Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[john]

If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood

on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

If I haven't been able to see further, it was because I stood
in the footprints of giants.

 

[Tim Tyler]

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 ...

I had a BBC B - and then a couple of Archimedies computers.

The BBC computer was cool. However, the Archimedies had a 32-bit
RISC chip in 1987, was quite affordable, and did rather blow the
socks off its predecessor.

 

[Tim Tyler]

"Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> writes:

[Microsoft]

no, they got their by clever marketing [snip]

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. [...]

That is inaccurate.

 

[Tim Tyler]

[Microsoft]

Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
market. Why would you risk anything to own it?

Power. Minshare. Controlling the planet's gateway to the internet.
That sort of thing.

 

[Tim Tyler]

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.

Another big problem appears to be sitting on their customers and milking
them - rather than working on improving things. There has been some
progress with their OS - but it seems to be going very slowly.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla

When was this? When did Netscape have a monopoly in any market?

Netscape was never the 800 lb gorilla.

on they acted like MS,

When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?

When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

If you really wanted to compare apples with apples (no pun intended), IBM
and Microsoft would be the two to compare. IBM had an effective monopoly
once, and they acted like Microsoft, although even they never had the
gall to just ignore the court's rulings as Microsoft has done, and
continues to do. Twenty years ago, Microsoft were the knights in shining
armour going to save Apple Macintosh from the Big Blue evil empire. But
that was then, this is now, and unlike IBM, Microsoft hasn't yet learnt
about karma.

 

[Alan Balmer]

They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
because they have a large market share.

You've been around long enough to learn to recognize this poster and
ignore him.

 

[Mike Meyer]

When was this? When did Netscape have a monopoly in any market?

Starting with the release of Netscape 1.0, until MS decided to take it
away from them. At one time they owned 95%+ of the browser market. It
was standard practice at that time for web sites to be designed for -
and only work properly with - NS; questions asked on the wwww groups
were routinely answered with solutions that only worked in NS;
"cross-platform" testing meant making sure your pages worked in NS on
both the Mac and Windows.

Netscape was never the 800 lb gorilla.

You're wrong.

When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?
When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

As I already stated, Netscape wasn't as good at the game as MS.

<mike

 

[John Bokma]

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

That's right, nil.

If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right. However, as a
(freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to me, and
my customers. Otherwise I can suck on my thumb, write some words on a piece
of paper, and call them standards myself.

 

[John Bokma]

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

So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?

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.

Where can I read that well-documented fact?

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?

And you think MS is so stupid to just jump through hoops because
something that still isn't here, might have been there like 8 years ago?

Can you show me what companies MS bought to justify their fear for a
major move to thin client computing?

 

[John Bokma]

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.

If just one got convicted it means that some got away with it, and still
am.

Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide
Web.

Not the differences I am talking about. There is ambiguity in for
example the CSS working drafts (or recommendations, too lazy to check
their current state). Maybe check out what the acid test is (actually
there are two IIRC). Also, wonder why if the differences I am talking
about are "perfectly acceptable" why some are fixed between different
versions (e.g. Opera).

Popularity is not the same as quality.

Did I state such a thing? Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in
this world. If you think so, wake up. Or do you really consider the
Linux desktop (any of them) quality?

The fact is that a company has no time to work on quality. If they do,
the competition is selling what they hope to release in 2015.

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.

*the* answer? LOL. I doubt it, since David's *the answer* isn't
happening. As I asked in another reply: can you name several companies
MS acquired to justify their fears of a major paradigm shift towards
notworking computing?

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.

Again, I doubt it. MS just wants that every user who doesn't care if
there are better products just knows one and one name only: Microsoft.

So: Internet = Microsoft, Music = Microsoft, Videos = Microsoft,
Blogging = Microsoft. Multimedia = Microsoft. Your keyboard = Microsoft,
your mouse = Microsoft. Your computer has a sticker on it: Designed for
Microsoft Windows.

Microsoft is (creating) a meme.

 

[John Bokma]

When was this? When did Netscape have a monopoly in any market?

Netscape was never the 800 lb gorilla.


When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?

When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

They got killed too soon.

that was then, this is now, and unlike IBM, Microsoft hasn't yet learnt
about karma.

Which is a good thing, since MS is not a human being. It's a company, a
thing to make money, so it can make more money.

 

[John Bokma]

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.

But some clients will work better with web based software, or make the
users believe so. If this idea was correct, why aren't all browsers equal
in usage and performance? Instead of quality, people seem to pick a browser
based on zealotism, look and feel, how well it can be extended, or if a
major player is behind it.

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

Nah, they compete on gadgets, and the ignorance of the majority of users.

 

[David Schwartz]

So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?

Yep. Why do you think Microsoft tried to balkanize Java?

Where can I read that well-documented fact?

Pretty much in any history of the browser wars. For example, the DOJ
writes, in their appeal brief:

In May 1995, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer William Gates wrote that
Netscape was "pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API
into the client [Web browser] to commoditize the underlying operating
system."

There are many, many other sources. This was never a secret and was
never in dispute. You are welcome to keep your head in the sand, but it's
just you.

And you think MS is so stupid to just jump through hoops because
something that still isn't here, might have been there like 8 years ago?

I can only surmise that you are completely unfamiliar with the history
of the browser wars.

Can you show me what companies MS bought to justify their fear for a
major move to thin client computing?

They explicitly said that this was their fear. You don't need to read
tea leaves, you can read memos and speeches. It is very clear that MS was
(and to some extent still is) afraid that thin clients and web-based
applications will commoditize the OS.

DS

 

[Mike Schilling]

If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right. However, as
a
(freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to me, and
my customers.

That is, you assume that files claiming to contain XML documents may
actually contain some variant of XML, because that's only a recommendation,
while files claiming to contain C++ are all ISO-conformant, because that's a
standard?

If so, you've got things precisely backwards. C++ compilers that contain
extensions or are not quite compliant are everywhere. XML parsers that
accept non-well-formed XML are, ASFAIK, non-existent.

 

[Mike Schilling]

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.

What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both irrelevant.

 

[Roel Schroeven]

If just one got convicted it means that some got away with it, and still
am.

I'm not going to answer this one anymore. Other companies use shady
tactics too, I already said that, but we're talking about MS now.

Not the differences I am talking about. There is ambiguity in for
example the CSS working drafts (or recommendations, too lazy to check
their current state). Maybe check out what the acid test is (actually
there are two IIRC). Also, wonder why if the differences I am talking
about are "perfectly acceptable" why some are fixed between different
versions (e.g. Opera).

I know what the ACID test is. I also know that we're talking about the
browser wars and that those date from long before the ACID tests were
created.

Did I state such a thing?

That's what I gathered from "People just buy MS, ... . MS, so it's
good." Maybe I misunderstood, in which case I apologize. Still, doesn't
matter since it also is completely besides the point.

Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in
this world. If you think so, wake up.

I'm very well aware of that.

Or do you really consider the Linux desktop (any of them) quality?

Actually yes. Are they better than MS's desktop? Depends on one's needs.
If I didn't need MS for my job, there's a very big chance I would only
use Linux. Or MacOS X.

*the* answer? LOL. I doubt it, since David's *the answer* isn't
happening. As I asked in another reply: can you name several companies
MS acquired to justify their fears of a major paradigm shift towards
notworking computing?

I read that other reply of yours, and David's reply to it. He replied
much better than I could have done, but I agree with what he said so
I'll just refer to his reply.

 

[Mike Meyer]

What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both irrelevant.

Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser. In which
case standards and recommendations are the only things that are
relevant.

Pages on the internet written for a specific browser are part of the
harm that NS did the community when the ignored the standards process
in favor of proprietary extensions.

<mike

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

They got killed too soon.

Neither the Netscape executives nor Netscape the company have been killed.

Which is a good thing, since MS is not a human being. It's a company, a
thing to make money, so it can make more money.

Microsoft is a collection of human beings. They don't get to excuse
anti-social behaviour on the basis that they're only trying to make money.

 

[David Schwartz]

So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?

By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of
post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all concerned
and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well,
perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this
money on it.

It is still a realistic possibility that operating systems will be
commoditized and something other than the end-user's OS will be the target
for most software development. It could be the language (like Java), the
server (like the guts of web-based applications), or the browser (like the
UI of web-base applications).

Microsoft's current stance is to prevent this from happening if they
can. If they can't, then they'll try to make sure that whatever they can't
stop has Microsoft at the heart of it whether that's by "Microsoft
thin-client OS" or "Microsoft Java" or whatever.

By the way, if you read my other posts, you can see that I have no
anti-Microsoft bias. They have every right to have their vision of the
future of computing and to put their resources behind it. And it's hard to
find a company whose future vision doesn't include their products in some
important place.

DS