Please be fair...
The easy, layman friendly operating system you are talking about is based on
Mac OS (anybody remember that battle) and that entire concept was stolen
from Xerox many, many years ago before PC's were more than a curiosity.
All that Microsoft really did was manage to beat Apple and IBM at
manipulating and capitalizing on a burgeoning market that had been opened by
the invention of microprocessor technology. The were better cheats than
Apple, and better visionaries than IBM... they were never, and in spite of
their vast capital, continue not to be, IMHO, better developers, and they
are not responsible for the vast PC ownership... That was going to happen
anyway, Microsoft just managed to beat everybody else to the optimum market
position.
Make no mistake... PCs were coming, and the technology was there before
Microsoft even knew about it. Their skill was in marketing it.
-Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating copyright;
Netscape troubles
> Regardless of what Microsoft has done regarding dominance, they did do one
> thing. They are primarily responsible for the huge PC ownership by
> individuals. I am referring to the people to whom you have to explain the
> difference between a right and a left mouse button click, the difference
> between shut down and shut off, what an icon is, what a desktop is. I can
> guarantee that if the linux folks had put out an OS that was basically
> nonliterate useable that their share of the market would be much larger
than
> it is now. The MS system allows illiterate individuals a way to use a
> computer. Those illiterate ones are the ones plunking down the bucks for
> new systems which by the way are controlled by an OS that they can master.
>
> I understand that there are some 35 different linux based OS systems out
> there. Microsoft is only Win 3.1, Win95, Win98, and NT. -- all versions
to
> soon become Win 2000.
>
> The real bucks that Microsoft is harvesting comes from the vast lay
> population in this world who basically distain nerds, not the computer
gurus
> who sit around and discuss what system is of higher quality.
>
> This whole discussion needs to be looked at from the timid money laden
side,
> not from the priviledged intellectual few, and I do mean few that have no
> money anyway because they are in the computer power race and spend all
they
> have on upgrading their systems every two months.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Madscientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating
copyright;
> Netscape troubles
>
>
> > I probably shouldn't do this, but how can I resist.
> >
> > <rant>
> >
> > Microsoft is evil, and they should be destroyed. (Steel Magnolias
> > Reference).
> >
> > The trouble that I have with Micro$oft, not to claim they have any kind
of
> > lock on this behavior, is that they consistently use their size and
> > anti-competitive practices to accelerate their success and maintain
their
> > dominance. More specifically, their success and market dominance is
based
> > primarily on manipulation, theft (everybody's a little guilty of this),
> and
> > maneuvering in and leveraging of the marketplace. Where their success is
> NOT
> > based is on the quality of their products.
> >
> > They have been shown to:
> >
> > * Negotiate unfair / exclusive relationships with OEMs by withdrawing
> > extraordinary discounts if the OEM chooses to offer a competing product.
> >
> > * Create mandatory (defacto) upgrades to their operating system and
other
> > software for the purpose of making it incompatible with competing
> products.
> >
> > * Abuse licenses for competing technologies to manipulate industry
> standards
> > by leveraging their incredibly large market share.
> >
> > * Release incomplete products, or announce new products years in advance
> of
> > actual delivery in order to soften or forestall the acceptance of
> competing
> > technologies in the market place.
> >
> > * Create mandatory (defacto) upgrades to their operating system software
> for
> > the sole purpose of restricting it's capabilities so that they could
> protect
> > the market of their more highly priced (and nearly identical) server
> > software... oh heck. Let's just say it. This one's well documented. The
> only
> > difference between NT workstation and NT server a while ago was the
> price...
> > Once folks began taking advantage of the capabilities of NT WS
> (particularly
> > for use on the 'web), a new service pack comes out, followed by a new
> > version, which includes a few special differences amounting to less than
> one
> > page of source code. The sole purpose of that code difference between
the
> > two platforms was to insure that the Workstation version couldn't be
> > effectively used as a server so that they could protect their market for
> the
> > server product at 4 to 5 times the price. This has _NOTHING_ to do with
> the
> > quality of the product (as they claimed in defense) and _EVERYTHING_ to
do
> > with gouging the market because they had the ability to get away with
it.
> >
> > >From the perspective of a ruthless capitalist, there is much to be
> admired
> > at Microsoft. The have, and continue to consistently extract tremendous
> > profits from their chosen market segment and to out compete all comers
in
> > areas where their core competencies lie.
> >
> > The do not, by any stretch of the imagination, create new products which
> > have a consistently higher quality than their competitors. What they
have
> > that's great, they stole, or purchased... sometimes gobbling up entire
> > competing companies leaving a wasteland in their wake.
> >
> > What I resent, and feel should be stopped, is that they have destroyed
the
> > best aspects of capitalism and the free market through artful
manipulation
> > to wit: the majority of IT shops purchase microsoft products because
there
> > is no other viable alternative, out of fear, or out of apathy rather
than
> > selecting it because it is the best product based on it's merits. This
> > perpetuates the same market conditions.
> >
> > I could release a new product that would revolutionize the industry, and
> on
> > an even playing field, my company would be vaulted to the top of the
> > market... that is, of course, until M$ decides to release their plans to
> > produce essentially the same product, and then quietly offers my
> development
> > staff two or three times what I can afford to go work for them, and then
> > makes some minor modifications to their OS in the next service pack at
> which
> > point my software somehow begins to crash, etc... etc...
> >
> > As a result of their sheer dominance in the marketplace and their
ability
> to
> > bludgeon any smaller competitors into submission or nonexistence, and
> > because they have laid waste, in one way or another, to the vast
majority
> of
> > competing products, realistic IT professionals who want to continue to
put
> a
> > roof over their heads have to think much more than twice about
> recommending
> > anything other than a microsoft product. This also perpetuates
Microsoft's
> > dominance.
> >
> > For those IT pros who would stick to their guns and make the best call
...
> > often they have to (as we have in many cases) choose Microsoft because
it
> > has already been selected for them... that is, the entire administrative
> > component of their company or client, not to mention the employment
market
> > at large is saturated with people who only know Microsoft products... As
a
> > result, any presentation containing an alternative choice must be
> > accompanied with an explanation (more like a defense) for why the
> Microsoft
> > product wasn't selected.
> >
> > This has occurred not because competing products were technically
inferior
> > in any way, but because the companies supporting their development were
> > unable to withstand the financial punishment of a playing field highly
> > skewed in Microsoft's favor.
> >
> > OK, so life's not fair and these "Network Effects" are not the exclusive
> > property of MS... but isn't it our purpose to try and improve things?
> > Shouldn't it be possible, or even desirable for new companies with
better
> > technology to not only compete successfully in the market place, but
also
> to
> > attain some measure of success? Isn't it unacceptable to allow one
company
> > to so dominate the industry that no reasonable competitors can hope to
> > survive - even if their products are superior? I think it's
unreasonable.
> >
> > I applaud the Linux movement and open source software in general... sure
> > there's a lot of sward rattling that goes on, but that's not what
> counts...
> > when it comes down to it, these guys aren't focused on killing Microsoft
> as
> > much as they are on improving their craft and their product. No matter
> where
> > you sit, better products and better technologies are good for everybody.
> I'm
> > glad somebody's doing something about it.
> >
> > </rant>
> >
> > -Pete
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Vaughn Thurman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 1:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating
> copyright;
> > Netscape troubles
> >
> >
> > > Wow what an interesting thread this has become!
> > >
> > > The inside opinions are great. I am really glad to see we have so
many
> > > capitalists here debating this point. Microsoft is big. Microsoft is
> > > strong. Microsoft is tough to compete with, but does that make them
> evil?
> > > Netscape, Sun, and AOL have all faced them and lost because of their
> high
> > > prices, bad practices, poor marketing, or even design flaws. Now they
> > think
> > > that Microsoft should be tied up and have it's head chopped off. This
> is
> > > tatamount to "He is bigger and faster than the other kids because he
> works
> > > out all of the time and runs laps every day, he should have to play
> > football
> > > on his knees and with no helmet! My kid has a right to eat potato
chips
> > and
> > > lay on the couch and still win football games!". (My son won't be
going
> > to
> > > that school of thought!) Do talented football players create all of
the
> > > moves they do? No. They improve on, and/or execute more efficiently,
> age
> > > old moves and win games as a result. Maybe we should make the Yankees
> > start
> > > wearing high heels...
> > >
> > > I would love to see another company give MS a run for thier money, but
> not
> > > in court! I do not want to be stuck buying the software that lawyers
> have
> > > crafted! I also don't want people who think lawyers are party of the
> > > development process building the next generation OS!
> > >
> > > Anyone who waits for the government to bring him his future has not
paid
> > > attention to the government's results in the past!
> > >
> > > As soon as IMAIL runs on Linux I will buy it. I love Linux and use it
> > > everyday in many server roles, but why would the average user want to
> use
> > > it? It takes 10 times as long to figure out how to do anything and
> there
> > is
> > > a shortage of knowledge/support available yet. That could all change
if
> > > they just do exactly what MS has been doing. Improve, Improve,
Improve!
> > So
> > > far I see Sun, Netscape and AOL saying they improved upon our ideas!
> They
> > > must be stopped so that our rough and poorly built stuff stays on top!
> > > Please cut me a break! Get back to building better mousetraps and the
> > world
> > > will beat your door down. Our industry is new but that age old saying
> > still
> > > holds true!
> > >
> > > </rant off>
> > > -V
> > >
> > > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> > > to be removed from this list.
> > >
> >
> > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> > to be removed from this list.
> >
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
