Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Tim Tyler]

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 a mean game of tetris it played too. Chess wasn't worth the
humiliation at level 5.

I believe every researcher in britain got one as a matter of course, but
they only replaced the perq machines that everyone had had to put up
with before then. The vaxen running hpux or so were plentiful too, and
had fine monitors, tending more to the PC shape. We'd made our own word
processor machines and spreadsheet automatons before that. It didn't
take that many components, just a good engineer and a room full of
lackeys with soddering irons. The BBC were selling kits too (what were
they? Ataris?), not that I ever fell for that.

Acorn computers. Manufacturers of the best computer I ever owned.

 

[Rhino]

Oh dear, no. Not quite. There were, going back decades, machines that
used punched cards, relays, stepper wheels, and punched cards. It was
/that/ that was the foundation of IBM's business, and IBM had an
effective monopoly. This was not altogether due to evil; their one
competitor, Remington Rand, made machines that were slightly better, but
had to be factory-programmed, whereas IBM's machines used panels full of
jumper wires, and the panels themselves could be swapped, so that you
could have a "program library" of prewired panels. Which would /you/ buy?

Remington Rand made a similar mistake with computers. They wouldn't give
you a programming manual until you contracted to buy the bloody thing.
IBM pulled ahead of them during the year when Univac computers were real
and IBM computers weren't, and they never looked back.

Sorry, my mistake. I knew that IBM had collators and such things back in
those days but I didn't know what percentage of their business they
comprised. I used to work with a long-time IBMer who had started out in
marketing in the 60s or so and I got the impression from him that
typewriters were still the bulk of IBM's business. Perhaps he was just in
that division and didn't know the "big picture".

My apologies for inadvertently misleading anyone. These events took place
before my time so I probably should have researched more before making those
remarks.

Rhino

 

[Tim Tyler]

I'm aware of talk that Dell is selling Linux PCs at Walmart for less than
the same hardware plus Windows. Talk is cheap -- I'm not aware of anyone
who has actually seen these Linux PCs. I'd love to know either way.

See:

``Dell's Open PC Costs More Than Windows Box''

- http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/08/034211&tid=190&tid=137

 

[John Bokma]

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

Yup, a recommendation.

 

[John Bokma]

You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux
distribution and
still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft
*doesn't* want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft OSes.
For then to do this, applications have to be as tied to the OS as
possible. The browser as a target platform threatened this Microsoft
vision, so Microsoft reacted by trying to corner the browser market
and balkanize Java.

And when are we going to see this browser as a target platform?

You can agree or disagree with the rationale and by sympathetic
with or
antagonistic to Microsoft's motive. But these are historical facts.

No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet. That
you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be running NS
Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.

MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then state
it's not significant, and next they are an important player. This is not
limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They don't miss
anything, they just don't jump on every hype.

 

[John Bokma]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:47:09 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

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"

I didn't write that.

to "Microsoft cares
deeply what browser people use". I don't understand what you are
trying to say.

Neither that. I wrote: People *care* what OS they are using. Hence, even
if there is a standard web platform for applications, and it doesn't
matter what you use, people still will prefer MS over others. Even if
they can't see any difference. I already wrote: look at CDs. There are
several factories producing CDs. There are labels put on the same batch
of CDs. So one can buy brand X, and brand Y, but basically you buy CDs
made by factory Z, batch W. And yet people make a great deal about how
much better X is compared to Y for burning CDs.

So even if the OS doesn't matter from a technical viewpoint (which I
don't see happen soon), people are able to attach matters to their
choice. It's like those cookies that every year get more tastier,
better, etc.

No. My point is, IF web-based apps become popular, and back in the
1990s people thought that they would,

Some did, some didn't. I didn't. I always said the Notworking computer
was just that: not working.

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.

And how exactly was that going to work?

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

So, you have contacts in high places, or you make it up? *I* didn't
think that back in the 90s, and I remember quite a lot of people didn't
think it either. The diskless Networking computer had quickly a harddisc
added, and I, and many others said: what's the difference? How much does
a harddisc save and how much costs does it add not having it? The
picture was clear to me, and others back then: thin clients are not
happening. The whole PC idea is that you can shop your hardware, put it
in a computer, and have your own *Personal* computer.

As for OpenOffice, yes, there is a slow migration away from MS Office.

Yup, like the slow migration away from MS as an OS.

If you are in the US, the UK or Australia, you probably won't have
noticed it,

I am in Mexico, am Dutch, and have been living in NZ for 2 years. The
only companies who say that it's going to happen are the ones that do
Linux support (go figure).

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.

I am in Latin America, and it's not happening here as far as I know.

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.

LOL, well, I am not going to hold my breath.

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

Yeah, rumours.

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.

Yes, I agree with you. But, like I explained in a related thread
somewhere else some time ago, a web based office will get users. As I
said, I live in Mexico. Most people here don't have money for a PC (and
no, they are not going to buy those miracle machines like AMD is
promising), so they go to Internet cafes when they need one. Students I
know already rely a lot on Hotmail, Gmail, etc, to store and exchange
their homework. They edit it in an Internet cafe, email it, etc. So I am
sure that in Mexico, people might going to switch to web based office.

What's more important these days from Microsoft's strategic planning
is multimedia.

And advertising, which is quite related of course.

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.

Yup, I don't see MS disappear very soon now, nor do I see major shifts
(like desktop to network) happening very soon.

 

[John Bokma]

John Bokma wrote:

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.

Yup, and what will they pick?

- An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx, Links,
Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS

I think that we both understand that one browser will be more compatible
then an other. It will only happen if all use exactly the same render
engine, or all web recommendations are frozen. And if that happens,
people selling stuff will find ways to make their version just a little
better.

Look at processors: which one would you buy at the moment? AMD? Intel?
and if you pick a brand, which type? As soon as products can't evolve
much more, the producers will find ways to make them even better
compared to last week.

- An application only works in IE -> users are forced to use Windows
(or one of the other few OS's that IE exists on)

Or wait until there comes a solution from a 3rd party. Force doesn't
exists with software unless you can manipulate the law to enforce it.
And I don't believe that everybody at Microsoft was/is that stupid to
think they can make that something they don't controll only works with
their software. Sure they can make it harder, like I said, you can
always add things, especially if you are the major player, but Firefox
is a nice proof that there is no such force, and I doubt that there are
people working at Microsoft in major positions who didn't see this
coming.

 

[joe]

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.

Thanks for spelling it out for me. Now could you spell out what this
has to do with Microsoft's intentions?

On second thought, don't bother, I think you're talking about
something else, and I'm not sure what that is.

Joe

 

[Mike Schilling]

No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they would
call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it recommendations? Because
it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML standard though, but when people
babble about HTML standards they talk about W3C *recommendations*.

In that sense there are no standards in software. The ISO C++ "standard"
and the XML "recommendation" have the same amount of force behind them.

 

[Roedy Green]

Utter hogwash. Computer hardware would still have followed the path it
did. I suspect we'd all be using WordPerfect or AbiWord on some kind of
Unix clone, and I also suspect application integration wouldn't be as
commonplace as it now is, but it's silly to credit Microsoft with the
ubiquity of powerful computers.

Granted MS did figure out all kinds of ways to waste RAM and CPU power
thus forcing people to upgrade to more powerful computers. What might
have happened with someone else leading the charge it we would be
using less powerful computers but getting more spritely response.

That is like saying you credit SUV owners for any advances in
alternative energy because they helped burn up the oil faster.

MS has held BACK computer evolution by tying their OS so heavily to
the Pentium architecture. The chip architecture has nowhere near
enough registers. MS refused to believe the Internet was more than a
passing fad. They are still frantically patching security holes in
their OS over a decade later.

 

[Roedy Green]

Opera seems to be making money with it. Also, Firefox gets money from
Google kickback. Maybe MS had a similar idea in mind, but it failed
(remember how they wanted to add ads to keywords in webpages?)

There also had that Passport thing. They probably figured they would
take over Internet commerce and get rich off the user fees.

 

[Roedy Green]

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?

The point is you make your choice based on quality of the OS and
distribution, not whether it can run a given piece of software.

Web apps, Java and other multiplatform tools force OSes to compete on
quality, not on proprietary lockin.

 

[Roedy Green]

No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they would
call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it recommendations? Because
it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML standard though, but when people
babble about HTML standards they talk about W3C *recommendations*.

What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs. That stands for
"Request For Comment". It is an in-sort of Internet humour to name
standards that way.

 

[Roedy Green]

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

Given that that the OS and the hardware come from completely different
companies, I think that a specious analogy.

 

[Roedy Green]

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.

I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick to
compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must buy
a copy of our OS for EVERY machine you sell. The alternative is to
pay full retail for the OSes.

That meant a customer who wanted OS/2 had to effectively also buy an
unwanted copy of Windows. How could OS/2 compete?

 

[Roedy Green]

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.

Come now. While software generally has reduced in price, MS software
has increased.

 

[Richard Gration]

Acorn computers. Manufacturers of the best computer I ever owned.

I'm willing to bet that was an Arc ... ? I never used one but everyone
I've ever talked to who used one said it was fantastic. Myself I was
pretty impressed with the BBC B ...

 

[Greymaus]

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.

I put the piggyback RAM board in, which gave me, I think, 1 Meg of RAM.
I also found that the whole system ran faster and better (especially
under OS9) with two floppy drives.

Programmed that puppy in OS9BASIC and 6809 Assembler...Much preferred
the Assembler. A lot less confusing than Microsoft's assembler! But I
had to shift over to PCs when I figured out that Tandy wasn't supporting
the CoCo system. They took the 40-connector extension boards out of
their inventory and that killed the market right there. Another raid
from Microsoft?

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

As soon as products can't evolve
much more, the producers will find ways to make them even better
compared to last week.

So once a product can't evolve any more, then it will suddenly
start evolving much more.

Riiiiight.

Well, I think that's just demonstrated the quality of John's reasoning
ability.

 

[riplin]

No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet.

By giving IE away for free, by ripping off spyglass, by _paying_ OEMs
to not include Netscape. By bundling IE. By abusing standards. By
contracting with sites to include non-standard IE features to
deliberately break NS.

If an OEM was shipping Netscape on machines MS paid them $5 a copy not
to.

That
you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be running NS
Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.

No. Netscape had announced that they were working on building network
applications that just required a browser. XUL is the latest version of
this.

MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then state
it's not significant, and next they are an important player. This is not
limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They don't miss
anything, they just don't jump on every hype.

No. You are wrong again. In edition 1 of "The Way Ahead" there was _no_
mention of the Internet. MS did not notice it, and when they did they
attempted to replace it with MSN which did not link to the internet
initially. MSN was free with Win95, but most users ignored it and
downloaded Netscape.

and next they are an important player

Once they notice that there is a revenue stream then they will buy in a
product, rebrand it MS and claim it is the best, and use their monopoly
leverage to drive the other players out of business so that they can
have all the revenue.

The only reason that Linux/OpenOffice/GIMP/Apachee/MySQL/.. have
survived this process is that MS haven't worked out how to kill them
off. Natural selection at work. If MS kills off everything that it can
then what is left is what it can't.