What do you mean? Mac's never crash. When I was a green tech I had a
counter customer tell me how good they were (I was a captive audience) for a
half an hour, then I asked him why it was in his hands at the repair shop.
He said "Oh, I installed some software and now the system folder is gone or
something and it won't boot." Microsoft has benifited from others
[marketing and pricing] stupidity more than it's own genius. (OS/2, MAC,
UNIX [31 flavors], etc). I am not going to try and get my users using Linux
not because I fear for a roof over my head, but because I have better things
to do all day then help users wade through Linux MAN pages. It will get
there and I am watching it. I use Linux in server farms like crazy, but it
is not the simple mans desktop yet.
-V
----- Original Message -----
From: Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating copyright;
Netscape troubles
> Lets face it. We would be apple users if they hadn't killed themselves by
> keeping their computers as proprietary machines. No one could afford the
> price which was 2-3 times higher than the average John Doe was willing to
> pay. I can remember weird things going wrong with their hardware that
only
> apple gurus could fix with more expensive dealer only parts. Personally,
I
> find the MS system more userfriendly than the mac's. When a program
crashes
> on MS one can close only that program and be up and running again. of
> course, hopefully, mac may have that fixed by now.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Madscientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] RE:off-topic: Microsoft not violating
copyright;
> Netscape troubles
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> 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.
