backtop


Print 155 comment(s) - last by Merry.. on Jul 19 at 9:05 AM

The EU and Microsoft are at it again

Microsoft and the European Union once again do not see eye-to-eye.  An EU committee earlier this week said that Microsoft is not complying with an antitrust decision that will most likely impose heavy fines on Microsoft.  The exact amount Microsoft will be charged has not yet been determined, according to a spokesman for the EU competition commissioner.  However, the fines are expected to be heavy.  The commission is scheduled to speak about the Microsoft fine next Wednesday.        

Microsoft held meetings in late March to try and avoid facing $2.4M USD daily fines from the EU.  The company was ordered to turn over more information about its software, so that competitors are able to create software that is better able to work with Microsoft products.  The same judgment also requires Windows to not come bundled with the Microsoft Windows Media Player media program.  The company claims that they do make changes to try and please the EU, but the commission changes its demands so that Microsoft is always in the wrong.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Where is Masher2?
By mlittl3 on 7/7/2006 12:31:56 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure he will have something to say about how antitrust lawsuits = the devil. I'm glad that other countries are inforcing antitrust whereas America's government is just letting them to whatever they want. If a government says your product is breaking their laws so stop, then you either stop or sell your product elsewhere. This would be the case in Apple vs. French government. May agree with France that Apple should open up their software or take it elsewhere. Apple is going to take it elsewhere. Microsoft on the other hand wants its cake and eat it too. They will do whatever it takes, use whatever power they have, to continue selling their products in the EU while ignoring the law.




RE: Where is Masher2?
By mlittl3 on 7/7/2006 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind, I take it all back. Masher2 disagreed with ebay "forcing" its customers to use Paypal by kicking any user from using Google checkout. If he doesn't see the relationship to the Intel/AMD antitrust case, then I guess he is not really debating the need for antitrust laws but is just an Intel Fanboi. Sigh. I thought I was going to get a good antitrust debate from him not a biasiness (a word?) towards a company that he buys products from and must believe that the company (intel) is the right choice. Oh well. :)


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 7:59:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Nevermind, I take it all back. Masher2 disagreed with ebay "forcing" its customers to use Paypal by kicking any user from using Google checkout. If he doesn't see the relationship to the Intel/AMD antitrust case, then I guess he is not really debating the need for antitrust laws but is just an Intel Fanboi..."

On the contrary, you misread my post entirely. I stated the Ebay action is prima facie illegal under the Clayton Act, then continued with my disagreement with current law.

> "I was going to get a good antitrust debate from him not a biasiness (a word?) "

It's not a word; "bias" itself is proper English in this context.

> " towards a company that he buys products from and must believe that the company (intel) is the right choice..."

While your statement is an excellent example of an ad hominem debating tactic, it is likewise incorrect. I am typing this on an AMD based desktop...and I just OK'd the purchase of a $1.5M Opteron-based supercomputer for my lab.




RE: Where is Masher2?
By tuteja1986 on 7/7/2006 8:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
would be really funny if microsoft just takes out all windows from the eu market.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/8/2006 7:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
would be really funny if microsoft just takes out all windows from the eu market.


Would be even funnier if the EU took away copyright protections from MS. But I guess that's unlikely, it would make more sense to just start using linux.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
whats even more funny is linux and mac's would become massive in europe, providing a userbase that both apple and linux desperately need.

Pulling out of EU = the prelude to a decent competitor to windows.

So being in the EU im all for it :)


RE: Where is Masher2?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 1:10:52 PM , Rating: 1
Look... have you NO concept of how this stuff works?

Why should Microsoft open up so other people can more easily create stuff?
They already make it EXTREMELY easy... but yet the EU still has their nose bent out of shape.

Why not go after Apple? Look how stingy they are! This crap of forcing a company to essentially REMOVE the benefits that it has created on its own platform is rediculous.

If I were Microsoft, I would say: fine... no more OS for you EU. Sure they would lose a lot in profit, but who is going to call the bluff? Who is at who's mercy? I suppose the EU could goto Apple products... or maybe Linux? While the rest of the world uses Windows... Europe would be left out...

The people would not stand for it, and this crap from the EU would stop.

- Creathir


RE: Where is Masher2?
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Masher2?
By SEAWOLF607 on 7/7/2006 2:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
You are not to bright apparently on multiple fronts... Linux sucks and yes there have been WMD found in iraq http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200726,00.html


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Merry on 7/7/2006 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
you linked to fox news


i dont think you are in any position to the judge the credibility of the afformentioned statement.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 3:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call fox news any less credible than any other news organization. When reporters are politically biased (as most are) there are many reports that turn out to be twisted and tweaked to their way of thinking. I remember catching a today show spot (leading up to the 04' elections)while getting ready for work one time where katie couric seemed almost gleeful to report american soldiers were killed in Iraq.


What is actually interesting to me me on this one was the fact that it was reported by colmes instead of hannity. I mean considering he's as overly-left as hannity is overly-right.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Merry on 7/7/2006 4:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call fox news any less credible than any other news organization.

i would

I generally only believe a news story to be correct after looking at several sources. I've found the best to be the BBC


RE: Where is Masher2?
By KCjoker on 7/7/2006 4:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
You'd probably prefer SeeBS even after their fake documents on Bush scandal.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Masher2?
By Gallius on 7/8/2006 8:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
Fox is about as reliable as the inquirer, nothing more to say about it really.

Linux has the big problem of not being idiot proof (like Windows). I sat my parents in front of kubuntu and they couldn't figure it out, sat them back in front of XP/OSX and they're fine. That's where Linux needs to improve to become a mainstream OS.

Perhaps if it became part of the education system to learn to use Linux it would become a better alternative. It might also help if all Hardware manufacturers would get decent quality drivers instead of the lottery it is today.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Tyler 86 on 7/9/2006 1:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
Keeping politics out of this;

Linux can be made idiot proof to an infinite degree.

So idiot proof, in fact, that it can be quite cumbersome for a tech-savvy person to operate.

A good uncumbersome almost idiot proof linux so far is (hold on to your pants for this) indeed, Mac OSX.

Yes, Linux.

If they continue progress in the Intel platform market, and branching out for compatibility as they have been, Windows might get a true commercial competitor.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By lemonadesoda on 7/7/2006 3:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my goodness, you are a sucker.

Don't you realise that the recent "find" is nothing more than a timely political requirement? All that bad news about how naughty UK and US soldiers have been. About what a f-up the whole situation is. And a find thankfully removes some of the bad press both the US and British governments have been receiving.

This is one of the most obvious "plants" in history.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Masher2?
By ZeeStorm on 7/7/2006 4:53:36 PM , Rating: 1
Only closed minded fools could ever say Linux sucks. I have my share of frustrations, but only cause I've been babied by a crappy OS. I've found a new power that I can control much more, and can use it publicly at work (90% of our developers run Ubuntu Linux distro -- and I use Fedora). We saved your tax dollars (local government job) by not having to pay M$'s horrible costs in such a crappy OS. Remove the cover over your eyes and see what computer's were made for.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By 9nails on 7/8/2006 6:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yes... Linux does suck! It was built to mimic an OS from the 60's. One that was designed by pot-smoking hippie flower-child’s testing marijuana and acid like a rainbow tests colors. The over use of needlessly truncated commands testify to how silly the design phase became. And any OS happy to let you mount empty folders on top of critical system folders is not going to make it in this world of fools. Sadly, an OS needs rules and structure. Linux lacks both.

And frankly, 100's of distro's just lends to the confusion and lack of focus that this OS needs. One can argue that Apple or Novell have some success with BSD Unix. But now you're stuck in a relationship with a software vendor all over again.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Tyler 86 on 7/9/2006 1:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Suck on MS' nuts some more homes, 'cause guess what...

MS-DOS, the foundation from Windows, came from DR-DOS.

Linux came about without a real lawsuit against it, just Microsoft-fueled SCO...


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Trisped on 7/10/2006 3:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually MS-DOS came from QDOS which stands for Quick and Dirty Operating System, which they bough the rights for. Since the guy that made it did so for personal use he was surprised that anyone would pay anything for it, so he was happy to get what he got. In the end he ended up joining on with Microsoft and making a tight bundle, though their may have been some hurt feelings when he learned that they had resold if for 10x what they paid him.

Even so, profits like that are not uncommon in the business world and they often over look the work needed to get to a place where it could be sold for that.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If anything it should be MS who cannot be trusted since they are the ones who have a very long history of antitrust cases.


By that logic then anyone ever accused of a crime must be quilty becuase they have been accused before.. Funny that someone from such a liberal country, with a very liberal (and somewhat anti-american) rant would be so quick to judge.

Oh wait.. MS isnt a minority so they deserve no protections under the law.. Sorry almost forgot about that..


RE: Where is Masher2?
By rushfan2006 on 7/7/2006 3:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
europe has alot more strict legislation concerning monopolies and free market. we are not america. we dont tolerate controlled markets and we try to stop them.


Yeah apparently certain nations in the EU don't care much about a stable economy either --- how is that double digit unemployment rate working out over there for you?



RE: Where is Masher2?
By Merry on 7/7/2006 4:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah apparently certain nations in the EU don't care much about a stable economy either --- how is that double digit unemployment rate working out over there for you?


better then you can imagine, what with comprehensive welfare provision an all.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: -1
RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 8:17:57 PM , Rating: 1
> "much better than your double digit homeless rate yank "

Double digit homeless rate...? Shame on you. I'm surprised you didn't sprain a finger typing that nonsense.

Personally, I saw far more people "sleeping rough" (as its called there) while in London than in my own home city. I don't have comparitive statistics on hand, but I will state that the homeless situation is, in the UK and the US both, far from of an issue with the people themselves, rather than any lack of social or governmental services.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2006 10:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
> "so you have been to london?"

More than once, yes.

> "is london where you studied your degree? which university? "

My undergraduate degree was in the US; my graduate degree in Moscow.

Now that I've answered your questions, I'd appreciate a retraction of the inane "double digit homeless rate" statement.



RE: Where is Masher2?
By fsardis on 7/8/2006 11:55:53 AM , Rating: 1
it was a few years ago i read about the double digit homeless rate in US. If i remember right i read it on a greek newspaper while i was on holiday there. and yes its true london has lots of homeless people too but its not only because of people's mentality as you suggested. its because of the market that has driven property prices to insane levels. London was mentioned too in the paper as one of the cities with the most homeless population, along with New York and some other big american cities.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
double digit unemployment rate..... in the UK?

hold on, let me catch my breath masher2. That is just too funny, seriously when the EU has virtually the same GDP as the US, i find it hard to believe you think we are still in the dark ages.

Living in the UK and enjoying the longest sustained economic growth in our history, i'd say we are doing just fine.

But, im sure worried about the economic decline that the US has been experiencing over the past 10 years, causing high unemployment and creating a stagnant workforce.

Next time please check out the facts before you mumble inane comments about the EU. Im shocked masher2, this is usually beneath you.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 6:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
You're so quick to jump all over American's rear ends... when it was the USA that saved your "arses"... TWICE...
And where is the EU now, with Iran knocking on your door with the possibility of nukes?
SCREAMING for help from the United States...

Please spare me the ridiculousness of the United States removing a reprehensible man and his regime from power, and focus on the issue at hand, which is that yes, Microsoft could just pull out of Europe... yes, they would be hurt, but could easily take the hit... yes, Linux would be a viable option, just as it is now, for all of you over there in the EU.

I love my European heritage, but to not even DARE to talk down to me when it comes to foreign policy.

- Creathir


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Merry on 7/7/2006 8:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're so quick to jump all over American's rear ends... when it was the USA that saved your "arses"... TWICE...
And where is the EU now, with Iran knocking on your door with the possibility of nukes?
SCREAMING for help from the United States...



I love my European heritage, but to not even DARE to talk down to me when it comes to foreign policy.




to be quite honest you talked yourself down there.




RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/8/2006 8:02:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're so quick to jump all over American's rear ends... when it was the USA that saved your "arses"... TWICE...
And where is the EU now, with Iran knocking on your door with the possibility of nukes?
SCREAMING for help from the United States...


I don't know what propaganda your press is feeding you, but here in Europe it is widely understood that Iran's nukes is just an excuse for the US to occupy yet another middle eastern country. And just FYI, my grandparents fought on the Axis side, so thank you oh so much for helping the Soviets in their attempts to annex my country.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2006 10:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
> " here in Europe it is widely understood that Iran's nukes is just an excuse for the US to occupy yet another middle eastern country"

Ah, so you believe Iran and the nations of the EU are actively conspiring to aid the US in this invasion? Remember, its Iran who is-- by its own admission-- enriching uranium and the EU itself who is desperately submitting proposals to Iran to persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

> "just FYI, my grandparents fought on the Axis side, so thank you oh so much for helping the Soviets in their attempts to annex my country"

So you're saying you'd rather the Third Reich would have been victorious?



RE: Where is Masher2?
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
i believe he is trying to explain, that the whole reason for the coalition to enter iraq was WMD's which were never found.

The whole reason for the coalition to enter Iran is WMD's, strange coincidence? no, definately not.

Excuse us if we are little skeptical about so-called US intelligence nowadays.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/8/2006 3:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah, so you believe Iran and the nations of the EU are actively conspiring to aid the US in this invasion? Remember, its Iran who is-- by its own admission-- enriching uranium and the EU itself who is desperately submitting proposals to Iran to persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.


The reason the EU is desperately submitting the proposals is to prevent an US invasion of Iran. Iran could very well be developing nuclear weapons for all I know; if your worst enemy has conquered two of your neighbours and has you surrounded from almost all directions, building nukes not only seems reasonable, it in fact becomes a very good way of ensuring that you don't end up next on the list of occupied countries. Even if they weren't enriching uranium, the White House would come up with some other excuse, this merely saves the time of making up some false intelligence.

quote:
So you're saying you'd rather the Third Reich would have been victorious?


While it is a very unrealistic proposition (you only need to look at a map to see how crazy the idea of occupying Russia is to realise that the Germans would have lost even without the US), I guess with hindsight we can say that things turned out ok after all even if things looked a bit hairy during the cold war. What I meant with the comment about my country being in the Axis was that it's stupid to say that the US saved us Europeans, because the US could have joined the Axis and still technically have saved the Europeans (this time from the Soviets)!

As the main belligerents from both sides were European, the US really only saved the British, French and Benelux countries (Poland & co ended up in the USSR), and because they don't make up a majority of the EU citizens people should really stop reminding us Europeans that we should be thankful for being "saved". And to answer your original question: maybe. It would have been crappy to live in the Nazi territories, but would it have been any worse than living in the USSR? I don't know, but my country sure would have been better off, as we wouldn't have lost huge tracts of land to the Soviets; we would probably have even been able to increase our land area.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By NT78stonewobble on 7/9/2006 3:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason the EU is desperately submitting the proposals is to prevent an US invasion of Iran. Iran could very well be developing nuclear weapons for all I know; if your worst enemy has conquered two of your neighbours and has you surrounded from almost all directions, building nukes not only seems reasonable, it in fact becomes a very good way of ensuring that you don't end up next on the list of occupied countries. Even if they weren't enriching uranium, the White House would come up with some other excuse, this merely saves the time of making up some false intelligence.


So ure willing to take the chance of major terrorist attacks with iranian nuclear bombs because you don't like the US? OR something along those lines ... *cough* european wuss *cough*

Besides even the EU doesn't have a coherrent foreign policy sooo ....

quote:
While it is a very unrealistic proposition (you only need to look at a map to see how crazy the idea of occupying Russia is to realise that the Germans would have lost even without the US), I guess with hindsight we can say that things turned out ok after all even if things looked a bit hairy during the cold war. What I meant with the comment about my country being in the Axis was that it's stupid to say that the US saved us Europeans, because the US could have joined the Axis and still technically have saved the Europeans (this time from the Soviets)!


Wasn't the original plan just for the nazis to invade russia upto and including moscow and down to the oilfields and be done with it? Moving no further than the urals?

Cool you just pointed out that the americans saved us europeans not once but twice.

<quoute> As the main belligerents from both sides were European, the US really only saved the British, French and Benelux countries (Poland & co ended up in the USSR), and because they don't make up a majority of the EU citizens people should really stop reminding us Europeans that we should be thankful for being "saved". And to answer your original question: maybe. It would have been crappy to live in the Nazi territories, but would it have been any worse than living in the USSR? I don't know, but my country sure would have been better off, as we wouldn't have lost huge tracts of land to the Soviets; we would probably have even been able to increase our land area. </quoute>

Let us just sum up correctly here:
Britain (from eventually falling into german hands)
France
Belgium
Luxemburg
Holland
Denmark
Norway
Germany (oppressive regime)
Italy (oppressive regime and later germany)

One can then debate if switzerland and sweden would have been allowed their independence if germany had invaded the rest?

Lastly you talk about germany might have been able to increase your land area. At whose expence? France, Holland, Poland? Why not suggest that in the EU then ?

And then you beat the US for removing a dictator or 2 ?


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/9/2006 6:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So ure willing to take the chance of major terrorist attacks with iranian nuclear bombs because you don't like the US? OR something along those lines ... *cough* european wuss *cough*


Whatever you may think of the Iranians, they're not insane. If a terrorist attack happened using Iranian nukes, it would allow the US to retaliate with nuclear weapons. As for being a wuss, the one afraid of abstract "terrorist attacks" is you, I'd rather keep my liberties thank you very much. ;)

quote:
Besides even the EU doesn't have a coherrent foreign policy sooo ....


True, and a shame too.

quote:
Wasn't the original plan just for the nazis to invade russia upto and including moscow and down to the oilfields and be done with it? Moving no further than the urals?


Yes it was.

quote:
Cool you just pointed out that the americans saved us europeans not once but twice.


Nope, still only from the Soviets, and this after they gave up eastern Europe to them.

quote:
Let us just sum up correctly here:
Britain (from eventually falling into german hands)
France
Belgium
Luxemburg
Holland
Denmark
Norway
Germany (oppressive regime)
Italy (oppressive regime and later germany)


Oops, completely forgot about Norway, Denmark and the Italian Socialist Republic. I also forgot Greece. Doesn't really matter if the Germans had an oppressive regime or not, you can't save someone by shooting at them. If the Soviets had for some bizarro reason won the cold war and occupied the US, then they would also have claimed to save the Americans from capitalism. The winners write the history.

quote:
One can then debate if switzerland and sweden would have been allowed their independence if germany had invaded the rest?


Maybe, maybe not.

quote:
Lastly you talk about germany might have been able to increase your land area. At whose expence? France, Holland, Poland? Why not suggest that in the EU then ?


At the Russians expense (parts of the NW, like Murmansk). But like I said, it's a very unrealistic proposition, and it wouldn't really work in today's world. Getting those areas today would only be an economic burden.

quote:
And then you beat the US for removing a dictator or 2 ?


Read up on why those dictators are there in the first place. I do think it's good that Hussein isn't in power anymore, but the US quite obviously isn't wanted in Iraq, why else would there be a growing resistance movement against them? Don't bother talking about "terrorists" in this case, attacking soldiers is not terrorism; terrorism is the act of causing terror in the civilian population (and it seems to be quite effective on some of us, might I add).


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 9:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "if your worst enemy has conquered two of your neighbours and has you surrounded..."

The US isn't Iran's worst enemy even in Iran's point of view. In recent memory, that position has fallen to Sunni-led Iraq. The US, by invading Iraq and giving Shi'ites a voice in a democratic Iraqi government, has aided Iran considerably.

> The reason the EU is desperately submitting the proposals is to prevent an US invasion of Iran..."

The EU is submitting proposals to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. Your conspiracy theory is, while entertaining, not backed up by the facts.

> ...It is a very unrealistic proposition (you only need to look at a map to see how crazy the idea of occupying Russia is to realise that the Germans would have lost even without the US)..."

This is the most inane, ill-informed comment I've heard in recent memory. Is history no longer taught in your schools? The Axis very nearly still won, even with the vast aid given the Allied cause by the US.

Without the US, the Germans would have easily kept North Africa and the entire European continent, then, by the time they turned their full attention to Russia, Japanese forces would have been invading Russia on an Eastern front. Instead of Germany fighting a two-front war, it would have been Russia doing so, against two opponents which were both its military and industrial superiors.

This is such a basic fact of WWII miltary history, I am honestly astonished anyone could honestly make such a claim.

> "As the main belligerents [in WWII] were European, the US really only saved the British, French and Benelux countries "

It is the official position of the German Government that the Allied Powers saved the German nation from the Third Reich. You are espousing a fringe opinion.



RE: Where is Masher2?
By NT78stonewobble on 7/9/2006 3:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
"but here in Europe it is widely understood that Iran's nukes is just an excuse for the US to occupy yet another middle eastern country. "

Are you outta your mind??? Here I was thinking that its normally americans that exhibit this retardo behaviour without thought.

First of all as a european I wouldn't trust a regime like Iran with either nuclear powerplants much less weapon grade fissile material. Hell I wouldn't trust Iran with toilet cleaner and a car.

Why would the US permanently occupy a middleeaster contry? Why would a president (and subsequently his party) take that kind of hit to the ratings if there wasn't even a slightly rational reason behind it?

How many countries have the US colonized for decades? Like european countries did for centuries?

Your grand parents fought on the axis side? Well thats really a thing to be proud off. Them being a member of the more or less most publicly hated political orientation / side in human history.

Well germany kinda forfeited the right to have a country in those years. Hell you could have NOT started that war????
Just as likely as the US "helped" soviets an attempted annexation of your country.

Totally aside from the fact that it was the US and Nato who kept westgermany safe during the cold war.

And the marshall help ???

*goes on swearing at stupidity the rest of the day ...


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/9/2006 7:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you outta your mind??? Here I was thinking that its normally americans that exhibit this retardo behaviour without thought.

First of all as a european I wouldn't trust a regime like Iran with either nuclear powerplants much less weapon grade fissile material. Hell I wouldn't trust Iran with toilet cleaner and a car.


What exactly makes the Iranians so untrustworthy? Do you dislike their democratically elected president? If so, do you also think the Palestinians "voted wrong" when they put Hamas in power?

quote:
Why would the US permanently occupy a middleeaster contry? Why would a president (and subsequently his party) take that kind of hit to the ratings if there wasn't even a slightly rational reason behind it?


Define permanent. Obviously they won't be occupying them for the next two hundred years, but how many years do they have to be there for it to be considered permanent? They've already been there for 3 years, and with no end in sight.

quote:
How many countries have the US colonized for decades? Like european countries did for centuries?


I'm not sure in what way that relates to the subject at hand, which is already pretty off-topic. I don't think the traditional form of colonisation is possible in this time and age, as there are no areas that are technologically so backwards that they could be colonised. Cultural and economic colonialism is alive and well.

quote:
Your grand parents fought on the axis side? Well thats really a thing to be proud off. Them being a member of the more or less most publicly hated political orientation / side in human history.


The reason I'm proud of them is because they prevented my democratic country from becoming a part of the USSR; it was also my way of pointing out that not all Europeans were being saved by American actions.

quote:
Well germany kinda forfeited the right to have a country in those years. Hell you could have NOT started that war????


I'm not German. Not starting the war would have probably been a good idea in hindsight, but the crippling Versailles treaty from WW1 did give them a reason to start it.

quote:
Just as likely as the US "helped" soviets an attempted annexation of your country.


The US supplied the Soviets with material and resources, which allowed the Soviets to use more resources in their attempted invasion (see Winter War and Continuation War in wikipedia if you care).

quote:
Totally aside from the fact that it was the US and Nato who kept westgermany safe during the cold war.


I don't disagree. But they didn't really have any other choice either.

quote:
And the marshall help ???


Again I don't see what this has to do with anything. While the Marshall plan was useful for rebuilding West Europe, I don't see what it has to do with the US saving some of Europe in WW2, nor do I see how it relates to their foreign policy in relation to Iran?


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 9:53:56 AM , Rating: 3
> " Do you dislike [Iran's] democratically elected president?"

"Democracy in Iran doesn't mean the same thing it does in the West. Allow me to quote from DemocracyForIran.de (a German site, no lesss):

quote:
The Iranian regime is a brutal dictatorship which has suppressed all democratic rights during the last 25 years. It has attacked the vast majority of the Iranian population and consistently violated their rights with impunity....the greater majority of the population of Iran [has] been under constant pressure and harassment, including hundreds of thousands of arrests and tens of thousands of extra-judicial executions....


After Iran's last election, Britain's Jack Straw said:

quote:
"For the Iranian people to have a fully free choice about their country's future, they should be able to vote for candidates who hold the full range of political views, not just candidates selected for them,"


Iranians protested in the nation and around the world against what they called "sham" elections.



RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 9:58:32 AM , Rating: 3
> "it was also my way of pointing out that not all Europeans were being saved by American actions"

We saved as many as we could. And you're still dodging the point. When you say "My grandparents fought for the Axis side, you didn't help ME", you're implying you wish the Nazis to have won.

A rather illuminating viewpoint, I think we all agree.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/10/2006 11:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We saved as many as we could. And you're still dodging the point. When you say "My grandparents fought for the Axis side, you didn't help ME", you're implying you wish the Nazis to have won.

A rather illuminating viewpoint, I think we all agree.


No, when I say "My grandparents fought for the Axis side, you didn't help ME" I really mean what I say. Despite the Allies and thanks to the Axis, Finland was able to stay independent from the USSR. But as some people seem to be incapable of any other POV than "Axis = Evil", I regret saying it, as some people now think I am a neo-nazi skinhead who goes around kicking disabled people. Oh well.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 2:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
> My grandparents fought for the Axis side, you didn't help ME..."

Honestly, I am aghast at your utter lack of of knowledge of the history of your own country. Are you not even aware of the Ribbentrop Pact, where Germany and the USSR divided up Eastern Europe between them. Your lovely Axis powers *gave* Finland to the USSR, in exchange for concessions in other territories. Luckily for your nation, Germany didn't keep its part of the bargain however.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that, while Finland *began* WW2 fighting with the Axis powers, it *ended* the war fighting on the side of the Allied. Or have you never heard of the Lapland War either?

Furthermore, it's clearly obvious that Germany, had it been victorious, would not only have occupied all the rest of the territories it ceded to the USSR, but Finland as well. So yes-- the Allied Forces did indeed "help you" retain your independence. But don't worry...we don't mind if you refuse to say "thank you".

> "some people seem to be incapable of any other POV than "Axis = Evil","

Yes, we consider the Third Reich as evil. Its interesting that your own "point of view" is otherwise.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AndreasM on 7/10/2006 4:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, I am aghast at your utter lack of of knowledge of the history of your own country. Are you not even aware of the Ribbentrop Pact, where Germany and the USSR divided up Eastern Europe between them. Your lovely Axis powers *gave* Finland to the USSR, in exchange for concessions in other territories. Luckily for your nation, Germany didn't keep its part of the bargain however.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that, while Finland *began* WW2 fighting with the Axis powers, it *ended* the war fighting on the side of the Allied. Or have you never heard of the Lapland War either?

Furthermore, it's clearly obvious that Germany, had it been victorious, would not only have occupied all the rest of the territories it ceded to the USSR, but Finland as well. So yes-- the Allied Forces did indeed "help you" retain your independence. But don't worry...we don't mind if you refuse to say "thank you".

Yes, we consider the Third Reich as evil. Its interesting that your own "point of view" is otherwise.


Finland was a member of the Axis. Axis != Third Reich. While some of the policies the third reich had (concentration camps, slave labour) were evil, the nation was amoral. For that same reason I don't label the US evil either, even though I think Gitmo is evil. Alternate history can be discussed for all eternity, and we'll still not know how things would have turned out. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as this back and forth won't amount to anything useful. It's my fault for invoking Godwin's law in my first post. :P


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 8:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
> "we are not america. we dont tolerate controlled markets and we try to stop them."

Very true. Yet, has all that government control been beneficial to the consumer? The average European can afford less in the way of housing, consumer and luxury goods, transportation, and most other sectors. This tempts one to ask, "where's the benefit"?

You may call capitalism "handing business a silver platter". Here in America, we call it freedom. And it pays strong dividends...to all of us, consumers and business owners alike.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By McGuffin on 7/8/2006 12:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by masher2 on July 7, 2006 at 8:11 PM

The average European can afford less in the way of housing, consumer and luxury goods, transportation, and most other sectors. This tempts one to ask, "where's the benefit"?


Ever heard of the National Health Service? What use are luxury goods when you dread falling ill? Come back when you've read some J.K Galbraith.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 1
> "Ever heard of the National Health Service? "

Ah, the NHS, the source of endless complaints, and the butt of countless jokes about the poor quality of health care in Britain...the institution that inspired the philospher Rand to question why a people would trade their freedom for free dentures. Yes, I've heard of it. It makes a rather solid point in my favor.




RE: Where is Masher2?
By Trisped on 7/10/2006 2:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
The only current advantage of Linux is the price, free. Yes, it is easy to install, about as easy as Windows. But it is not as easy to configure, many versions still require the use of a command line to do simple tasks that have been GUI interfaced in Windows for years. Performance and software performance and support is horrible. You can't find a tech who knows how to fix your problem who won't charge you 2-20 times what a Windows tech will charge. driver support is questionable at best. Some normal tasks are convoluted or impossible for not tech users.

In short, Linux is not and probably never will be a real substitute for Windows or even OSX. And if EU wants to protect its consumers it would realize that we would be thrust into the PC dark ages if windows was taken from the average user. Then only techs would have the know how use their computer, and everyone would be on an incompatible system. Really, if Linux was so great it would have become the industry standard by now since it is FREE.

The EU is being totally unfair. Proper advertising and product placement could get any free media player to the #1 spot. Proper innovation and development with advertising could get even an expensive media player a tight position in the market.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By AxemanFU on 7/7/2006 6:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the posts here are hysterical. They defy logic, really. It's oh so simple:

Does Europe have an entitlement to use MS products? No. Can they create or use other equivalent products? Yes, if they so desire.
Does Microsoft force anyone to buy MS products? No.
Does Europe want to hold MS to a superstandard, effectively resulting in extorting either fines or free access to intellectual property for regional companies or governments to exploit? Yes, and it might be in their best interests to do so in their view.
Does Microsoft have to put up with that crap? No, they can pull their affected products out of Europe, leaving them collectively hanging with their pants at their ankles until reasonably effective alternatives can be developed, or alternatively, MS can just take the fines, which are nothing compared to it's profit margins, and keep on with business as usual, while fighting a legal interdiction all the way, which is probably what will happen.

In the end, Eurpoean agencies are just trying to strongarm MS for more leverage to get greater access to free stuff and allow more regional and local companies into MS dominated markets, while trying to retain the economic efficiency of having one widespread and universal OS platform. I can see why they do it, but it's really futile. If MS can't make the money they want, they'll just pick up their ball and go home, and there isn't anyone in their place with an effective alterative package of OS and apps to jump right in. Europe can't afford the economic upheaval that such an event would cause, and MS knows this, so MS can also play hardball with a pullout threat. In the end, neither side wants this "MAD" option, so another uneasy compromise will be reached. To tell the truth, corruption in the business world in Europe is as rampant or even more so than it is in the US, so I doubt anything will come of the whole thing other than some carefully negotiated fines that grease the right pockets.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Wwhat on 7/7/2006 7:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
I like at this time to point out the US government sued microsoft several times over monopoly practises, and they won.
To think that asking a company to not engage in illegal practises is an attack on america seems a bit daft.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
try to space out your comments more, to make it easier to read, however onto business!

If microsoft pulls out of the EU with windows, one of two things will happen:

1) Seeing Microsoft pull out of the massive market that is the EU (and it is massive, with the GDP virtually on par with the US), Apple will launch massive marketing campaigns to get people to buy macs in the void. Using this new found massive userbase, apple starts the compete with microsoft on a global level, causing for the first time Microsoft to lose its monopoly status, Microsoft relies on OS sales a great deal and losing the EU market plus gaining a new strong competitor would be the death knell for the company.

or

2) Linux, starting with government organisations, takes a foothold in the EU, slowly gaining popularity, a 'idiot-proof' distro of linux is released, as popularity rises for this new linux, drivers are written by hardware companies wanting to keep sales. OpenGL flourishes here, allowing european developers to develop openGL games on linux and make a lot more cash then before. Eventually Linux takes majority marketshare in the EU and creates a direct competitor to microsoft, because of linux's inherent open source nature and free code, more people jump onto the linux bandwagon. Microsofts mainstay (the OS) starts to fall away as market leader, the sheer funds needed to keep afloat consoles such as the Xbox 360 and avrious other projects become non-available, stock brokers sell microsoft stock in droves, leaving microsoft a mere shell of its former self.


The fact remains that microsoft HAS to stay in the EU, otherwise a massive market hole will open up allowing linux and/or apple to fill the void and create a true direct competitor to windows, microsoft simply cannot take that chance.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Alexvrb on 7/8/2006 8:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
I have no problem with them raping Microsoft, but I do have a problem with the double standards in the EU.

Let me use a Mac commercial to demonstrate. Apple recently aired a series of commercials here in the US involving a Mac and a PC. The PC was a middle aged fellow, and the Mac was a "hip" young guy. In this one particular commercial, the Mac bragged about how he could play music/videos and even create movies out of the box. Yet if you look back, Microsoft was forced to release a version of Windows without the media player, and they've been bitching about IE being bundled for years. Imagine how bad it would be if Microsoft bundled all the software preinstalled that Apple does. How is it that Apple gets away with it? Because they're not Microsoft. They're doing it again here: who else has to meet these ridiculous standards and has goverment mandated DEADLINES or else pay pretty large back fines?

I demand every company that ever released software ever release complete interoperability documents for free to all their competitors, in plain grade-school writing, or else have huge fines leveled against them dating back to whenever I feel like! Because, you know, heaven forbid they actually do their own damned work. Why bother when you can use Microsoft's thousands of man hours devoted to giving away their methods so others can create interoperable software?


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Gallius on 7/9/2006 7:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
The only way Apple would gain a market share of over 25% of Desktop PC's is if they drop their prices to attract consumers, everyone else will stick with older & unsecure versions of Windows or use Linux.

Perhaps it'd be better for Apple to open OSX to the X86 market completely thereby creating a competing product and really giving MS a headache. Then give it a couple of years and everyone will turn on Apple like they do MS/Sony.

Linux should steer clear of governmentinterference as that never works in Europe, too much red tape and way too much hatred of a "big brother" possibility. If Torvalds could get the big players in Linux together to create 1 simple product for the mass market they'd have a winner.

Every way you look at this case it just highlights why big corporations might see entering the EU as a difficult decision. The EU need to strike a balance between upholding the laws and allowing freedoms (freedoms that they spout propaganda claiming to want).

I'd support MS if they decided to pull out of the hostile EU zone but i'm sure there'd be a public outcry if they did, both against MS & the EU (apart from in Socialist France where they'll just moan about it).

Being half British & half American I can honestly say i'm proud of my British heritage and sometimes ashamed of my US heritage.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By ecktt on 7/9/2006 2:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
You ignored option 3. People or businesses buy MS products straight out of the US. It’s not a fact that MS has to stay in EU. Your fact/s seem like more speculation to me. In any case, as numerous people have said, if MS is so bad don’t use it. If interoperability is the problem, design you own. Last I herd the reduced version of XP was being out sold in EU 10 to 1 buy the XP. So I think it’s a matter of people wanting to buy what Microsoft has to offer vs them being a monopoly. The only reason MS has a commanding lead of the market share is because consumers put them there.


RE: Where is Masher2?
By Hare on 7/9/2006 2:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only reason MS has a commanding lead of the market share is because consumers put them there.
Haha, that's priceless.


Who's Really Wrong?
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 12:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Forcing a company to open its API beyond what it feels should be public is insane. They need to stop trying to bully MS and start worrying about other more important matters.

I can understand wanting to have a fair way to compete, but do they require this level of openess for every software sold there?

As for the removing of bundled software MS should just do it and then charge (in the EU) for downloads of that free software. There is nothing stopping someone from downloading winAMP or whatever they want.


If people are too stupid to do it then they should..
1. Relocate to Florida and complain because they are too stupid to read/follow simple instructions.
-or-
2. SHUT THE *((& UP!




RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By Hare on 7/7/2006 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound like the EU is requesting Microsoft to open their sourcecode. That's not true. There are applications that simply don't work well in windows and MS likes to keep it that way because that way they can sell their own solutions.

Btw. MS already has a mediaplayerless version of windows sold in the EU. Vista will also come with a similar flavour.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
THEN DO NOT USE WINDOWS!

Or maybe, GET YOUR PROGRAM TO WORK PROPERLY!

- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By Hare on 7/7/2006 3:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Now that was a smart reply ! That's the problem. For example Linux systems can't write to ntfs volumes. Why, because MS won't tell how. The reason why they won't tell is because people would convert to linux more easily. MS would gain a lot if they opened up their APIs, but they refuse to do so because they want to hold on to their monopoly with an iron fist.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry... but you can just as easily copy your files to another PC, install Linux, and put them back in.
From the sounds of it, you have a second hard drive anyway...
Just reformat it to Fat32...

Anyway, this is NOT a reason people are not converting to Linux... sorry.

How many years have we had Fat32 and the masses did not convert to Linux?

- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rcc on 7/7/2006 3:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
OK, so as a Linux user, why would you want to use NTFS. I don't speak Linux, but I presume that it has it's own native formatting.



RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By Hare on 7/8/2006 4:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
Just a stupid example.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By 9nails on 7/8/2006 6:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, the EU not only wants Microsoft to give its trade secrets to its competitors, but also to spend time and money training them on how to best use it.


Yes, that's a good deal. So if I want to make car parts, I should be able to get Bosch to provide me with fuel injection specifications, design, and source vendors. At which point I would just replace their name with mine and call the product "competitive." I wouldn't care about making a better product, because I should just let Bosch do that work for me, and take their RD as my own.

My argument sounds silly, but this is precisely what the EU is asking for.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2006 10:48:31 AM , Rating: 1
> "At which point I would just replace their name with mine and call the product "competitive." I wouldn't care about making a better product, because I should just let Bosch do that work for me, and take their RD as my own."

Exactly so. The EU is not concerned with better competition; it simply sees the benefit of a massive, free transfer of technology from an American firm to European ones.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By Hare on 7/9/2006 6:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, that's a good deal. So if I want to make car parts, I should be able to get Bosch to provide me with fuel injection specifications, design, and source vendors. At which point I would just replace their name with mine and call the product "competitive." I wouldn't care about making a better product, because I should just let Bosch do that work for me, and take their RD as my own.


No! The analogy would work if you put MS as the car manufacturer and fuel injection system manufacturer. The car manufacturer (MS) would have 90% market share and would not tell other companies the necessary information about the ECU-system to make their own ful injection systems. They simply don't fit to the engine! If a consumer could choose either the original manufacturers fuel injection unit or Boschs unit it would be good for the market and competition. Now the engine manufacturer (MS) simply refuses to tell how to fit third party fuel injection units because they want to stay as a monopoly.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 10:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "The car manufacturer (MS) would have 90% market share and would not tell other companies the necessary information about the ECU-system to make their own ful injection systems..."

The flaw in your analogy is that hundreds of thousands of companies and developers ARE making "fuel injection systems" (Windows-compatible software). And, much of the time, making it better than Microsoft itself.

Quite obviously, Microsoft has shared enough information to allow them to do so.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By psychobriggsy on 7/7/2006 12:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
They're a monopoly, normal rules don't apply.

Microsoft used to make use of undocumented APIs for its own applications, thus giving them an advantage over competing applications that did not know of these APIs. A level playing ground would have fully documented APIs (and network protocols, document formats, and so on) to ensure interoperability and restrict further lock-in.

The media player removal was pointless however. Ensuring that OEMs could put their own selection of software on without reprisal from Microsoft is far better, by separating Windows up into a core OS, and extras (internet, media, etc) that the OEM can use or select alternatives.

And your comment about charging for free software is exactly what the problem is - Microsoft bundling 'free' software with their OS, thus killing off competitors. The software is not free, the cost is simply written off or gained from elsewhere, killing the competitor was the aim of giving it away free, and an abuse of monopoly. If windows was half the cost without IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc, then I think a lot of people would have chosen it, and would choose it today.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 1:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Use a different platform then! NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO USE WINDOWS!
- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By cubby1223 on 7/7/2006 2:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
And nobody is forcing you to read these posts. Come up with a better arguement, instead of resorting to YELLING WHILE TYPING BECAUSE THAT CERTAINLY MAKES THE OPINION MORE IMPORTANT!

If you didn't have your head you-know-where, you might have realized this is not so much about consumers, but about other companies who cannot feasibly write software for Windows because Microsoft is an uncompetitive, monopolistic company - and one that certainly doesn't need to be one to be highly profitable.

But alas, reason defies you, no point arguing, I guess I should just resort to an all-caps shouting war...


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
Just to let you know, Cubby, I not only develop software, fulltime, but also have a side software consulting company. This has NOTHING TO DO with the consumer, you are right... but this company is not monopolistic, or uncompetitive, they just do not have large competetors. Why should they make their software open to everyone else? This is not like the age of the railroad... where they controlled the lines. Microsoft does not control your computer. Get a different operating system if you dislike it so much. Develop on that other system. No one is forcing you to use Windows.

- Creathir

(I just get so tired of repeating this same old argument... it is as if logic escapes some of you...)


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 2:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Creathir,

I see you post on the board alot and most of the time you have a sound argument behind what you post, usually well thought-out.

Here however, I agree with others. Your typing in all CAPS doesn't help your point at all. The point is - Microsoft has never fairly and precisely documented its API's. As a programmer who has worked with this stuff, I can tell you this is a monopolistic approach. API's are used to interact with the system - something you need to do if you write any code at all. By not documenting the APIs, Microsoft gives themselves an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Sure, it is usually possible to write software that will work under windows even without these APIs, however, its almost certain that the software will be slower or with fewer integration features than software written by a programmer, who may not even be as good at coding, at Microsoft with their in-house API documentation. This, quite simply, is monopolistic. They are restricting entry into the market.

It makes absolutely no difference that you can use any OS. None whatsoever. The market is predominately based off the Windows OS, which is why its been ruled they have a monopoly. Monopolistic companies are allowed to exist because, lets face it, for the most part windows is a good product and it has been well marketed, so the company (MS) should benefit. However, that doesn't extend to restricting entry into the software market entirely, for any reason. Especially hiding programming features in windows so that competitors can't utilize them for their apps.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 2:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
rrsurfer1,

I also develop software for a living and I agree that some times it is tedious to get information from MS. But for the most part it's available, I find that most people are usually just to lazy to look.

MS supports, hosts and participates in NG's and message boards to answer developers questions. The MSDN library (freely available online) is also a great resource, although not always perfect.

Most apps that dont run on windows well are poorly written. I'm sure there is exceptions to that, but i strongly believe that to be a small percentage.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Some is available, but not all. ALL of it should be available. For the most part I can find what I need, be it can sometimes be difficult. Take the interop stuff for Office as an example, if you've ever worked with any of it, it's an absolute mess, the documentation sucks, and it is far slower than any interop stuff I've ever seen in used MS applications.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 3:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Office isnt Windows. Office is an application and yes the interop stuff is pain, but this EU crap isnt about Office, its about Windows.



RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not a monopoly! HAHA. What dreamland do you live in creathir.

Market Share Windows XP 82.68%
Market Share Windows 2000 7.42%
Market Share Mac OS 3.92%
Market Share Windows 98 2.95%
Market Share Windows ME 1.32%
Market Share Windows NT 0.80%
Market Share Linux 0.38%

Source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 2:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Just for your clarification....
Owning market share != being a monopoly.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 3:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't mean to say it is equal, however the stats are STILL pretty damning. There are many determinates to being a monopoly, most of which are hard to quantify and easy to argue over.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rushfan2006 on 7/7/2006 3:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not a monopoly! HAHA. What dreamland do you live in creathir.

You know what really spins my head around (not actually but it sounds more dramatic that way..lol) is just the attitude that "owning market share" is evil. That just makes no sense to me...so if I raised capital and busted my arse through decades of hard work to build up a business that eventually "owned market share" -- I'd be look upon as "bad, digusting, evil, etc. etc."? Isn't the point of a (for profit) organization to be as financially successful and sound as humanly possible? Secondly isn't one of the main tenets this country (USA) was founed on the spirit of Free Enterprise in a Capitialist society?

Finally, I've always thought a "true" monopoly means you have NO CHOICE within an specific industry in a specific market for similar service or product. In other words, you are more or less forced to go to that company or else you can't have that service - because no one else offers it.

So how can MS be a "true" monopoly when I turn my head right now and see someone running Linux with no evidence of MS on it at all...and I can get up out of my chair and walk around the corner and see folks running MacOS?

A true monopoly example you ask...ok...my condo development...look for premium TV service (cable/sat)...Comcast is your only choice. Its the only cable provider in the area and Satellite service is against condo rules so that isn't even an option.

Comcast is a monopoly in my world ...8000 TIMES more than MS ever is.



RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 6:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot...

Thousands upon thousands of man hours have made that company what it is today...

They scratched their way to the top, just as others have before them.

Jealousy is not very becoming...

mate...

- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By fsardis on 7/7/2006 7:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
yep, thousands of man hours spent making cheap copies of other people's innovations. thousands of man hours spent creating licence agreements that are unfair to competition. thousand of man hours spent in creating this miserable reality for modern computers. thousands of man hours spent making people think its ok to get BSOD and restart the pc every now and then.

we obviously got very different quality standards but thats ok. call me an idiot if you like but i want perfection or at least i want to see some valiant efforts for perfection. MS has falied to do that since its very beginning.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 6:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is the problem... most of the people on here are SCREAMING like chicken little because they have no idea what a monopoly is. A monopoly is the government controlling your healthcare. A monopoly is when no other choice exists. Microsoft is not a monopoly. By stating that it is, totally devalues all of the hard work the Open Source community has done. The hard work that companies like Red Hat have accomplished.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

Microsoft DOES NOT fit this definition, nor does Windows or any other product they product. Sure they have the most popular, but by these people's opinion, Google should be broken up for having such a dominance on the market share of the search engine.

- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By Merry on 7/8/2006 9:14:08 AM , Rating: 3
Please go and find an definition for the word monopoly in economic terms. Then you'll see how much you are embarassing yourself

In fact i'll help you. Here is a definition of the term monopoly

A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By KCjoker on 7/7/2006 4:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
He shoudln't shout it but I'm guessing he's sick of trying to educate people about choice. If you don't like what MS does then don't use their products. There certainly are other alternatives so you have no excuse. If I wrote a good OS, marketed it well I wouldn't make it easier for other companies to take market share from me either.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 6:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.
- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 8:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
> "If you didn't have your head you-know-where, you might have realized this is not so much about consumers, but about other companies... "

One of the most basic tenets of antitrust law is it exists to protect the consumer, not the competitor.



The point
By NT78stonewobble on 7/9/2006 4:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
The point in my humble oppinion is that Office and Windows has become a defacto standard in both businesses, government and homeusers.

To the point where the danish science minister in a letter encouraged the use of open source software. The letter was written in microsoft office :S.

With standard I mean. That around here we call roads a basic necessity for the society to function and thus they are the responsibility of the government.

Personally I'd like to have high speed fiber internet connections in under this way of reasoning.

Then the question is if an operating system is the same "basic necessity" for the use of internet / communication and so on.



RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By BladeVenom on 7/7/2006 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Use a different platform then! NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO USE WINDOWS!


Yes they are. Since Microsoft has a monopoly, many sotware makers create software that only works with Windows. To use the software I already have, and future versions, I have to have Windows wether I like it or not.

I could care less about bundling, what I would like is for Microsoft to open up its API's and formats so I could potentially run my software on any operating system.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By rcc on 7/7/2006 5:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
So the real problem is that you are being forced to use an application that only runs on Windows? Yet the problem under debate is that the EU wants it to be easier to integrate with Windows?

Besides be a bit out of context, it sounds like your beef is with your application company, not MS.

While I think it would be nifty to be able to run any program on any computer, that won't happen until there is a true monopoly, or all OS companies are very cooperative Not for Profit entities.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By creathir on 7/7/2006 6:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
The goal of most of these people is to have this... make it so that making money is not really an important thing.

They are script kiddies that do not believe in IP and frankly have no understanding on how the real world, at least in terms of business, works.

- Creathir


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By BladeVenom on 7/8/2006 2:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
So EU politicians are just a bunch of ignorant script kiddies. Yea, that makes a lot of sense.


RE: Who's Really Wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 8:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Microsoft used to make use of undocumented APIs for its own applications, thus giving them an advantage over competing applications "

Which Microsoft application exactly do you believe has any sort of technical advantage over a competitor's product? I see a huge amount of Windows applications written by other companies. It usually runs as well and, in many cases better, than those by Microsoft itself.

I don't see any evidence of a hidden "turbocharge button" or any other benefit in the Windows API.




Bundling nonesense
By lemonadesoda on 7/7/2006 5:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is nonesense to ban bundling.

Can you imagine Ford being banned from supplying an engine with their truck because it forces out competition in "engines for Ford trucks". Or brakes? Or headlights? Or a radio that comes as standard? Or cigarette lighter?

As long as iexplorer, or mplayer, is not FORCING the consumer to buy M$ only webpages, or M$ only movies, or M$ only music, I really dont see the problem.

If Windows had a built in task-killer that killed Firefox, or DivX, or iTunes, then there would be a problem. However, anyone is free to develop, install and run any application.




RE: Bundling nonesense
By Wwhat on 7/7/2006 9:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
This is not what this is about, please read some more on the subject and try again.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By gplracer on 7/7/2006 10:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
What would happen if Microsoft said "screw it!" and decided to stop selling products in the Europe?


RE: Bundling nonesense
By stmok on 7/7/2006 10:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by gplracer on July 7, 2006 at 10:07 PM

What would happen if Microsoft said "screw it!" and decided to stop selling products in the Europe?


They would lose a HUGE chunk of potential income. We're talking Billions, not just "loose change". And their share price will FALL!

To fill the gap, open-source will grow pretty rapidly in this market as a result.

This means Microsoft will have a harder time competing for a global marketshare, as they have effectively given a chunk to open-source.

From a military strategy point of view, this is like shooting yourself in the foot.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By stmok on 7/7/2006 10:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, no. Completely off by many miles.

The point of bundling, is to squeeze the competition off. By incorporating solutions into an OS, most people will just use what's already there in the OS. They will NOT even bother using third-party solutions. This is NOT offering people the choice to choose what they want. MS is NOT informing the user of their options, and letting them choose. That's the point. Apparently, you fail to see that.

How do you think IE stole the market from Netscape? Why do you think Microsoft was charged in that anti-trust case and convicted of being a monopoly? Have you even looked into IT history?

Your analogy is very WRONG at best. Because the bits you talk about are fundamental to Ford truck's functioning as a truck. Its a very, very poor example. Its like saying the Win32 Kernel is considered bundling, when its not. The kernel is a key part of any operating system.

Internet Explorer, Outlook and Windows Media player ARE NOT fundamental components of the MS Windows Operating System when they first came to light. You can make Win98SE function without IE integration. IE, Outlook and WMP are tacked on components. They were bundled with Windows, and now are thoroughly embedded into current versions of Windows.

This is delibrate such that Microsoft can maintain their argument that those components are fundamental to Windows. (Which, anyone with programming experience knows, is utter BS).

The consequence of this, however, is that embedding IE into Windows has caused major security issues. If you look carefully in the history of MS patches, you'll see that IE, Outlook, WMP are a major contributors to Windows's security problems.


This anti-trust case in EU against Microsoft is a bit of a two prong nature. (1) It attacks MS's bundling of WMP, and (2) Forces them to open up specifications.

The reason is because of EU policy. They want an environment where everyone is allowed to compete in a fairer way. By locking up specifications such that it doesn't allow others to develop solutions to work with MS solutions (and compete), Microsoft's methods are in direct contradiction to the EU. (They may be fine for USA, but the rest of the world doesn't operate that way).

The only way to force MS to comply, is by legal action and large fines. EU, unlike USA, is not MS's home ground. They don't have any political connections such that they get "wrist slaps" as punishment. EU is a different playground. If you wanna compete in their backyard, you have to play by their rules. If not, either be penalised or leave.

The reason MS closes specifications and protocols, is because they do NOT want competition to get into their markets. If no one knows how their solutions work with great detail, you won't be able to develop compatible solutions...Hence, no competition. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is unfair for those who want to compete against a monopoly like Microsoft.

The EU is doing what's best for their economy and environment, by opening up avenues to competitors. Competition is good, because it benefits the consumer AND pushes for innovation. (something Microsoft does NOT have).

Think about IE6...Once it dominated the browser market, Microsoft just let it stagnate. They didn't bother with it anymore. NO improvements in features for quite a while. It wasn't until Opera, Firefox, etc showed up and started eating into MS's marketshare, did MS bother with IE7.

Its the same with hardware. If not for AMD, Intel wouldn't even bother with Conroe and there would be no price cuts on either side. This is why, despite the fanboys (wankers), competition is important.


What's really sad about this situation, is that Microsoft defenders still don't understand what is meant by choice and the freedom to choose.

Choice is when you inform your users of all the options available to them. Based on those, you let the customer decide what apps, hardware, whatever, is best for THEIR needs.

Not having the freedom to choose, is when you just offer your solution only and not hinting anything of other solutions that are available.

This isn't about jealously or picking on Microsoft. Its Microsoft's own business practices that have led them to this point. They have been doing such devious acts for a long time, and its only in recent times, have people woken up to what's going on. I guess many of you are too young to remember some of their actions. (or you haven't yet looked at IT history). Yet, you remain completely oblivious to what Microsoft really does in the REAL world.

This definitely won't be the last of the law restricting and punishing Microsoft into doing something. I guarantee it.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 11:25:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "By incorporating solutions into an OS, most people will just use what's already there in the OS"

Which means for a competitor to be a viable product, it has to be good enough that users are willing to purchase it, even though a free version exists. Not exactly that difficult to do, now is it? Free backup programs exist...yet many companies still sell backup software. Free image manipulation software exists...yet Photoshop and Corel still sell well. Free email exists...yet many companies (including Microsoft itself) sell more capable versions.

The fact is, Netscape wasn't a "better product". It was an equal product delivered at a far higher price. So it died....and its death has hurt consumers not in the slightest.

Personally, most users prefer to pay an extra $25 for their machine, and get not only an OS, but a free media player, browser, image viewer, text editor, email, disk defragmenter, backup tool, and a host of other free utilities and applications. Its presumptious to the extreme to say than an OS "cannot" include such features.

> "How do you think IE stole the market from Netscape?"

Markets are not the property of any competitor. They cannot be "stolen".

> "The kernel is a key part of any operating system. "

At one point in time, the kernel WAS the OS. Times change, and technology evolves. Thirty years from now, what we expect as part of an OS will be much larger than it is today. This is normal, natural, and to be desired.

> "Microsoft can maintain their argument that those components are fundamental to Windows"

The integration of HTTP communication and HTML rendering has indisputably enabled many new applications, however, and changed our expectations of what constitutes basic functionality in an OS. The simple expedient of allowing help files and other documentation to be shipped in HTML format has been a boon to many software vendors.

Would it really be preferable for consumers to have to install Netscape, simply to view their product documentation? No one but an idiot would argue so.



RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/8/2006 12:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point of bundling, is to squeeze the competition off. By incorporating solutions into an OS, most people will just use what's already there in the OS. They will NOT even bother using third-party solutions. This is NOT offering people the choice to choose what they want. MS is NOT informing the user of their options, and letting them choose. That's the point. Apparently, you fail to see that.


if i sell am selling cookies and i know your gonna want milk am i going to offer you free milk from my factory or a competitors factory that also sells cookies? and if u like the milk and keep coming back is that wrong of me for marketing my product in that manner? my client is free whenever to change to a different milkf provider but if mine is routinely accessible from the beginning why is that wrong of me? it is not my fault the client doesnt shop around before chooisng me for his cookie supplier and if i become the milk supplier then i've made some money on sound bussiness.

as to ealier
please dont rip MS by saying they make a "crappy product", if it was truely a bad product bussinesses and companies and the ordinary joe would trade to a different os and the software market with it. and if they dont know other OS's exist then they obviously dont care to much about their current one. hence it can't be that bad.

also please dont make blatant sterotyping remarks saying that "america is stupid and everybody from america is stupid", rambling nonsense like that is not only counter-productive but wrong as their are a lot of hard working and intelligent individuals in this country. sure we have our sideways types...but doesn't everybody?


RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/8/2006 12:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
once again to restate, MS may be a large company but are they no way a monopoly. i do not want to pull out another definition so read the ones above. There are other alternatives out their for operating systems. if your upset because you have programs that only work on windows then take that up with the coders of the program as it was their choice to make sole compatibility with windows. If you are going to complain about that then complain about apple and the mac to.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/8/2006 12:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
since when have people not been able to choose? i have both ms word and Oo on my computer. i have winamp and windows media player. i have mozilla and ie7. i have plenty of choices. it is up to the CONSUMER to choose the companies can give you products all they want. by this standard your saying its wrong of aol to give away 1000 hours inside of router boxes. i have all the programs i want, and if i want something different, i'll go to the store or look online and download it. i fail to see where i have no choice but to use microsoft and ms word and ie7. if your talking about external apps read my post above and take it up with the coders of those apps to write their code compatible to mac and fedora and linux


RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/8/2006 12:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
the only place i know that gives you your competitors rates is progressive. i've never seen another example of a car insurance agency quoting another bussiness. you to go ms looking for and operating system and expectations of basic functionality (internet typing blabla) then thats what you'll get. if you dont like the os or the functionality, then find something else. it pisses me off when you get so high and mighty because you think that you have an IT degree, some degree of intelligence that your pompous ass can come in and roll over everybody. come to the US and i'll show u a good time, if i go to europe i know i'll get a good time. i dont give a rats ass if i have to drive in the left lane cuz every country is different. dont talk down to us like we are low on the totem poll compared to you. we have to deal with MS just like the rest of the world


RE: Bundling nonesense
By Kyanzes on 7/8/2006 4:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's incredibly hard to believe that people here really believe the EU-MS case has anything to do with consumer level or even company level IT interests. It's merely a taxation and security matter. The aim of the taxation part should be quite clear: get money. As for the security matter: imagine government agencies using undocumented software on their comps. And, pardon me here, don't expect from EU countries to accept MS's word that all the grey areas in their OSs are "probably OK."


RE: Bundling nonesense
By Merry on 7/8/2006 9:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
once again to restate, MS may be a large company but are they no way a monopoly

i'm sorry but you're most definatly wrong.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/8/2006 3:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
once again to restate, MS may be a large company but are they no way a monopoly

i'm sorry but you're most definatly wrong.


you have the choice of using fedora, linux, BSD, ubuntu, hp-uc, AIX, Solaris, Mac OS, and Inferno, just to name a few. you have options, no one is forcing you to use microsoft. and if companies are only making software that can be used by microsoft, thats not microsoft's problem, thats the companies problem.

you ignore my whole post and focus on a single line and you say i'm wrong without providing a shred of proof or evidence as to why that is so. making a blanket statement like that lowers the overall effectiveness of what you have to say and adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation. if you choose to reply explain to me exactly how microsoft is a monopoly, provide a correct definition and then explain how microsoft meets that definition. when you've successfully done that without errors your arguement may have more basis and you will look less like an ignorant moron.

i dont have a preference for microsoft, i simply wish people would get the facts right. and i especially dislike it when i'm told i'm "definatly wrong" and not a shred of evidence supports that statement.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By Merry on 7/8/2006 7:08:41 PM , Rating: 3
i do provide evidence.

its further up the discussion

In fact i'll help you. Here is a definition of the term monopoly

A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.

there was no need to focus on the rest of the post as you seem to mis-understand what a monopoly is.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/8/2006 8:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
and heres 3 more

the free dictionary - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

webster - exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

cambridge - complete control of the supply of particular goods or services, or a company or group that has such control

you sir have a misinformed opinion on the definition of monopoly. a monopoly entails that a entity is the sole source for a particular product and that is simply not the case. there are many alternatives and you've yet to address anything else i've said as i'm not misinformed because judging by those defintions MS /= monopoly.

even wikipedia doesn't follow your "definition" of monopoly and i would love to see the source of your information
quote:
monopoly (from the Latin word monoplium - Greek language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.


a recurring factor in this seems to be exclusitivity and a sole provider, niether of which occurs in this situation. i believe i understand what a monopoly is.


RE: Bundling nonesense
By Merry on 7/10/2006 5:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
these are dictionary definitions, they arent quite the same.

the definition i gave was out of the Collins Dictionary of Business

I wouldnt trust wikipedia at all


RE: Bundling nonesense
By baseball43v3r on 7/12/2006 1:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
so a dictionary defintion is incorrect? wasn't sure that was possible considering that all 3 dictionaries said basically the same thing. i picked three random ones, i didn't go look for a definition that suited my needs like you did. i wouldn't trust wikipedia put i threw it in there anyways. so because it came out of your dictionary its correct and mine is incorrect. i see how your little world revolves and spins around you...

i know what a monopoly is and "nearly all" is no where near the same as exclusive. your dictionary happens to suit your needs and thats fine. i still dont think its correct as a majority of other dictionartes disagree's and the it disagree's in the key priniciple aspect.

focus on this:
you have a choice, if you think you dont have a choice then tell me why. its as simple as that


RE: Bundling nonesense
By Merry on 7/19/2006 9:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
i can see you're annoyed that you're wrong. Dont take it personally now.


MS should pull out of Europe.
By xKelemvor on 7/7/2006 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
They should just sell everything from the US and ship it over there. Would that get them otu of having to follow the EUs retarded rulings? Not sure if you have distributors in Europe that you have to follow them or how that works. Would be a big "Screw You" to the EU which would be great.

Competitors can't beat Microsoft so they'll just sue them so MS has to cripple itself so the competitors have an easier time. Whatever...




RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 3:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree..

I also think they should pay their fines all in change. Let the EU spend years counting it up..


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/7/2006 4:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just for a laugh and a good conspiracy theory. Maybe the EU just needs the money because the EU economy has been in a slump for a while now. Why not subsidize with taking profits from Microsoft. :D


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By rcc on 7/7/2006 4:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Why not, after all MS has a better GNP. No, just kidding, I know it doesn't. However...... it does make more than than the GNP of many not insubstantial countries.

: )


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By raven3x7 on 7/7/2006 4:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL yes i agree. they should pull out of europe. leaving Linux and OS X to dominate in the EU market. no more crappy OSes for us Europeans. Whooohooo


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By rcc on 7/7/2006 4:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is sad. :(

So it's a crappy OS by European standards, but you still buy it over all the others by a huge margin.

::shrugs::

Whatever.


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By fsardis on 7/7/06, Rating: 0
By creathir on 7/7/2006 6:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
How is the average moron and their choice in a computer affecting your use of an operating system? OO can save in compatable formats, so I really do not see the point of your whining. You sound to me like someone who wants everyone else to do what YOU want to do...

Talk about a monopoly...

- Creathir


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By rcc on 7/7/2006 7:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is classic. "I don't like it, so it's crap." The vast majority use it, so they are misinformed or stupid. "Everyone's out of step but my Johnny!" Said his mother.
Perhaps, the vast majority use it because it's the most flexible, useful OS available to the general public.

Don't get me wrong. MS and Windows have their problems, en masse. But don't denigrate the intelligence of people because they disagree with you, or have areas of expertise other than yours.

Bottom line, Windows is where it is because it's capabilities make it a useful tool for the majority of computer users.
Is Linux better? Dunno, don't really care ATM because it doesn't meet *my* needs. But not everyone needs to (or can) drive an eighteen wheeler, or a tractor, or an APC. But most will drive a car or motorcycle at sometime in their lives. Meet Windows, the sedan of the computer age.


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By fsardis on 7/7/2006 7:30:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Bottom line, Windows is where it is because it's capabilities make it a useful tool for the majority of computer users.


this is where we disagree. cause i think windows is where it is purely because of MS marketing/licencing/legal/illegal practices and not because it is the superior choice.
tell you what. install linux on a machine with open office. then show some average joe how to access the applications they need and how to work with them. leave them do their job. come back and tell me if they managed to work or not. so far everyone i know has managed to work normally as if they were using windows. the OS doesnt make much difference for the average joe. all joe will do is some internet browsing, email, photo viewing etc etc.
people are not aware that the alternative exists. thats not because Windows has more capabilities. thats because of how MS has shaped the market and people's mind set throughout the past years. doesnt matter if there is a better product out. if they dont know it exists (or rather if the "sharks" dont let people know it exists) its as good as non existent.


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By Hare on 7/8/2006 12:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
Fsardis. Don't worry. Even if they don't listen there are smart people sho understand your arguments. It's best to just stop posting in these threads. When you look at the replies you can understand the saying "the empty kettle rattles the most".


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By Hare on 7/8/2006 12:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
"who" ... Edit-button would be sweet.


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
If microsoft pulls out of the EU with windows, one of two things will happen:

1) Seeing Microsoft pull out of the massive market that is the EU (and it is massive, with the GDP virtually on par with the US), Apple will launch massive marketing campaigns to get people to buy macs in the void. Using this new found massive userbase, apple starts the compete with microsoft on a global level, causing for the first time Microsoft to lose its monopoly status, Microsoft relies on OS sales a great deal and losing the EU market plus gaining a new strong competitor would be the death knell for the company.

or

2) Linux, starting with government organisations, takes a foothold in the EU, slowly gaining popularity, a 'idiot-proof' distro of linux is released, as popularity rises for this new linux, drivers are written by hardware companies wanting to keep sales. OpenGL flourishes here, allowing european developers to develop openGL games on linux and make a lot more cash then before. Eventually Linux takes majority marketshare in the EU and creates a direct competitor to microsoft, because of linux's inherent open source nature and free code, more people jump onto the linux bandwagon. Microsofts mainstay (the OS) starts to fall away as market leader, the sheer funds needed to keep afloat consoles such as the Xbox 360 and avrious other projects become non-available, stock brokers sell microsoft stock in droves, leaving microsoft a mere shell of its former self.


The fact remains that microsoft HAS to stay in the EU, otherwise a massive market hole will open up allowing linux and/or apple to fill the void and create a true direct competitor to windows, microsoft simply cannot take that chance.


RE: MS should pull out of Europe.
By xKelemvor on 7/10/2006 8:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't mean that Microsoft shoudl not have their product in EU... But they just shoudln't sell it directly there. THey should just have people have to purchase it from MS US and then have it shipped over. THen I don't think the EU has any say in the matter because they would be operating out of the US.

As far as I've been told, the EU only has a say because MS operates in Europe and sells their products directly there.

THey would still have Windows in Europe but would just sell it based out of the US...


why??
By phil126 on 7/7/2006 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
When Apple includes an application the OS the commended. When MS includes an application with the OS they get sued. Am I the only one who thinks this is just a lottle hypocritical.




RE: why??
By bnme on 7/7/2006 1:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they're not... France is going after Apple to open up iTMS and the iPod to other mp3 players and online music stores, and other EU countries are proposing similar bills.

What they're proposing to do with iTMS and the iPod is a lot more severe than they are asking Microsoft to do (and iPod/iTunes is not even a monopoly)... so Apple is getting it worse, and will get it a lot worse if the EU takes up this issue.

It's a bunch of he said she said stuff going on here between the EU and Microsoft (as well as Microsoft's competitors, OSS lobbyists). One side says the other is not complying, while the other claims that the directions that were given were trivial at best.


RE: why??
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
go to goolge and enter this in the search box. define:monopoly

The come back once you understand the definition of monopoly.

Here's one...

A market type in which there is a sole supplier of a good, service, or resource that has no close substitutes and in which there is a barrier preventing the entry of new firms into the industry.

Now come back and tell all the users here that OSX or Linux cant be used on the desktop. I'm sure at least 10% would disagree.

The only thing keeping MS #1 is the lack of available software for other platforms.

This says 2 things to me..
Developers keep Windows #1 and the API must be open enough to have the most software available.


RE: why??
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/7/2006 4:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
I've got to side with zombiexl on this one. EU is just trying to stick it to Microsoft. Millions of software titles are written for Windows every year, especially games, and they perform outstanding. Microsoft is not screwing anyone, and the whole thing over Media Player is so retarded its not funny. It's a saturated market, anyone can create a "media player", all it does is read formats. Microsoft of course bundles one because if it didn't people would scream to high hell that Microsoft doesn't include enough features. Microsoft bundles software it knows works, Apple does the same thing with Mac OSX, I don't see them getting sued for their OS. This is a double standard, It is NOT DIFFERENT because they are a "monopoly". Microsoft doesnt prevent you from installing Firefox, or Winamp, or Thunderbird, or Netscape, so STFU. Leave Microsoft alone, they made a good product, they supported that product, they marketed that product, and they made sure anyone that wants to can write software, and write drivers to work hardware. As far as Operating systems go, the support for Windows is phenominal compared to the sketchy support found for Linux.


RE: why??
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 5:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
"As far as Operating systems go, the support for Windows is phenominal compared to the sketchy support found for Linux."

Linux is open - meaning anyone can see the source code for the software and develop for it. The issue here is that there are undocumented or poorly documented APIs in Windows. Since the source code is closed (as it should be, it is their product), then they have to document how to use the existing objects to interact with windows. If MS would better document the APIs they wouldn't be having this problem.

It's not games that is the problem. DirectX is a well documented API and it shows by the quality of the products available. But there are other areas where the information is MUCH more sparse.

There should NOT need to be a 700+ page book about what MS chooses not to include in their API references: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201608340/104-83...


RE: why??
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 5:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here's some more undocumented API calls from Windows NT/2K.

(Java Req'd)
http://undocumented.ntinternals.net/


RE: why??
By Wwhat on 7/7/2006 7:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
PErhaps the people here should read up WHAT the EU is asking from microsoft and why they ask it.
They are not complaining microsoft gives 'free' software in itself but they complain about formats that corner the markets and that they won't release info about for others to compete with, yes you can make your own mediaplayer but to play (DRM'ed) WMV/WMA you must use components of WMP else you cannot play it (and even to do that you must pay microsoft).
And yes countries in europe are starting to complain about apple for the same reason.


RE: why??
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 11:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "PErhaps the people here should read up WHAT the EU is asking from microsoft..."

Good idea. They're asking that Microsoft turn over large chunks of their source code to competitors (primarily European companies, I might add), and also spend time and money to educate those competitors on how to best use that code.

A rather illuminating demand, is is not?



RE: why??
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
this is where you are wrong masher2.

You need to read up on the EU's demands, they didn't want the source code for the API's they never did, ever.

They wanted documentation for the API's so companies (to nescarrily competitors), could use windows as effectively as if it was a microsoft product.

The EU has laws to protect against horizontal monopolies (using ones monopoly to create a monopoly in another market), the fact that microsoft could utilize the undocumented API's to create a monopoly in another software sector is what the EU is fining microsoft for, not any form of source code (which they didn't ask for in the first place!).

A great example is IE, Microsoft wanted IE to win, so what did they do? They made it so integrated into windows that it became windows explorer itself and we all know how bugs affecting IE can now seriously affect your OS too, Microsoft used API's and enbedded IE into windows in such a way as netscape simply could not compete. This is antitrust and this is what the EU is attempting to prevent, but getting DOCUMENTATION of the NON-SOURCE CODE windows API's so companies can compete even if microsoft enters the market.


Plus we all know what happens when there is a monopoly in the market, the market stagnates, and eventually dies.


RE: why??
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 10:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
> "You need to read up on the EU's demands, they didn't want the source code for the API's they never did, ever."

The EU has said it wants "full disclosure" on all Microsoft protocols and APIs. You cannot get more fully disclosed than providing the source code itself. Point in fact, Microsoft is not only providing source code, it has a team of 175+ engineers working triple-shifts to write additional documentation for them....documentation that neither Microsoft nor any other developer has ever needed to write software for Windows.

A few quotes:

quote:
Reuters Sept 2005 - The software giant is taking the Commission to the European Court of First Instance to prevent the source code of its server communication protocols from entering the public domain...


Also:

quote:
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL has seen a confidential document from the European Commission telling Microsoft that offering source code wouldn't be enough to avoid antitrust action....




RE: why??
By Hare on 7/7/2006 3:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
You have a point but you also need to take into consideration that MS is a monopoly so conventional rules don't apply. This is all for the best of the consumer and healthy markets!


Dealing with EU
By crystal clear on 7/8/2006 4:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure many out there are dealing with the EU in their
various capacities/post from across the atlantic & ofcourse
from Asia.
Brussels reminds me of the United Nations-Fat salaries/Fat
Perks/lots of expensive dinning & goodlife.
We do not need reports-we can see it.
Those EU commisioners/EU commitees etc are all political
appointees-nobody bothers to check in Europe
" What these people do for what they get"
The result being EU is run by these people,who in the efforts to show "That are doing something" are doing more
damage than good.
A TRADE WAR is awaiting between EU & USA.Its not only MS
but plenty of others who dont get that amount of news
coverage/publicity,have problems in dealing with these
commitees/commisioners.

I am not for/against MS or EU(incl those civil servants),
but view the whole issue in a practical manner.The EU
has to draw a line till where/what it can do to companies
with those Fines.Those Fines can Backfire on the EU,with
the USA retaliating with sanctions.
Its high time countries in Europe interfere to STOP
these EU commsioners/commitees from random/indiscriminate
handing out Fines.
EU is becoming another FAT/slobby UNITED NATIONS.
I am quite sure many on this site know what goes on at
Brussels & in those commitees & those expensive Life STYLEs




RE: Dealing with EU
By seb2010 on 7/8/2006 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
Every company dealing with the EU will have to apply to their restrictions on the long run. The EU is such a huge market, no company want's to miss. Sanctions....are you crazy?! America is just a big baby when it comes to politics/economy/environmental issues. Some countries do not only want the quick success...
And, if Microsoft would open up, they might lose some ground. But if forced to, many companies would take the chance and grow instead, and take more new space than microsoft has lost.
An for the monopol, its a platform on which a market is build. It has to be open in some ways. If not, on the long run, a more usable OS will take Windows seat. Only because its big, its not invincible against market movements.
The problem of Windows is, that it is too feature rich. I hate to search a file, or to wait a sec when i try to delete a media-file, because the status-bar still has to take some media-info. You know what i mean? Some features might be elemental, but if you don't let extra features be implemented if needed (and this is the part where the third party developers come into play), and in the way you want, not only one way MS wants it, i think this has no future. You can't build the whole PC-system on one idea. Some might stand out, and will spread, but if some additional ideas are better, you have to let them get into it. Otherwise, if they are really better, they will reach the market on another way, even if that means a new OS. MS position is not as safe as it seems.


RE: Dealing with EU
By brshoemak on 7/8/2006 4:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem of Windows is, that it is too feature rich.


i have DOS 6.22 on floppy if you want it

j/k

serious though, the average consumer wants a decent level of feature richness. i could make an OS that just starts, then tell people to go to the store and 'buy' a copy of firefox (can't download it, no browser is bundled), then tell them to download acrobat, then tell them they need to download an e-mail client. of course you would have to give them a list to choose from which would have to be updated every time a new e-mail client comes out, the same for productivity apps, anti-virus, anti-spyware, photo editor, etc.

there would be a garbage strike due to 10 million new PC's in trash cans all around the world from people who bought a PC and just wanted to take a picture from their digital camera and e-mail it to grandma without a 40 step process.


RE: Dealing with EU
By ahkey on 7/8/2006 7:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Surely the selection of software components could then be the responsibility of PC manufacturers? I mean, a modular selection of software according to what the user wants would easily beat the Dell-esque crap that's ingrained into OS install packages.

The only reason this isn't a practise already is that MS bundles these new 'features' into each successive OS release. Features that might do the job for people wanting the most basic of results i.e. the 'new' DVD burner, but simply won't do the job as well as, say, Nero. MS's problem is that it feels it has to be the best at everything, and that anyone in any given market is either a competitor or a potential 'feature' supplier to be bought out.

Wait and see how much Vista's new 'features' will add onto the OS cost. If they actually stuck to what they're good at, Windows, and not the 'features' that come bundled with it, nobody would have a problem with them. Instead, the next release loses the next-gen file system, has coding from Server 2003, a bunch of OSX knock-offs and a plethora of extra 'features' that do little more than ripping off the competition and making it harder for software developers to convince customers that their own products are worth buying, even if they are developed for a specific purpose and work far better than those included in Vista.

I can't finish without mentioning DX10, which does away with any arguement in favour MS not being a monopoly. Not only is it Vista-only, forcing current XP users to upgrade if they want to play games in the future, but it allows MS to use the companies they've already bought up (Bungie, Lionhead etc.) to leverage gamers and developers alike into buying into the scam, the former because they want to play the games and the latter because they have to keep up with trends set by other games.

So there really is no other option for gamers. Unless they switch to a console, giving them three choices - one of which is MS, another of which a company behaving similarly, if not worse, and the third of which simply can't run PC-ported games. There's no other conceivable option.


RE: Dealing with EU
By Wwhat on 7/8/2006 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
US 'retaliate'? are you americans so soft in the mind now that you want to drop out of your own capitalistic system to 'protect' microsoft?
Every post acts like this is some fight between the US and EU, you people are quite insane and I can only hope this isn't an average of the world population posting here.

BTW, that's a good one, the EU and UN are fat cats and the US government are all hardworking poor people working for the little guy, you should get your own comedyshow, ask a governmentgrant for it ;)



RE: Dealing with EU
By crystal clear on 7/8/2006 10:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Europe/EU both have the resources,be it money,manpower,
technology & the rest.
If you can/could manufacture AN AIRBUS as competition for the good old Boeing,so can you not bring in a competitor
for the good/bad/ugly-call whatever you like MS.
Now dont blame MS for your failures-nobody stopped you from
coming up with European version of an OS (like the AIRBUS).
So go ahead create a Competing OS for the VISTA-CAN YOU ?
What are you waiting for? You have all the resources,you
possibly need.Plus you have a huge market in the EU to
sell it subsidized or not.MS cannot stop you.
So take Airbus as an example & go slog it out & come up
with an O.S.
Then we can have a Intel/AMD style price war-WE all will
GAIN from PRICE CUTS.


RE: Dealing with EU
By Wwhat on 7/8/2006 10:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
Can you not post your moronic drooldribbling posts as a reply to mine, lovely thanks.


Forget the EU
By RedStar on 7/7/2006 1:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
The EU really wants MS to give them there software for free. Failing this, they are quite happy to grab all MS' money.

Talk about bad faith...the EU's.

I say pull all MS software out of europe and close all the MS offices. the EU is going to take way all the profit in doing business there anyways.




RE: Forget the EU
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 2:39:07 PM , Rating: 3
Yea, Microsoft is practically starving in the European market. We should all donate to the cause and buy an extra copy of XP.

::Rolls Eyes::



RE: Forget the EU
By zombiexl on 7/7/2006 3:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Or everyone could actually buy their first copy :)


RE: Forget the EU
By rrsurfer1 on 7/7/2006 3:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, good point, but another flame war entirely :)


RE: Forget the EU
By Xavian on 7/8/2006 3:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
try to space out your comments more, to make it easier to read, however onto business!

If microsoft pulls out of the EU with windows, one of two things will happen:

1) Seeing Microsoft pull out of the massive market that is the EU (and it is massive, with the GDP virtually on par with the US), Apple will launch massive marketing campaigns to get people to buy macs in the void. Using this new found massive userbase, apple starts the compete with microsoft on a global level, causing for the first time Microsoft to lose its monopoly status, Microsoft relies on OS sales a great deal and losing the EU market plus gaining a new strong competitor would be the death knell for the company.

or

2) Linux, starting with government organisations, takes a foothold in the EU, slowly gaining popularity, a 'idiot-proof' distro of linux is released, as popularity rises for this new linux, drivers are written by hardware companies wanting to keep sales. OpenGL flourishes here, allowing european developers to develop openGL games on linux and make a lot more cash then before. Eventually Linux takes majority marketshare in the EU and creates a direct competitor to microsoft, because of linux's inherent open source nature and free code, more people jump onto the linux bandwagon. Microsofts mainstay (the OS) starts to fall away as market leader, the sheer funds needed to keep afloat consoles such as the Xbox 360 and avrious other projects become non-available, stock brokers sell microsoft stock in droves, leaving microsoft a mere shell of its former self.


The fact remains that microsoft HAS to stay in the EU, otherwise a massive market hole will open up allowing linux and/or apple to fill the void and create a true direct competitor to windows, microsoft simply cannot take that chance.


Yeah, that is stupid
By Trisped on 7/10/2006 2:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company was ordered to turn over more information about its software, so that competitors are able to create software that is better able to work with Microsoft products. The same judgment also requires Windows to not come bundled with the Microsoft Windows Media Player media program.
Requiring MS to allow better 2nd and 3rd party compatibility is reasonable, but forcing MS to turn over info about the software to competitors? That is just stupid. Next thing you know they are going to want MS to hand over the source code so people can make new versions.

And the WMP thing is also stupid. Windows is not just an OS, it comes with basic word processing, a few games, system enhancement and maintenance tools, a picture editor, a picture viewer, a web browser, a movie maker, options to help disabled users have a more enjoyable experience, and sound features. If you buy Windows MCE you also get all the software you need to run a HTPC. Microsoft has also stated that their goal with Windows was not only to provide an OS, but also a compete software package for basic users. To get all upset about Microsoft bundling a media player with their OS when you can download comparable or better players for FREE and you don't even have to install it is stupid. If they forced users to buy the program or to use the program it would be one thing, but there is nothing hurting my choice as to which media player I am going to use. Sure, I usually use WMP, but I find it easier then the new WinAmp interface, but more detailed then the old WinAmp and it is nicer for queuing up music and videos then the ATI media player since the queue is built into the program, not separate.

Personally I am more concerned that IE 7.0 has a welcome/setup page, but it doesn't ask you to customize your interface and settings.




RE: Yeah, that is stupid
By masher2 (blog) on 7/10/2006 2:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
> " Next thing you know they are going to want MS to hand over the source code so people can make new versions."

Actually, they want Microsoft to not only turn over the source, but create many thousands of pages of documentation for it...documentation that, before now, not even Microsoft itself has had access to.

This is under the theory that this previously-nonexistent documentation is "needed" to write Windows software...despite the evidence to the contrary of hundreds of thousands of preexisting Windows applications.


RE: Yeah, that is stupid
By INeedCache on 7/10/2006 4:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
The EU just has an axe to grind with MS. They forced them to market Windows without Media Player and it was a huge flop. Doing that was in the best interest of whom? Certainly not the consumer. If you're going to fight against supposed monopolistic practices, shouldn't the consumer be the one kept foremost in mind? It seems to me the EU simply wants MS to do whatever it tells them to do to undermine their own business. For the legal sysyem to force you to slit your own throat isn't justice, it's malice.


....
By brshoemak on 7/7/2006 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
the pattern in the EU appears to be to embrace a company/technology for a positive or unique feature, wait until the company becomes too successful/popular for your comfort, file lawsuits to force them to open up and divulge the intellectual property that made them unique in the first place, then disperse that knowledge freely as desired. rinse and repeat. (Apple, Microsoft, etc.)

and my god, because Microsoft bundles their apps, there is a massive barrier to entry and without billions of dollars there is NO WAY another application could take market share away from them by producing a superior product for free.

/closes FIREFOX browser




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki