them away.

But I see your point, I was looking at it more from the angle of the business selling the item, rather than the person acquiring it.

 

[lucidguy]

<< But if you could get a hard drive for $10, it wouldn't have much in the way of value. It wouldn't be &quot;free&quot;. But if a hard drive only cost $10 I wouldn't have much problem giving them away. >>



If a million people came to you asking for $10 hard drives, and if you all gave them $10 hard drives, you would go bankrupt.

There is no way around this. Physical objects always have some nonzero base cost. You cannot scale up a free giveaway simply because, beyond some grand scale, that nonzero cost multiplied by a large coefficient surpasses all your financial resources.

When there is an exchange of physical object, there must also be an exchange of money. There simply is no way around that.

On the other hand, up till now many, many millions of people have downloaded Linux and have not paid a single cent to Linus Torvalds, its creator and now elder statesman, so to speak. But Linus has not gone bankrupt, because it doesn't cost him anything to make his ideas and algorithms and software available to others. He earns money doing his day job, and he codes Linux in his spare time, and he enjoys doing this, and he enjoys giving away the fruits of his labor. In today's networked world, the fruits of his labor can be given away on an unlimited scale, provided that enough people want it. (And do they ever!) This is simply not possible with physical objects, where each additional unit has some base nonzero cost that cannot be eliminated.

In conclusion, physical objects can only be used by one person and one person only at some given point in time. Therefore, there is a real scarcity associated with them that justifies the exchange of some nonzero amount of money. On the other hand, software can be used by an unbounded number of people at some given point in time. In today's networked society, it costs asymptotically nothing to get software from one person to another. Therefore, there is an artificial scarcity associated with software that must be eliminated. GNU GPL software eliminates this artificial scarcity by exposing it as the sham that it truly is. It provides people with high quality, functional, free (speech and beer) software.

Now, I might have to revise this piece if and when nanotech matter cloning devices are intended, and scarcity of physical objects becomes a nonissue. But until then, this is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Jaraxal]

What amazes me is that people think there are alternatives to MS Windows. I am not a Windows basher. I use windows. I also use linux and Solaris. But there are NO alternatives to Windows on the PC ... let me say that again PC.

If there were, I would use them full time. In todays business world, you need to use MS Office because 90 so odd percent of the world uses it. Are there alternatives to office? Yes, but not all are 100 percent compatible. Sure they try.

MacOS doesn't count as it only runs on Macs. That means new and complete different hardware. Linux could be considered alternative, but ALL the games that I want to play don't run on Linux ... or the Mac for that matter.

I don't have a problem with Microsoft. I have a problem with Microsoft being the only VIABLE option. When it comes to the &quot;average&quot; home user there is no alternative. The average home user couldn't install another OS if their life depended on it. So to say there is are alterative OSes out there is ludicrous. They are alternative for the minority.

I have 6 computers in my home. I use Mandrake Linux 8.0, Window ME, and Windows 200 Professional. I like W2K and linux both. Why can't there be multiple OS vendors offering compatible software just like the hardware world?

I like that fact that I can go buy 10 different motherboard, 10 different vidoe cards, 10 differnt hard drives (etc ... etc ...) and they can all be assembled to form an &quot;IBM&quot; compatible x86 computer that will run all the same software. It would be nice to have 2 or 3 different OS companies that offered different OSes that were compatible with the same hardware and software. I guess that is what is attractive about linux.

 

[lucidguy]

<< The average home user couldn't install another OS if their life depended on it. >>



The average user couldn't install a Microsoft OS, either, even if his or her life depended on it.

The reason that so many users have PCs with Microsoft OS'es on them is that they were shipped with Windows preinstalled. This, in turn, is due to the illegal, anticompetitive exclusivity agreements that Microsoft bullied OEM's into signing. This was brought to light during Microsoft's trial in much lurid and embarrassing detail. Hence the legal ruling by Judge Jackson that Microsoft is a monopoly.

The reason for Microsoft's dominance is not due to the excellence of their products, but rather due to their illegal, anticompetitive business conducts. Even the courts have ruled that this is so.

 

[natedog]

Awwwww, poor oem computer makers. Microsoft &quot;bullied&quot; them into putting Windows on them? Hahaha, that's funny. I'm guessing they all thought it would be beneficial to have Windows on them because...that's what people wanted! Geez, get a life lucid. And I don't remember the courts saying it was illegal for Microsoft to make deals with computer makers. Maybe they got in trouble for trying to squash out netscape, but Microsoft and other computer makers should be able to do whatever they hell they want to together. If you don't like it fine, no one is making you buy their crap.

 

[lucidguy]

<< And I don't remember the courts saying it was illegal for Microsoft to make deals with computer makers. >>



They were ruled a monopoly for making illegal, anticompetitive exclusivity agreements with OEMs, along with other illegal monopolistic acts.

 

[natedog]

I like how that is so specific.....

Anyways, what does microsoft's practices have to do with the actual product lucid? I understand you hate microsoft and everything stemming from them, but if someone starts a thread about one of their products, why do you come in and tear up microsoft for their business practices? The two are completely separate. To say XP sucks because Microsoft is a monopoly is not a valid argument. The product care less what goes on in court. Maybe you should go argue in a law forum? Stick to the topic.

 

[lucidguy]

<< To say XP sucks because Microsoft is a monopoly is not a valid argument. >>



XP sucks because it violates your privacy, it performs illegal search and seizure of your private residence by uploading to Microsoft servers data about your private personal computer hardware configuration without your authorization, it forms unauthorized derivative works of websites including your very own websites, thanks to Smart Tags, it encrypts your private media files without your authorization, it downloads Windows updates without your authorization, etc, etc.

In other words, XP violates your rights in countless ways, and that is why it is not a good product. That Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly by the courts is just the icing on the cake.

 

[natedog]

Well lucid, I'm not going to even bother. People have already shown you that's all BS. You can turn off windows updates, and it DOES NOT do crap to your music. Who cares if they know what hardware I'm using? Just as long as they can't see my isos.

As far as this search and seizure you keep spouting off about, is it really illegal? No, probably not. I'm sure microsoft will cover their ass in the TOS agreement.

So come on Lucid, please let us all know what it eating away at you. Did a Microsoft OS crash while you were on the last legs of your latest porn download or what?

 

[Ryan]

<< XP sucks because it violates your privacy, it performs illegal search and seizure of your private residence by uploading to Microsoft servers data about your private personal computer hardware configuration without your authorization, it forms unauthorized derivative works of websites including your very own websites, thanks to Smart Tags, it encrypts your private media files without your authorization, it downloads Windows updates without your authorization, etc, etc.

In other words, XP violates your rights in countless ways, and that is why it is not a good product. That Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly by the courts is just the icing on the cake. >>



What a crock of crap! Either you're ignorant, or you can't face the facts!

Noriaki - I agree w/ you 100%!

 

[Ryan]

<< So come on Lucid, please let us all know what it eating away at you. Did a Microsoft OS crash while you were on the last legs of your latest porn download or what? >>



lol!

 

[Noriaki]

Lucid...do you ever read anyone else's posts? Or do you just have very very selective short term memory?



<< XP sucks because it violates your privacy, it performs illegal search and seizure of your private residence by uploading to Microsoft servers data about your private personal computer hardware configuration without your authorization, it forms unauthorized derivative works of websites including your very own websites, thanks to Smart Tags, it encrypts your private media files without your authorization, it downloads Windows updates without your authorization, etc, etc. >>


You actiave with a Hash of some serial numbers. For the 400th time Microsoft can not determine ANYTHING about your hardware from this. NOTHING!!!!. They can simple figure out if you are trying to install the same copy of WinXP on 50 machines illegally. Smart tags are off by default, if they are even included in the final version.

It does not encrypt ANYTHING!!! Holy crap you stupid troll. Read someone else's post for ONCE!!!!!
The only thing about MP3s that is different in WinXP is that WMP8 can't in it's default Install encode to MP3s. You can do anything you want with MP3s. People tell you this all the time. I've seen at least a dozen posts of this directed at you and you just choose to ignore it. Why?

Again, you can turn off Auto-updating. For the average end user that doesn't know what the hell a driver is, Auto-updating is helpful. If you don't like it, turn it off.

This has been said, many many times.

READ MY POST BEFORE YOU SPEW MORE CRAP AGAIN.


I'm sorry, I'd like to have a civilized conversation with you. But you just keep spewing the same crap over and over again. In every thread you post in, you start with the same crap. And someone shoots it down every single time. So you just run to another thread and post the same crap.

READ SOMEONE ELSE'S POST!!!

A conversation requires speaking and listening. And listening is not waiting for your turn to speak again.

 

[Ryan]

Very well said

 

[CocaCola5]

You guys want to know the truth to why Microsoft is pushing .Net(XP)? Do you care? Well, as hot an issue as its been, at the core its got nothing to do with privacy and nothing with piracy. Still want to know?, ok. The real reason is, they want to change the internet altogether. They want to morph it into something else. The idea is, tweak it to your advantage. Its kinda like when a mechanic purposely tweak your car's engine in a way that the next time you need it fix, him and his shop will be the only guys around that can do it. This is basically what .Net is all about. As always, its *never* purely about technology but control.

 

[Noriaki]

Ok no offense....but get a life.

.Net is all about control. Control of the internet.

Holy crap dude...it's a computer! It's not your life!

If you don't like MS's level of control, turn your computer off.
Bam! MS has exactly zero control over you now. We are talking about one single software company. Not the FBI, or the Government, or even the local police.

If you find MS's level of control over your life so disturbing you really need to spread your wings a bit. Drink a beer, play a game of baseball...go out and have some fun. Hell even read a book or go to a movie or something.

Of course MS wants to control the internet. Big deal. All big corps want to control everything.

Do you think IBM wouldn't like to control the whole OS market if they could?

You are too attached to computers guy. MS isn't even that big of a fish.

Go look up the profit numbers Exxon/Imperial and Shell posted last year.
Microsoft would have a wet dream over those kind of profits.

Exxon is something like 4x MS's profits, and Shell is like 2.5-3x.

MS is not slowly taking over the world, they aren't even that big of a fish. If MS is taking over too much of your world, I think you need to expand it.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be insulting here....but really....


XP isn't an intrusion to your average person's basic freedoms, because their computer is just a small part of their life.

XP isn't an intrusion on the Techies freedoms because we are smart enough to use alternatives.

 

[lucidguy]

<< XP isn't an intrusion to your average person's basic freedoms, because their computer is just a small part of their life. >>



Information is becoming the most valuable commodity. Those who control the means by which this information is transacted, stored, formatted, searched, retrieved, encoded and decoded will end up controlling all other commodities. Information is the golden coin of the information age.

If you're going to be happy working at your minimum wage job cleaning sh!t out of toilets, this may not matter to you. But if your employment in any way relates to consuming or processing information, then Microsoft's assault on your most essential freedoms should matter to you.

 

[Noriaki]

I do not work in a minimum wage job.

I work for $18 an hour in an entry level IT job at one of the biggest Integrated oil companies in the world.

I work with at least a half dozen different kinds of systems every day, and have lots of room for expansion. And I don't bother with microsoft products beyond using my PC to browse AT forums from home.

I don't even have a machine running an MS OS on my desk at work.

What microsoft does has very little impact on my career, and I'm far from a minimum wage janitor.

 

[CocaCola5]

Noriaki, did I b_tch at your post? Your absolute loyalty to MS is not a problem with me but atleast let others express their views and opinions.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< What amazes me is that people think there are alternatives to MS Windows. I am not a Windows basher. I use windows. I also use linux and Solaris. But there are NO alternatives to Windows on the PC ... let me say that again PC.

If there were, I would use them full time. In todays business world, you need to use MS Office because 90 so odd percent of the world uses it. Are there alternatives to office? Yes, but not all are 100 percent compatible. Sure they try.

MacOS doesn't count as it only runs on Macs. That means new and complete different hardware. Linux could be considered alternative, but ALL the games that I want to play don't run on Linux ... or the Mac for that matter.

I don't have a problem with Microsoft. I have a problem with Microsoft being the only VIABLE option. When it comes to the &quot;average&quot; home user there is no alternative. The average home user couldn't install another OS if their life depended on it. So to say there is are alterative OSes out there is ludicrous. They are alternative for the minority.

I have 6 computers in my home. I use Mandrake Linux 8.0, Window ME, and Windows 200 Professional. I like W2K and linux both. Why can't there be multiple OS vendors offering compatible software just like the hardware world?

I like that fact that I can go buy 10 different motherboard, 10 different vidoe cards, 10 differnt hard drives (etc ... etc ...) and they can all be assembled to form an &quot;IBM&quot; compatible x86 computer that will run all the same software. It would be nice to have 2 or 3 different OS companies that offered different OSes that were compatible with the same hardware and software. I guess that is what is attractive about linux. >>



The reason you think there are no alternatives is because the PHB's of the world do not understand the value of standards. And since MS will not follow or help develop any they stick with proprietary solutions that suck.

 

[bevancoleman]

Windows XP isn't .Net, I know that they do have a version of Windwos XP with .Net in the name but that is just marketing.

.Net is more related to their programming standards (ie web services) that they are releasing in Visual Studio .Net.

These standards are not anything new anyrate (nor where they made by MS), the standard has been out for a while now and has been ported to most OS and platforms (perl and PHP have had libs for 6+ months)

When it comes down to it all .Net is a collection of XML CGI applications hardly anything new or particularly bad.

Personally as a programmer I think it was about time someone made a standard for client to server comms and now it has happened. Windows XP is the first OS impliment the technology, but I sure that linux has started.

 

[Noriaki]

<< Your absolute loyalty to MS is not a problem with me but atleast let others express their views and opinions. >>

I have no loyalty to MS. I don't even like MS or their products, I'm currently in the process of trying to convert my main OS to Linux.
I'm simply trying to point out some facts about WinXP. There are all these stupid rumours going around about it that are total BS...and are spawned by total FUD (which as a sidenote I find somewhat amusing/ironic since MS really pioneered FUD campaigns).
I can understand why the .Net strategy could be somewhat bothersome, but it really doesn't phase me. Why?

The mass populus are all sheep, people like to be sheep and like to be told what to think. If it wasn't MS it would be someone else. What MS does to the mass populus' computing exeperience really doesn't concern me. Again we are talking about a company trying to control the internet. We are not talking about a government agency trying to supress the population. I don't care what MS does to the internet, 98% of the internet is crap anyways. You average user wants to read his email, type his documents, and maybe looks up a recipe on line, as long as they can do that they are happy. They don't care if it's MS showing them how to do it or someone else. They just want to do it.
Microsoft may be restricting their computer somewhat, but as long as they can do what they like with it. Do they care? No. Should they? Not really. It's not like it's a big part of their lives.
Another example. My CPU is a Duron 750, I'm running it at 1000Mhz. Shouldn't AMD sell it at such speed becuase it can run there? It doesn't cost them any more or less to sell it as a 750 or a 1000. Once the chip is made the cost for it is fixed. Any extra money is just profit.
Aren't AMD and Intel restricting your computer by not giving you what your processor is fully capable of?
We are talking about a company. Not a government agency supressing your freedom.

Ok, now if you aren't joe-user and are technically adept, and you feel that microsoft is restricting your computing experience to much. Stop using MS. Go Linux.
Just like we overclock our CPUs if we feel to restricted by what Intel and AMD provide us with. We ignore their guidelines and their rules and do what we want.
You can do the same with your OS. You don't like Microsoft's guidelines, ignore them, go play with other toys.

My post wasn't really even directed at you. Yours was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. But if you read some of the other thread lucidguy has posted in, you'll Microsoft compared to the Nazis, and such things like that. He was really who that post was meant for.

I find all this talk of Microsoft robbing you of your freedoms absurd. If Bill Gates sends someone to your house with AK47 and tells you will use Windows or he'll kill you and rape your wife, then he's robbing you of your freedoms. When that happens come back and lets chat.

You don't like a Ford truck becuase it doesn't provide you with what you want. What do you do? Bitch and whine that Ford isn't providing enough freedom in their designs? Or do you buy a Chev?

If you don't like Microsoft, don't use them. But don't spread lies and bullsh*t about them becuase you personally don't like the direction they are going in.

I personally don't like their direction either, and as I said, I'm converting to Linux. You are free to do the same boys.