And it came to pass that Matthew Thomas wrote:
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>
>> And it came to pass that Matthew Thomas wrote: ...
>> > `Proprietary formats' aren't inherently evil. Where
>> > Microsoft's customers are asking for something that's not
>> > currently covered by a standard, they have no choice
>> > *but* to implement it in a proprietary way rather than
>> > twiddling their thumbs waiting for the relevant W3C
>> > working group to come up with something. Examples include
>> > IFRAME (MSIE 3.0), behaviors (4.0), and overflow ellipses
>> > (6.0), all of which are undoubtedly useful.
>>
>> Which customers requested these features?
>>
>> Survey says: none.
>
> Who were you surveying, your mouse? Unless you used to work
> for Microsoft Marketing, or had a mole therein, you can't
> possibly know how many people asked for it.
I can access other surveys and forums. I can even read the MS
groups and see the very clear trends. MS looks for marketing
'hooks' before it answers customer requests. It always has.
> All we do know
> is that it was enough for the Microsoft programmers to
> bother implementing it.
No, all you can ASSUME is that this was the case. Unless YOU
work for MS marketing or have a mole.
>
>> MicroSoft didn't add those items because customers
>> specifically asked for them; they added the features and
>> customers integrated them into their web pages because they
>> were *available*.
>
> How do you know? Surely you realize that the degree to which
> a company does that, implementing stuff at random and
> dumping it on customers whether they like it or not, is
> inversely proportional to how successful the company is.
To realize such a thing, it would have to be strictly true. It
is NOT. MS doesn't SELL their browser, they don't actually make
a DIME off of it. The ONLY reason that IE has market dominance
is because MicroSoft illegally used its monopoly power.
Even the Supreme Court agrees with THAT assessment.
>
>>
>> Had MS
>> pointed out that these features were not supported by other
>> software, we might not see them in use today.
>
> Yeah we would, they would just have been introduced by a
> browser vendor who would by now (probably) have more market
> share than either Microsoft or Netscape.
And you can prove this? I'd like to see that proof.
AGain, the ONLY reason IE has dominance is because MS illegally
used its monopoly to make it happen, and that is a matter of
public record.
While you may disagree with the Supreme Court, you can't deny
their ruling exists, and you can't deny what their ruling says.
>
>> But as usual, MS added features and convinced users to
>> become reliant on them rather than deal with the issues
>> that users actually aak for.
>
> Oh, and which `issues' *do* users actually ask for? Do you
> really mean the features you yourself ask for? If the
> following paragraph is any guide, you're not very
> representative of the user population ...
THIS one came straight from Bill Gate's mouth: he says that
users wanted a more stable and secure OS, and that's what SP is
intended to be.
Of course, he is ALSO on record saying that MS's chief rival is
MS. And interestingly, the new licensing program forces OS
expiration at MS's whim.
By the purchase record of MS users, their preference is to stick
with an OS version they are happy with. MS's actions are in
direct contradiction with their customer's preference in this
case.
>
>> After all, how long did it take to
>> release a
>> secure and stable OS that didn't require massive patches
>> within a few weeks of release.
>>
>> Oh, wait - they still haven't managed that one...
>
> Microsoft went after the desktop OS market because that's
> where the money was. And they knew that to a very large
> extent, the majority of desktop customers prefer to have
> lots of features for little price, rather than having
> usability, security, or reliability.
Documentation please.
>
> That's why -- even before Microsoft started their illegal
> monopoly behavior -- desktop market share was massive for
> Windows, mediocre for Mac OS, and basically non-existent for
> OSes which concentrate on security (like the BSDs) or
> reliability (like Linux). People just put up with BSODs and
> the like, because the alternatives were (as far as they were
> concerned) even worse. For most people, they still are.
I'm sorry, you seem to be under a misaprehension: MicroSoft's
illegal activities began with the introduction of the Windows
OS. That is why other OS's havent done well: MS shut them up.
As for Linux, it's a relatively recent OS, and was created well
after MS started its illegal activities.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Wake up, the whole world's gone...
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
