At 04:43 PM 9/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>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
As I remember it, it was actually stolen from Xerox labs.
>Make no mistake... PCs were coming, and the technology was there before
>Microsoft even knew about it. Their skill was in marketing it.
Exactly, that's not a crime, although everyone knows it's a good idea to
stay away from marketing as much as possible. :)
>-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.
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
