Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Roel Schroeven]

Yup, and what will they pick?

The one of their choice. Nobody knows which one that will be. Maybe MS.
But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice. If MS
had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.

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.

Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
aforementioned websites right now.

And if that happens, people selling stuff will find ways to make
their version just a little better.

It's very well possible to compete without breaking compatibility.
That's what Firefox, Opera, Konqueror etc. are already doing.

Look at processors: which one would you buy at the moment? AMD? Intel?
and if you pick a brand, which type?

Depends on my needs, budget and the specs and price of the available
offers. Plus I always have a small, admittedly perhaps unjustified,
preference for the underdog; in the past that was AMD, in the future
that may very well be Intel. But I don't see the point of that question.

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

As products can't evolve much more, the producers will find ways to make
them evolve?? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

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.

Maybe they can force it, maybe not, but that's not the point (again).
The point is what their intentions are, and that is trying to lock
people into using their software.

 

[Mike Meyer]

Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was,

Just for the record, microsoft didn't "produce" - with the meaning
that they created it - dos 1.0; they "produced" - with the meaning
that they presented it - after buying it from Seattle Computer
Products, where it was known as QDOS, the Quick and Dirty Operating
System. MS bought it after promising IBM that MS had an 8088 OS to
sell IBM, which was a blatant lie.

<mike

 

[Mike Meyer]

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.

It has nothing to do with support costs. It has everything to do with
the types of deals that MS offers. In particular, MS won't (wouldn't)
sell a company Windows software at OEM prices unless they payed for a
copy of Windows for *every* computer they sold.

The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
problemmatic about it.

If MS weren't effectively a monopoly, you'd be right. That's not the
case. A computer OEM can't hope to survive without offering
Windows. They can't hope to survive if they are paying retail for
Windows while their competition is paying OEM prices. MS was using
their market dominance to coerce consumers who into paying for their
software when they didn't want it.

The latter is problemmatic, unusual and definitely immoral. More to
the point, it's illegal. It's also typical of MS marketing ever since
IBM created a market for MS to dominate.

<mike

 

[Mike Meyer]

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.

Yup. OS9 wasn't really a Unix clone - it was designed as an embedded
OS for instruments, and last time I looked was still around, though
they had moved on to newer processors.

And if you think the Coco was a helluva little computer, you should
have seen what the Japanese weren't exporting.

<mike

 

[Mike Meyer]

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

Nah, I only call people spouting utter bullshit without regard for the
facts in order to piss people off trolls. By the time MS lied to IBM
about having an OS, there were already more than five computers in the
world. Sure, you might be exageratting - but you're doing it to piss
people off. That makes you a troll.

<mike

 

[Roedy Green]

The only reason that Linux/OpenOffice/GIMP/Apachee/MySQL/

The catch is there are SO many SQL engines, even if MS bought up MySQL
and PostGre SQL one of the others would just pop to the fore as the
new free standard bearer.

see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sqlvendors.html

Here is a field where there is healthy competition.

 

[John Bokma]

By giving IE away for free, by ripping off spyglass, by _paying_ OEMs
to not include Netscape. By bundling IE. By abusing standards.

Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.
Moreover, Netscape added LiveScript, oh wait, I mean JavaScript, and the
*cough* blink element.

By
contracting with sites to include non-standard IE features to
deliberately break NS.

NS also added features to HTML.

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

So, uhm, 8 years later? And what applications do run on the web?

No. You are wrong again. In edition 1 of "The Way Ahead" there was
_no_ mention of the Internet. MS did not notice it,

IIRC MS was already using the Internet (for email, Usenet, etc).

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.

Yup, which if it had worked, it would have been an excellent lock in.
Not all plans work, NS is a nice example.

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.

So what's new? Can you name all CD burning programs Adaptec has bought?

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.

That's why they are careful with killing off.

 

[John Bokma]

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

Riiiiight.

Yup, maybe you should do some shopping instead of letting others do it for
you. And you will notice that almost every X months the cookies of brand X
are just improved a bit more.

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

I am sorry if it's all beyond you.

 

[John Bokma]

The one of their choice. Nobody knows which one that will be.

Let me guess: Microsoft.

Maybe MS.

I am quite sure about that one.

But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice.
If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.

I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS is
the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really think
that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work any
different?

Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
aforementioned websites right now.

Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the
Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example
Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call that
perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.

It's very well possible to compete without breaking compatibility.
That's what Firefox, Opera, Konqueror etc. are already doing.

Is that why people who design websites use both Firefox and Opera for
testing? IIRC there are ambiguous parts in the CSS working drafts, and
Opera thinks their interpretation is correct, which, (again IIRC)
differs from other developers. Once the render engine is stable (my best
guess, another 5-7 years), there will be (for quite some time) new
things, that will worry developers of sites.

Depends on my needs, budget and the specs and price of the available
offers. Plus I always have a small, admittedly perhaps unjustified,
preference for the underdog; in the past that was AMD, in the future
that may very well be Intel. But I don't see the point of that
question.

Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe
"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's
good.

As products can't evolve much more, the producers will find ways to
make them evolve?? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say
here.

As soon as the customer thinks the product is finished, the producer
will create new things that should be there. How much more features do
you want in an Office application? An instant message application? Do
you need nudges, winks, voice samples? Wait until MSN Messenger 8 comes
out, and then 9, maybe 10?

Maybe they can force it, maybe not, but that's not the point (again).
The point is what their intentions are, and that is trying to lock
people into using their software.

Can you name big companies that don't do this?

 

[John Bokma]

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

Making sure that even if there is a move of applications locally to running
on the web, that they are selling 80% of the software that makes it happen.

 

[John Bokma]

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.

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation. For some
people that *does* matter. Hence there is ISO HTML and there is a HTML 4.01
recommendation.

 

[John Bokma]

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

It seems that Google is making a wallet, so I wouldn't amaze if MS comes
with something similar if they see it works. Or buy PayPal (if such a thing
is possible).

 

[John Bokma]

What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs.

Yup, I know. Hence no standards.

Like I said: there is ISO HTML, and there is a w3c HTML 4.01
recommendation. The former is a standard, the latter is a defacto standard.
For some the difference does matter.

 

[Mike Meyer]

Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.
Moreover, Netscape added LiveScript, oh wait, I mean JavaScript, and the
*cough* blink element.
NS also added features to HTML.

Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla on they acted like MS, and did
whatever they thought would be best for their bottom line, never mind
ethics, legality, morality, the effect it had on their users, their
business partners, or the web as a whole. People bitched about NS back
then. Some of us predicted what would happen when they tangled with
MS, which had - and has - much more experience at this game.

Now that NS is no longer the 800 lb gorilla, they can see the
advantages of interoperability, and try and implement the same
languages that everyone else does. It would be funny if I didn't have
to live with the aftermath.

"Everybody else does it" is not a defense for criminal behavior. On
the off chance you haven't heard, two wrongs do *not* make a right.

<mike

 

[Mike Schilling]

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.

And the practical difference between the two is....

That's right, nil.

 

[David Schwartz]

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.

What? If you install a new operating system, all your existing software
stops working. You would encounter precisely analogous problems if you
replaced your car's engine. The transmission might no longer fit, for
example. I'm not sure why this analogy matters, but it does seem to be
pretty accurate.

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.

I neither said nor assumed that. The fact is, they have to support
Windows because it's what most of their users want. So whatever that costs,
they have to pay it. I think it's pretty low, actually, only because their
solution to any problem is to reinstall. Yes, that works, but it does kind
of screw over the user.

On the other hand, supporting Linux is not something they have to do to
stay competitive. The market for Linux desktops is small. It's better served
by niche companies that can grab a larger share of the smaller market.

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

There were always other places to go. There was never a time in this
story when you couldn't buy computer components, without an OS, and put
together your own computer.

As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car
without an engine. And the only reason it was illegal for Microsoft was
because Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly, and the only reason they
were deemed to have a monopoly (well, not the only, but a major reason) was
that the market was defined as "desktop operating systems for x86
computers".

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

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

It may not happen, or it may. The future of computing is not known at
this point.

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.

No, it's well-documented fact that Microsoft's entry into the browser
war was precisely because they feared that browsers would become the new
operating systems.

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.

What is your explanation for why MS decided it was so important to
control the browser market? You think MS was too stupid to realize that
web-based applications threatened to make desktop OSes interchangeable?

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:48:18 -0700, "David Schwartz"

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

With many cars, the engine is made by a different manufacturer from the
body. The point is, they're sold as a unit because a car won't run without
an engine and most people in the market want a car with an engine.

DS

 

[Mike Meyer]

As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it.

Actually, *any* company with a defacto monopoly pulling such a stunt
would be found in violation of the law. Such companies operate under
different legal rules than other companies. This was true when IBM was
the company that was dancing with the DOJ, and it'll be true long
after MS is nothing more than a memory. I don't know if anyone has
spelled this out to MS, but IBM was told so in no uncertain terms.

And the only reason it was illegal for Microsoft was because
Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly

And that's not at all clear. The thing is, if MS didn't have a
monopoly, their strong-arm tactics wouldn't have worked. If the
companies in question actually had other choices, they would have
laughed at MS's offer. The reality was that if they wanted to stay in
business, they had no choice but to take whatever MS offered them. It
isn't the offer that's illegal; it's the tools used to get the offer
accepted that are illegal. Selling insurance is only illegal if you
hint that someone is going to need it if they don't buy it from you.

<mike

 

[Roel Schroeven]

I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS is
the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really think
that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work any
different?

No, I do not think that MS is the only company that uses shady tactics.
Also I didn't use the word 'evil', since I think it is too strong for
what even MS does. But the fact is that MS is convicted for abusing its
monopoly position.

Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the
Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example
Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call that
perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.

Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide Web.
That's one point where web graphics differ from graphics in press.

Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe
"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's
good.

Popularity is not the same as quality.

I still fail to see your point. The original issue was the browser wars.
Tim Roberts wondered why Microsoft went through the efforst of
dominating the browser market, even if they don't make any money on IE.
David Schwartz gave the answer: MS did it to prevent the OS from
becoming a commodity, since that would allow users to freely choose
their own OS.

You seem to be saying that that is not their intention, since users will
always prefer Windows as their OS anyhow. Well I don't think so, but
just maybe you're right. But I'm pretty sure MS didn't want to take the
chance, and did what it did for the reason David gave.