Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[John Bokma]

Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it really
doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
browser, and a certain OS, just because.

Dude, do you think that Microsoft gives a rat's tail[1] for what a
handful of computer enthusiasts and geek programmers pick?

So you missed the point again.

They want
to control the business world, and believe me, corporations don't pick
the OS of their computer because they want to join a community, they
pick the OS that lets them run the applications that their business
needs to run.

So basically you're saying that even if web based applications become
the shit, everybody keeps running Microsoft? So I am right

Operating-system independent browser-based applications threaten the
ability of Microsoft to tie that choice to Windows.

Ah, sure, you really think that a business is going to run office
applications on a web server? Are they already moving to Linux with
OpenOffice (free as in speech?).

That is why MS
decided to bundle IE with Windows and (try to) kill off Netscape as a
competitor.

So and when exactly do we see the web based office?

 

[David Schwartz]

That's a false analogy. A better analogy is, "go to your local car dealer
and see if you can buy a new car with the tyres of your choice."

How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have
on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon
your choice of OS.

Even non-technical types can choose to run a non-Windows operating system
on an Intel-compatible PC. So why do the tier-one vendors and all laptop
manufacturers make their machines available only with Windows? Or on the
very few occasions they will offer a naked PC, the price is the same as
for PC + Windows.

I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a
lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals
Microsoft offers.

The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the
total package price, buy elsewhere.

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want an
engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They
just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.

There would be if an engine manufacturer refused to provide car
manufacturers with ANY engines for any model, unless all buyers were
charged for THEIR engine in every model, whether their engine was in
there or not.

You want to cease this line of apologism.

Peter

 

[John Bokma]

What happened is irrelevant to what the desire was of M$ when it set
out to take the browser market away from Netscape. When you control
the OS market and make your browser a tied component of it and to the
benefit of yourself only, you limit the ability of anyone else to
compete.

I'm still waiting for you to enlighten the rest of us as to the real
reason, though.

The same reason why Google is into IM, GMail, WIFI, and many other things.
And Apple into music, phones, you name it. Just don't bet on one horse.

 

[Tim Hammerquist]

Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either.
If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and
there'd be no other software manufacturers at all.

Interesting. Standard Oil only had about 2/3 of the oil
refining market when they were split up. And Microsoft has
a fair bit more of the home computer market than that.

The fact is, while Microsoft is not the only firm in the market,
and are not a "pure monopoly", they are a de facto monopoly, and
have been found on multiple occasions to violate many of the
same practices which Standard Oil performed and caused to become
illegal.

Microsoft is a monopoly, as defined by US Antitrust Law. And as
they've been found similarly guilty by other governing bodies,
it doesn't seem to be a purely American deduction.

I won't deny that Microsoft has done possibly more than any
other single entity to further the mass adoption of public
computer use. I also won't deny that they used a combination of
good products and good business tactics to get to the top of the
industry. I also can't in good conscience call them "evil".

I will, however, say that they have engaged in immoral[*],
unethical, and illegal practices to artificially maintain and
augment their position in the industry and has not yet provided
products/services to back it up.

[*] Yeah, I know. What place do morals have in the business
world. I'm an idealist. Sue me.

Cheers,
Tim Hammerquist

 

[Tim Hammerquist]

Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new
car without an engine.

Even if you want to equate a car's engine with a computer's OS,
a better indicator would be to ask the car salesman if, when you
take the car home, are you legally prevented from being able to
remove the engine, or replace/upgrade parts?

Tim

 

[Tim Hammerquist]

Was that the Color Computer III running OS9 Level II for an
operating system, that you're talking about? Motorola 6809
processor? HELLUVA little computer! OS9 was a bit quirky,
though, even for a UNIX clone.

I loved my little CoCo! I had the original CoCo, upgraded with
the 5 1/4" floppy drive, and later upgraded the whole system to
CoCo 3 with OS9.

<3 <3 <3

Of course, it all went downhill from there. MS-DOS 3.1, Pascal,
Windows 3.1...

*sigh*

10 years later, things picked up. Huzzah!

Tim Hammerquist

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have
on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon
your choice of OS.

Within rather broad limits, you can put any tyre you like on your car, but
it is not practical to change your engine.

Within rather broad limits, you can run any OS you like on your computer.

Car manufacturers *like* the fact that there is enormous competition in
the tyre market. If (say) Bridgestone had an effective monopoly, they
could charge whatever they liked and car manufacturers would have to pay
it, or else not sell cars at all. So car manufacturers do not discourage
consumers from choosing their own brand of tyre. If you, the consumer,
cares enough to ask for Brand X tyres on your car, the dealer will fall
over himself to please.

PC manufacturers, on the other hand, do discourage consumers from choosing
their own brand of OS. As a result, the royalties they pay to Microsoft
per PC is frequently more than the profit they make. Most white-goods PC
resellers are lucky to make $50 profit on a PC, *before* wages.
(Presumably Tier One vendors make more than that, but not that much more.)

And that is the mystery that needs to be explained. H-P/Compaq, Dell,
Toshiba, and all the other Tier One and Tier Two vendors have no problem
selling servers without operating systems. Some will even pre-install
Linux on them for you. So why are consumers forced to make the choice of
either paying for Windows with their laptop, or no laptop at all?

You will notice that only 30% of servers run Windows (lots of competition
in the server market) and over 90% of desktops (no competition in the
desktop market). Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web
based, and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions
matter? It doesn't matter which one you use to run, for example,
OpenOffice. Yet people pick a certain distribution. Why? Well, one
reason is that people like to belong to a group. So even if it really
doesn't matter which OS you are going to use to access a web
application, or even which browser, people will pick a certain
browser, and a certain OS, just because.

Dude, do you think that Microsoft gives a rat's tail[1] for what a
handful of computer enthusiasts and geek programmers pick?

So you missed the point again.

"Again"?

What exactly *is* your point? You seem to be oscillating from "Microsoft
doesn't care what browser people use" to "Microsoft cares deeply what
browser people use". I don't understand what you are trying to say.

So basically you're saying that even if web based applications become
the shit, everybody keeps running Microsoft? So I am right

No. My point is, IF web-based apps become popular, and back in the 1990s
people thought that they would, and they would run on any browser, then
you could run your browser on any operating system on any hardware. That's
what Microsoft wanted to stop, by gluing the browser to the OS.

Ah, sure, you really think that a business is going to run office
applications on a web server? Are they already moving to Linux with
OpenOffice (free as in speech?).

As I said, back in the 90s that's what people thought, including Microsoft.

As for OpenOffice, yes, there is a slow migration away from MS Office. If
you are in the US, the UK or Australia, you probably won't have noticed
it, since it is a tiny trickle in those countries. But in the emerging IT
markets of Asia (especially China), Europe and South America, that trickle
has become a steady stream.

Especially now that Gartner has claimed that migrating from current
versions of Office to Office 12 will cost ten times more for training
alone than migrating to OpenOffice, I think we can expect to see that
trickle start gushing in the next twelve months or so.

So and when exactly do we see the web based office?

Rumour has it that Google is preparing to do exactly that.

Personally, I don't see the point. I would never use a web-based office
suite, but then I don't even like web mail.

What's more important these days from Microsoft's strategic planning is
multimedia. Yes, they want -- need -- to keep control of the office suite,
Office gives them something like 1/2 their revenue. But for the long-term,
they want to lock folks into their proprietary Internet-based multimedia
systems (e.g. streaming wmv over mms) because they think that this will
give them control of a very lucrative business. I can't really disagree
with them.

 

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

In 1986? That would be version 3. I have MS-DOS 3.10 (Victor/Sirius
version corresponding to 3.1 for x86) dated 1986.

Yes, a better example of existing platforms (when PC-DOS 1.0 was
shipped with IBM's PCs) is CP/M, which QDOS -> PCDOS -> MSDOS was a
bastardized clone of.

 

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else.

It is a de facto standard instead of a de jure standard.

Sort of how the SMTP "recommendation" is the de facto standard for
internet mail instead of ISO-MOTIS (built on the X.400 spec).

 

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you have
on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent upon
your choice of OS.

Which cars let you install another engine as easily as you can install
a new operating system? Admit the analogy sucks, like all car-computer
analogies invariably do.

I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a
lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals
Microsoft offers.

Microsoft apologists always assume that training cost for Windows
users are zero, that people "know" Windows from the start. If that was
true, there would not be a multi-million market in Windows user
support.

The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the
total package price, buy elsewhere.

But when Microsoft were doing their illegal arm-wringing of dealers,
there was no "elsewhere" to go.

 

[Roel Schroeven]

web based applications that work with any browser make OS irrelevant ->
not true, since for OpenOffice it doesn't matter which Linux
distribution one runs (or even if it's Linux), yet people seem to make a
point of which distribution they use.

You make the point yourself now: if web based applications work with any
browser, people can freely choose their distribution based on their own
preferences.

- An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx, Links,
Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS
- An application only works in IE -> users are forced to use Windows (or
one of the other few OS's that IE exists on)

 

[Jeroen Wenting]

Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was, I was sitting
at my Sun 360 workstation (with 4M of RAM, later upgraded to 8M),
running SunOS 3.8 or thereabouts.

And how many people who now have $500 PCs ($200 of which is the cost of the
OS) would have been able to afford those?

My point is that Microsoft made computers that were more than glorified
gaming consoles affordable for the common man.
They are the ones who lowered the price of shrinkwrapped software for home
and office application from thousands or tens of thousands to hundreds of
dollars.

 

[Jeroen Wenting]

What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.

And were later forced to rescind. The judge who wrote that opinion is well
known for his anti-Microsoft activism.

I disagree. Before Gates decided to sell BASIC, software was very
cheap. It started getting cheap again in the late 80s. Now that cheap
software is threatening MS, they're doing their best to shut down all
the sources of quality cheap software, with there usual disregard for
truth, legality, ethics or the good of either the customer or their
business partners.

WordPerfect (to take an example) cost several thousand dollars.
When Microsoft released Office 4 for a few hundred WP was forced to lower
prices radically, and so was Lotus (to name a few).

I see. You're a troll.

nope, I'm just sick and tired of trolls like you calling everyone who
doesn't share their hatred of Microsoft a troll.

 

[axel]

It may not be worth loads of money in-and-of itself now (don't forget
Netscape wasn't always free, though), but if you control how people view the
Internet you can make a lot of money in other ways, especially if you build
your browser into your operating system and warp standards so that people
who design sites take advantage of the proprietary features. Eventually the
hope is that your OS and browser will become the only means of accessing the
internet. And if your OS and browser are the only way to access the
Internet, who in their right mind would use another system?

There was a time in the early-mid 1990s that Microsoft was making noises
about setting up a 'commercial Internet' through which they hoped
to control all online trading (with a percentage of each transaction
going to themselves of course). I forget the exact details but it
seemed a very real suggestion at the time.

Axel

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

My point is that Microsoft made computers that were more than glorified
gaming consoles affordable for the common man.

Microsoft has never made a computer in its existence. Not one. They are a
software company. The only hardware they sell are keyboards and mice.

They are the ones who lowered the price of shrinkwrapped software for home
and office application from thousands or tens of thousands to hundreds of
dollars.

Yeah, if you ignore Apple, Wordperfect, Adobe, Aldus, Wordstar, and dozens
of other software suppliers.

Is it possible for you to get your arguments even more wrong? What's next?
Microsoft invented the transistor?

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

And were later forced to rescind.

False. When the Bush administration took over from Clinton, they didn't
follow through with punishing Microsoft for, e.g. perjury, but they didn't
"rescind" the judgement.

The judge who wrote that opinion is well
known for his anti-Microsoft activism.

Well, that sure answered my previous question.

Remember, Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal practices in *many*
civil suits, and settled out of court many more, plus TWO American DoJ
investigations by two different judges, plus Japan, the EU, and a number
of individual European nations.

 

[Michael Heiming]

Microsoft has never made a computer in its existence. Not one. They are a

One should be lucky.

software company. The only hardware they sell are keyboards and mice.

Yeah, if you ignore Apple, Wordperfect, Adobe, Aldus, Wordstar, and dozens
of other software suppliers.

Is it possible for you to get your arguments even more wrong? What's next?
Microsoft invented the transistor?

Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!

Honestly, for anyone serious, there are "The Halloween
Documents", which should give enough information about FUD...

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/

At least, a nice troll bait the OP launched, even if obvious
enough, extensive cross-posting and "Microsoft" right in the
subject. ;-)

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

And how many people who now have $500 PCs ($200 of which is the cost of the
OS) would have been able to afford those?

Well, I almost bought my Sun workstation after three years, as it had
depreciated to nearly nothing in value! As I recall, it would have been
about 2000 pounds then if I had decided to buy it. That was a bit more than
the price of a new 286 at that point. But it had scsi disks! And 8M of
ram instead of just 640KB! And a huge monitor (what were those sun
monitor sizes?) instead of a tichy 640x480 PC screen.

If I recall right, the first computer I bought (after the Sun)
was an 8088 "portable". I sold it off almost at once in favour of a
386sx20 portable with 1MB of ram and 20MB of disk which cost more than
1000 pounds sterling. I was able to run linux on that machine, after
upping its memory to 3MB.

Peter