John Bokma wrote: > Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice. >>If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice. > > > I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS is > the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really think > that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work any > different?
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. >>>>- An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx, >>>>Links, Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS >>> >>>I think that we both understand that one browser will be more >>>compatible then an other. It will only happen if all use exactly the >>>same render engine, or all web recommendations are frozen. >> >>Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the >>aforementioned websites right now. > > > Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the > Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example > Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call that > perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer. Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide Web. That's one point where web graphics differ from graphics in press. >>>Look at processors: which one would you buy at the moment? AMD? >>>Intel? and if you pick a brand, which type? >> >>Depends on my needs, budget and the specs and price of the available >>offers. Plus I always have a small, admittedly perhaps unjustified, >>preference for the underdog; in the past that was AMD, in the future >>that may very well be Intel. But I don't see the point of that >>question. > > > Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for > MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe > "cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's > good. Popularity is not the same as quality. 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. 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. -- If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton Roel Schroeven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
