backtop

Print 59 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Mar 5 at 5:15 PM
Future monitoring of Microsoft for compliance will be done by technical consultants

Microsoft is one of the most closely watched companies in the world; it has been accused and found guilty of anti-trust violations on several occasions. Microsoft has found itself fighting anti-trust issues both in America and in Europe on more than one occasion.

The European Commission, the EU's antitrust body, announced today that it would no longer dedicate a full-time trustee to the monitoring of Microsoft for anti-trust ruling compliance. In 2005, the EU dedicated a full-time trustee to monitor Microsoft in part of ensure that the software giant provided information to rivals after being found guilty of trying to stifle competition in 2004.

So far, Microsoft has been fined $2.13 billion by the European Commission in relation to antitrust violations. The Commission executive body said in a statement, "The Commission no longer requires a full-time monitoring trustee to assess Microsoft's compliance."

EWeek reports that the Commission cited changes in Microsoft's behavior, more opportunities for third parties to exercise their rights in national courts and experience gained since the 2004 ruling as key reasons to eliminate full time monitoring of Microsoft.

Future monitoring of the software giant will be done by ad hoc technical consultants. DailyTech reported in February that Microsoft was being forced to offer competitors browsers with Windows in the EU.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 12:06:48 PM , Rating: 1
I think this is kind of gay. It'd be like forcing Toyota to give up all their information to competitors so they can make a better engine, transmission, etc.

It's Microsoft's OS. They should be allowed to put whatever the hell they want in it and keep their corporate secrets from others.

Should all small coffee shops sue Starbucks for putting them out of business?




RE: Jeez
By the goat on 3/4/2009 12:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
Totally different. Microsoft included hidden API's in windows that only MS programmers were able to use. That is like Toyota selling you a car that disables two engine cylinders and a gear ratio unless you run Toyota gasoline.


RE: Jeez
By Motoman on 3/4/2009 12:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nice analogy.

I have to admit I am pretty surprised the EU is declaring they no longer need dedicated monitoring of MS - if it was one guy, how much could his salary have been compared to the fines they were laying on MS?


RE: Jeez
By omnicronx on 3/4/2009 1:02:13 PM , Rating: 4
There are no hidden API's... they just don't release the source for the API itself. Any programmer can still use them.

I.e your example is silly, and plain untrue.
quote:
That is like Toyota selling you a car that disables two engine cylinders and a gear ratio unless you run Toyota gasoline.
If you want complete open source, use linux, Windows and OSX are closed source, and thus will not release all information on the inner workings of the OS. That being said, all API's are well documented, Microsoft does not hide anything, why would they go through the work of developing a complex API to not have programmers use it?

Furthermore it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer Windows API's similiar to the way the unix WINE team has done.


RE: Jeez
By MastermindX on 3/4/2009 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, there is no "hidden" API. Every programmer can call just any API exposed by a DLL the same way MS programmer can.

The problem lie in having API with their documentation only released for MS use. Saying all the API are well documented only shows your ignorance. Just do a simple search of "undocumented windows nt" in Amazon.com and see how many books people have written, results of their dig through undocumented API.

Working with undocumented API is a time consuming work of trial and error, when it is possible at all. Which gives all MS programmer a huge(unfair) advantage over the competition.


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 2:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just do a simple search of "undocumented windows nt" in Amazon.com and see how many books people have written, results of their dig through undocumented API.


So there are books, for these APIs. Thus, they are documented. Just not Microsoft's documentation.

Also why shouldn't Microsoft have an advantage? It is their OS. That's what it's closed source, so they can have an advantage.

If they are going to force Microsoft to release all their info, then why are they not forcing every other software company to release their info?


RE: Jeez
By omnicronx on 3/4/2009 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
But they are not well documented by MS which I guess is the point they are trying to get across. I implied they were, when in fact they are not. Although I have never had a problem finding API functions as there are many sites around the net that have them documented.


RE: Jeez
By BZDTemp on 3/4/2009 7:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft needs to be open due to them having a controlling grip on the OS market. Have you never played Monopoly and noted how having having a string of real estate allowing for buildings lets you control the game.

Control of the OS market and using it to gain control over other markets is what Microsoft has been doing. Allowing monopolies is bad for competition which again is bad for everyone except the monopoly.

Look into Netscape vs. Microsoft if you need to see an example of what Microsoft has been doing.


RE: Jeez
By rudy on 3/4/2009 8:01:32 PM , Rating: 4
You mean M$ saved us all 50$ not having to buy a web browser? That was sure terrible for us. A monopoly needs to be broken when it hinders progress or is bad for customers. M$ is not a monopoly and has definitely not been bad for customers. What is stupid to me is that M$ is getting fined for the screw ups of the other competitors. Apple is still doing the ridiculously over priced systems and closed hardware crap that caused them to lose to M$ and the Linux guys have only just pulled their act together partly with Ubuntu in the very recent times but who knows if they will keep moving forward. That people will willingly pay for an OS over a free one says alot. After all most people who are not gamers have no need for anything more then Ubuntus default install.


RE: Jeez
By BZDTemp on 3/5/2009 12:48:21 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft has not been bad for for customers. You must be kidding. You have payed the 50 buck saved on a browser many times over!

Take one look at their prices and compare them with what has happened with the prices of hardware. The huge sale numbers of hardware has meant computers are cheaper than ever and the sale of Windows, Office and so on are huge also. Then how come the prices of Microsoft software has not come down? Because the monopoly made sure they did not have to.

Sure a modern OS or Office suite is a lot more complicated than let us say DOS but the sale figures are many time bigger so the taking is huge. If you do not think so then consider how Bill and co got so rich. Or look at the billions Microsoft is able to use as a battering ram when they move into new business like fx. gaming consoles.


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 9:25:09 PM , Rating: 5
If you want to compare MS to the game Monopoly.

Microsoft owns most real estates and has a single hotel on each piece they own.

Microsoft allows others to put hotels on each piece of real estate they own also.

Microsoft knows all about the utilities and how to connect up to them. Microsoft lets everyone else know how to connect up to some of the utilities, but not all of them.

Seems like a pretty okay game of Monopoly for everyone. Yes, those who aren't Microsoft has some disadvantage, but they hardly are completely stomped out of the game. Far be it. They can have a hotel on every piece of real estate, just like Microsoft.


RE: Jeez
By omnicronx on 3/4/2009 2:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying all the API are well documented only shows your ignorance.
Ya I don't know why I said that, must have been drinking the hippy coolaid..


RE: Jeez
By CollegeTechGuy on 3/4/2009 5:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Lets think about this, what does it take for Microsoft to document all of their APIs...Time and Money. Just like everything else in the business world. They would have to spend more money, and charge more to release this extra documentation. Something most of us(Developers) don't want to pay for. Ya my company provides me with my SDKs, but they had to pay for it.

So to keep costs down, Microsoft, like everyone other company, cuts things out of what they make to make it cheaper. Sony removed the PS2 chips off their PS3s to make it cheaper cause no one wanted to pay that much for a gaming system. It doesn't make sense to me to sue a company and force them to provide something they didn't spend the money on, because the customers didn't want to pay for it.

If this is how the EU wants to operate, I would sell a specific EU version of Windows to all of Europe. And I would charge extra for all the "Anti-Trust" additions to it. While at the same time, charge more for the SDKs. Or, I would just pull out of the EU all together. Over $2 billion to the EU, that definitely cuts on the profits. Plus, it will require the Europeans to purchase their OS's and SDKs from the U.S. Cause i'm sure they don't want to pay more for them.


RE: Jeez
By inighthawki on 3/4/2009 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 3
Pulling out from the EU would be a terrible idea. Not only would they face a loss in profit from a lack of people buying the OS, but all new computers would then be forced to use linux or mac, and the number of developers in the EU that develop for windows would plummet and move to other platforms, thus causing more people outside of EU to switch because the alternatives offer more software and then they lose even more...and so on.


RE: Jeez
By KCjoker on 3/4/2009 6:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
That's true many companies and programmers would switch to apple or linux. However that wouldn't happen overnight and that transition would cost all those in the EU time and productivity which equals LOTS of $$$$ lost. The EU better hope MS doesn't call their bluff because there would be hard times in the EU countries for a long time. It would hurt MS no doubt but it would hurt the EU worse especially in the short term.


RE: Jeez
By BZDTemp on 3/4/2009 7:52:09 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft stop selling their stuff in the EU. That is a fun thought experiment :-)

Firstly Microsoft can not just leave in a day without violating loads of contracts. Also them leaving would not make their software already in the hands of users disappear. And then there are all the companies which operate inside and outside the EU - how should MS handle them?

Sure many IT people will need to learn new things but for most user the transition to Linux and OpenOffice will not be to hard. And it would set an example the whole world would see = less MS customers all over.

The only upside I can see for Microsoft would be that they would no longer hold a monopoly so they would not be sued for that.

There is no way Microsoft will leave the EU. After all it is a bigger market than the US and it is growing.

PS. In the EU it is Euro not $$$$. The later may soon lose it's value with the amount of green stuff that is being printed these days.


RE: Jeez
By rudy on 3/4/2009 8:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
You are right about the documentation but I do not know the details I can surely say that the documentation for any company on any product is incomplete. That just seems to be a fact of the computer world.


RE: Jeez
By BarkHumbug on 3/5/2009 6:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets think about this, what does it take for Microsoft to document all of their APIs...


Yes, let's think... Don't you think they already documented their API's for internal use?


RE: Jeez
By sinful on 3/4/2009 9:04:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Working with undocumented API is a time consuming work of trial and error, when it is possible at all. Which gives all MS programmer a huge(unfair) advantage over the competition.


Maybe they're undocumented for a reason - because they can be subject to change without notice.
Then what do you do when your application breaks? Blame MS for changing something you shouldn't have been using in the first place?

It's like saying "I don't like the standard-and-well-documented-USB-connectors on my motherboard, so I want to build a device that plugs into this odd connector on my ASUS motherboard, but they don't have it documented! I'll just poke around on it and build my product around this unsupported connector....[6 months later] oh no, the connector I wasn't supposed to be using in the first place has been removed from their newest product, WAHHHH!"

Yes, it might inconvenience you that they didn't document that connector, but if they did they're obligated to maintain and carry that feature for the rest of their product line...


RE: Jeez
By BarkHumbug on 3/5/2009 6:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
something you shouldn't have been using in the first place


This is what Microsoft thinks, and subsequently the reason why they are being sued by the EU...


RE: Jeez
By Jucken on 3/4/2009 1:25:07 PM , Rating: 5
If the interfaces were well documented as you said, then the Wine team wouldn't need to reverse engineer them, would it?

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/101947/microsoft-used-...


RE: Jeez
By TomZ on 3/4/2009 1:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are no hidden API's
That is almost certainly untrue. There are probably lots of functions exported from system DLLs that are not documented.

But in saying so, I don't think that is a problem. After all, Microsoft owns the OS and can decide what services to include/excluded from its set of publicly documented APIs.

But I do think it is wrong if Microsoft internally publishes and supports such APIs. They do have a duty to provide a level playing surface for all application publishers on that platform.


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They do have a duty to provide a level playing surface for all application publishers on that platform.


Why exactly? Windows belongs to Microsoft last I checked. They shouldn't have to provide jack. Do you see any car manufacturer providing data to every car maintenance shop, unless that shop is certified by them. I sure as hell don't.

Maybe that's what Microsoft should do. Charge all these companies large sums of money to get more detailed documentation on Windows, all the while forcing their programmers to go through their certified Windows programming courses. Of course, for a fee per programmer.

They came onto Microsoft's court to play ball. It's only fair that Microsoft gets to set the rules.


RE: Jeez
By TomZ on 3/4/2009 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 3
They should - in fact, by law they have to - provide a level playing field because they have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. It is illegal to use a monopoly (in OS in this case) to build market share in another market (application software in this case).


RE: Jeez
By inighthawki on 3/4/2009 3:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Micrososft does not have a monopoly, they have an extremely successful OS which a lot of people use for multiple reasons. A monopoly requires enough market share to be able to completely flush out all competition, which doesn't happen at all. Developers choosing to release critical software for windows isn't microsoft's fault.


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Windows is hardly the only OS on the market. There are millions of users of OSX, Linux, etc.

Also the ppl who were suing Microsoft over information wasn't releasing critical software. More like extra software, like a browser or WordPerfect.


RE: Jeez
By inighthawki on 3/4/2009 3:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, by critical software I meant more like software that is used on a widespread set of computers, typically in a business environment, that would drive a company to buy windows-based pc's since its the only one with the software they need.


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 9:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
So you mean something like Office. Some companies won't go for open source, due to lack of good support. OS's aren't a problem. Linux support is pretty good.


RE: Jeez
By redbone75 on 3/4/2009 10:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Windows isn't the only desktop OS on the market, but it does have, by far, the largest market share. It is the de facto standard, which gives MS a monopolistic position in the desktop market. Being the de facto standard doesn't make it a monopoly, but antitrust laws can be applied in any cases brought forth from monopolistic practices.

While I agree that any and every company has a right to benefit from its wares, those companies have to be mindful of the laws of the countries in which they conduct business. It's a simple rule, really: Don't get caught!


RE: Jeez
By TomZ on 3/4/2009 5:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Micrososft does not have a monopoly
Sorry, but the governments of the US and EU have declared Microsoft to be a monopoly in the desktop OS market. That's a legal fact; it's a question of your or my personal opinion.

And in general, the presence of other players in the market does not mean that a monopoly does not exist.


RE: Jeez
By inighthawki on 3/4/2009 5:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not the US/EU says microsoft is a monopoly, that doesn't mean they actually are. The word monopoly is tossed around these days to mean pretty much any company with a "majority" control. A monopoly requires not a majority, but EXCLUSIVE control of a market. So yes, the presence of other players - and more specifically, players that are doing just fine/well - means there is no monopoly present.


RE: Jeez
By Steve1981 on 3/4/2009 5:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed.

Microsoft has no control over the desktop OS market whatsoever. Anybody can obtain a viable alternative in Linux. Windows is arguably a superior product which is why it has commanding market share; however, that doesn't translate into a monopoly.


RE: Jeez
By noirsoft on 3/4/2009 7:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft was declared a Monopoly by the US by limiting the definition of the market to just Windows and OS/2. Unix, Linux and MacOS were not considered to be the same market. Even in 1999, that was a lot of hoops to have to jump through. I still feel that the judge felt that MS "had to" be a monopoly, and narrowed the definition of the market to fit his opinion, rather than judging on the actual facts.


RE: Jeez
By phez on 3/4/2009 2:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
terrible analogy. its more like toyota not fully releasing the complete specifications of its hybrid systems to the world.

the only reason you should know these specifications is if you're going to want to directly interface with it; in which case, you should ask toyota. but what happens if toyota doesn't want to give it to you? call the eu and sue them for antitrust violations?

... or stop supporting toyota and find someone else who will?


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 3:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
You simply ignore it all and work towards interfacing with it anyways. Then work on making a much better product in the process.

You are left at a disadvantage at the beginning of course, but that'll always be a problem when you're dealing with someone else's product.


RE: Jeez
By BZDTemp on 3/4/2009 7:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but you make no sense. In this thought analogy someone want to sell an add on or a service to the product. There is a VERY long way from doing that to making a car.

Or to move back to Microsoft. You are suggesting making an alternative OS - just how do you imagine this being possible for a small software vendor trying to make a utility or something?


RE: Jeez
By afkrotch on 3/4/2009 9:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure how it doesn't make sense.

In the hybrid analogy, the electric hybrid engine is the OS. The random part that will be interfacing with it would be the software.

Not saying anything about making a new OS. Just saying the competing software vender should do their best to overcome their disadvantage and put out a superior product.

Most ppl will agree that Mozilla seems to be doing a good job of creating an alternative browser, while being at a disadvantage of not knowing the full APIs of Windows.


RE: Jeez
By Steve1981 on 3/5/2009 11:09:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You are suggesting making an alternative OS - just how do you imagine this being possible for a small software vendor trying to make a utility or something?


I would suggest those small software vendors port their applications to alternative operating systems (Linux, OSX) in addition to Windows. This would makes those alternatives that much more viable, and reduces Microsoft's hold on the market.

Remember, MS isn't in a dominant position because Windows is so wonderful; they're in a dominant position because loads of 3rd parties write stuff to run under Windows and Windows alone. The more that changes, the less dominant MS will be.


RE: Jeez
By Oregonian2 on 3/4/2009 2:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
I've always thought it funny that it'd be claimed that hidden API's don't allow a wide range of products to run under windows (and the list of programs that can't do so already do so just fine at the time of claim). No web browser works with Windows other than IE, not even Firefox that I'm imagining my use of while writing this. Etc. Amazing.


RE: Jeez
By Justin Time on 3/5/2009 4:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Undocumented Protocols was previoulsy the main issue for the EU.

Event Samba was created using a sniffer and some educated guesses, because MS wouldn't publish the protocols used.


RE: Jeez
By n0nsense on 3/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeez
By sdoorex on 3/4/2009 1:13:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This holds your personal benefit. Look at Windows mobile.
This old piece of code can not compare to iPhone's OSX, Google's Android, and others.
But they can enforce you to use it by making it the only compatible with their desktop OS.


Since when is a company required to ensure that a competitors product works with their own? Have you ever heard of proprietary products? How about Apples connectors for the iPod or their old serial connection? Last I checked the iPod held the market for MP3 devices so why is their no antitrust issues over the connector that Apple updates every time their about to lose control over who uses it how much they pay in licensing? How about how Apple doesn't allow OSX to be installed on non-Apple machines? Or how about all the different and non-intercompatible power plugs used in the laptop market like what Dell used to use? Where is the outcry over those?

Google and Apple must code their products to work with Microsoft's products or they can just ignore Microsoft's offerings. Sure, if Microsoft explicitly programed their products to not allow competitors, such as Windows not allowing the installation of Firefox or chrome, I could see there being a problem. Otherwise though, where is the issue? Also, Windows Mobile isn't the only compatible device with Widnows. Andriod and the iPhone can both be synced, not to mention the Symbian and Palm devices out there.


RE: Jeez
By Steve1981 on 3/4/2009 2:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think the general problem some have with MS is that if they open Windows to 3rd party development, they have to ensure all those 3rd party developers are playing on a level field, and that they themselves are playing on that same field as well.


RE: Jeez
By TomZ on 3/4/2009 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If they allowed to do whatever they want, you'll have barely enough money left to buy a cap of coffee after paying to them.
In fact, Microsoft has been mostly unregulated for most of their existence, and despite this, their software is still reasonably priced. Compare this to other software, such as engineering software, where virtual monopolies have driven prices of that type of software through the roof.

As to you Windows Mobile comment, that is laughable. Obviously you don't know anything about any of the OSs that you compared. Windows Mobile is more than as capable as the others, and has a much better application development experience on top of that (Visual Studio).


RE: Jeez
By vapore0n on 3/4/2009 1:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
sort of like the Ipod and Itunes?

I havent seen EU going ape on Apple


Fine
By bobcpg on 3/4/2009 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 4
Outrageous, EU should fine M$ for not being monitored full-time.

;)




RE: Fine
By MrTeal on 3/4/2009 12:02:55 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe Microsoft has finally agreed to the EU's demands that it include a copy of Linux and OSX with every copy of Windows it sell.


RE: Fine
By erikstarcher on 3/4/2009 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not only must they include OSx and Linux, but they must remove the Windows program so they can't gain market share.


RE: Fine
By TSS on 3/4/2009 12:44:31 PM , Rating: 5
more likely that the effort of monitoring microsoft has taken up so much time and money that the total costs of it total about 2.13 billion.

to be honest, i would like to know where that money has gone. it's supposed to be divided to member states, but that process isn't transparent to say the least.

same way the EU commision fined the dutch beer cartels for pricing their products too high, then that money went to *all* member states. we pay too much for our beer, the EU commision fines the company's which makes our beer even more expensive (like hell that the company's will pay for it themselves) and then take that money and give it to other countries.

the EU's about as corrupt as they come.


RE: Fine
By TomZ on 3/4/2009 1:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
more likely that the effort of monitoring microsoft has taken up so much time and money that the total costs of it total about 2.13 billion.
If so, then the individual doing the monitoring was quite overpaid!


Screw the EU
By Rob94hawk on 3/4/2009 2:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see Microsoft stop selling their OS and would love to watch the EU have a stroke! They wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it and then the EU would have to find another way or company to extort for their money.




RE: Screw the EU
By TomZ on 3/4/2009 2:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
They don't have to refuse to sell into the EU; instead, they could just jack up the prices there. That would have the same effect, which by the way, wouldn't be of any benefit to Microsoft.


RE: Screw the EU
By stmok on 3/5/2009 12:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would love to see Microsoft stop selling their OS and would love to watch the EU have a stroke! They wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it and then the EU would have to find another way or company to extort for their money.


Firstly, Microsoft is a business. Look at the business perspective: IF there is money to be made, why not make it?

Secondly, if MS stopped selling in the Euro region, there won't be a stroke of any sort. People will just move over to alternatives.

France and Germany are known adopters of open source solutions. In fact, they are AHEAD of the USA.
=> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9992379-16.html

In recent months, UK is considering such solutions for their public sector.
=> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7910110.stm

3rd: MS would practically be giving the market share away to competitors! (Wonderful for competitors. Not so wonderful for Microsoft).

4th: Business analysts would consider such a move as shooting yourself in the foot...No doubt this will have an affect on the share value of the company. (Not a good idea in this economic climate.)

5th: MS would encourage independence from them in the Euro market...Which means loss of future stream of income as there is no longer a point to continue using MS solutions.

*Thinks about it a bit more of the above*

Actually Rob94hawk , your idea is a GREAT idea! Microsoft should stop selling in Europe! LOL!


RE: Screw the EU
By TomZ on 3/5/2009 12:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
Your view that Europe is "ahead" of the US assumes that we will follow and start to adopt open source here. I don't think that's really very likely.


lol
By bigpimpatl on 3/4/2009 5:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
sounds like someone got paid paid paid! I mean why give up when you're $2 billion up? Just last week we were discussing the EU and it's fines towards IE and WM. And now they suddenly stop. Ya, I'm pretty sure Microsoft is "complying" to the needs of the EU.




RE: lol
By rcc on 3/5/2009 5:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, they just realized that they don't need an employee on staff to justify fines to MS. They can just do it. Saves all the muss 'n fuss.

Next year I understand they're working on the pay system. If they pay everyone the same amount and take 65% in taxes it simplifies the governmental process immensely.


Finally
By stimudent on 3/5/2009 6:38:45 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is finally starting to behave ethically!
Now if only Intel would start to do that. That would be an even bigger miracle.




RE: Finally
By TomZ on 3/5/2009 9:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
What is Intel doing that is unethical?


It´s an OS!! It runs programs.
By cocoman on 3/5/2009 10:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Don´t agree with most opinions here. An OS should be well documented for programmers to create software to run on it. By not doing it they have the advantage and make better programms for less effort and time. That is the problem. If Microsoft doesn´t like fair play, then it should advice people before they get their OS, that it will only correctly run Microsoft software.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki