Login:
Password:

AOL Marshals Troops Against MS XP Offensive

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

May 3, 2001, 9:17 AM

Corporate giants AOL Time Warner and Microsoft are set to face off in what could prove to be the most influential power struggle the Internet has ever seen.

What once started as a mutually beneficial relationship has deteriorated into intense fear and loathing, as Microsoft prepares to directly compete with the largest online service provider in the world, former ally America Online. Microsoft's upcoming Windows XP will be the first step taken toward integrating Web services directly into the OS, a move that has AOL struggling to respond.

While Windows XP looms on the horizon with an improved embedded media player and instant messenger, Microsoft has also been preparing to launch into beta HailStorm, an effort to bring Web-based services to the desktop. The initial services include myProfile, myAddress, myContacts, myInbox, myWallet, myDocuments, myCalendar, and others. Most importantly, seamless Passport authentication allows users to access HailStorm services by simply logging into Windows.

Threat of a HailStorm

For AOL, the threat of HailStorm's potential force is very real. By continuing to innovate, Microsoft is effectively phasing out the need for third party applications. If AOL is indeed excluded from Windows XP, new users will no longer be inclined to use the client; all AOL-like services will be readily available within the operating system through either bundled Microsoft software or HailStorm.

Microsoft refused to comment on whether the actions it was taking were intended to "box out" AOL from Windows.

Tension over competing products has existed between the two companies since the launch of MSN, but both had managed to put aside differences and work together. Microsoft offered AOL valuable showcasing within Windows in exchange for Internet Explorer being used in AOL client software. However, after the contract expired this January, discussions on renewal broke down.

Microsoft has no reason to renegotiate, with many analysts blaming the partnership for MSN's lack of success as an ISP. In addition, while it is easy to remove AOL from future versions of Windows, removing Internet Explorer from AOL is a long and arduous process.

AOL has had years to embed the browser and make the client as robust as possible, switching systems without proper testing could be catastrophic for customers. Internal memos viewed by BetaNews show AOL continuing to add full support for IE6, even while developing Komodo, a technology allowing AOL and CompuServe to use Netscape's Gecko browser engine.

OEM Limitations

To make matters worse, Microsoft has decided to revamp its policies towards featuring third-party applications within the operating system. OEMs will no longer be able to monetize desktop real estate or decide how many applications they can add to the Start Menu, which means if AOL wants exposure, it must go through Redmond.

Microsoft spokesperson Jim Cullinan confirmed this change, stating that XP "has a new User Interface marked by a significantly cleaned up desktop with no icons - including Microsoft's." He added, "So, While there may have been changes to the desktop the new rules apply to everyone - including us."

AOL had previously worked out deals with OEMs to guarantee registrations, including commitments numbering in the hundreds of thousands from major PC manufacturers.

AOL Forced to Take Action

BetaNews has examined an internal AOL call to arms document, outlining the company's possible strategies for dealing with Microsoft initiatives. Titled "(Preliminary) Summary OEM Strategy Response to .Net/XP" and sent to top-level executives at the company, the document exhibits the risk .Net poses to the AOL franchise.

Microsoft's (MS) new .Net strategy, coupled with the impending release of XP, presents a significant risk to the AOL franchise. By integrating and embedding traditional AOL functionality (e.g., email, IM, chat, wallet, calendar, address book, web browsing, content aggregation, media players, etc) into the OS and .Net initiative, Microsoft is essentially absorbing much of the AOL client based functionality into the OS. The boundaries that separate the OS and the Internet will disappear. The risk exists that the consumer will not see the value of using the AOL client for online activity and will simply use the default Microsoft solutions.
The document continues by outlining the current OEM situation, AOL's only leverage against the software giant.

MS is currently forecasting an RTM date of 7/25. If this date is attained, approx. 7-10 million PC's will ship with XP this fall. A number of OEM's have expressed concern regarding MS's intention to modify the OS in a manner that eliminates the OEM's ability to effectively monitize the Desktop. MS's intention to remove all icons from the Desktop, to remove the system tray, to control the number of preinstalled applications on the top level of the Start menu, etc...are seen as examples of this strategy. HP and Compaq have specifically indicated they are interested in taking steps "remonitize" the desktop.
Resist Assimilation

Seven possible options AOL can explore with OEMs are provided, followed by a set of minimum goals AOL hopes to achieve with out-of-box integration.

AOL begins by stating it can "Accept Assimilation" and "Partner with Microsoft to support their initiatives while gaining specific 'carve outs' for AOL."

By partnering with OEMs however, AOL has a wealth of options to fight Microsoft restrictions. One includes forming a "Coalition" with OEMs "to ensure AOL is the default application and service for all online activity, and that AOL has extensive presence throughout the OS." Another would involve replacing the default Microsoft desktop by working with a provider such as xSides.

Stalling XP

Two options in the document, which bring into question the ethics of AOL, entail stalling Windows XP deployment and adoption. If OEMs continue to offer Windows Me, "AOL can develop an appropriate XP solution." Likewise, the company proposes sending a "message to AOL members and the public that XP is "not ready" for broad adoption (i.e., has bugs, will not run AOL, will not run your existing software, will violate your online privacy, etc...)."

Perhaps the boldest option, AOL mentions it could "develop and launch a more esoteric solution such as an alternative OS or a modified MS OS."

AOL seeks to undermine several other Microsoft key initiatives as well, including having OEMs disable features such as the Active Desktop and lessening MSN's Start Menu presence. AOL additionally strives to have Winamp, AIM, and Netscape set as the default for their respective features, overriding Microsoft applications.

AOL Time Warner faces a new corporate schema where value and muscle of its properties have yet to be determined. Microsoft seems to have the upper hand, refusing to provide documents needed by AOL to complete work on XP-compatible clients and the OOBE. If not granted exemption from Microsoft's logo program, AOL inclusion may also force OEMs to sacrifice software rebates, a course of action most will be reluctant to follow.

When asked how the company feels about options AOL is exploring, Microsoft's Cullinan told BetaNews, "Like many companies in high tech industry we cooperate and compete with AOL. We have always said that AOL/Timewarner is a major competitor to us in various areas. If these documents are accurate they only reinforce our point that AOL will do whatever is necessary to preserve its 'walled garden approach'."

AOL plans to complete its new client, code-named Taz, in mid-August. Although as noted in internal discussions, about 70% of AOL members use PCs that do not meet Windows XP system requirements.

AOL responded to inquiries about the document and strategies, however denied any knowledge. "Management is not familair with these excerpts or the document referred to and they are not reflective of company thinking or strategy," stated AOL spokesperson, Ann Brackbill.

"It's not appropriate for us to comment on internal AOL docs," Cullinan noted, "we'll leave that to the AOL folks to explain."

While the outcome of these corporate games between AOL Time Warner and Microsoft remains to be seen, Internet users can be assured they will experience quite a show in the next year.

Aaron Dobbins, Craig Newell, and David Worthington contributed to this report.

Add a Comment (168 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By bumweasel

posted May 19, 2001 - 5:55 PM

Comment to rg10894598: Linux is UNIX? a UNIX wanna-be yes but not UNIX at the core bud (http://www.bell-labs.com/topic/books/aos-book/). Play with FreeBSD for awhile. As for Windows XP, I would like to see AOL ground into the dirt.

Score: 0

By octavius314

posted May 18, 2001 - 1:58 PM

AOL is just a stupid ISP. That is all they are. Sure they have IM and bought time-warner. They dont even have cable yet.

Microsoft has departments on all aspects of software products. How can anyone compare AOL to MS?

As for the desktop real estate, it is completely nonsense. I can easily remove all the icons after install.

Score: 0

By crazycat

posted Oct 24, 2001 - 2:17 AM

Well that show just how smart you realy are AOL/Time Warner has actulay been bulding some of the most respected web severs long befor MS thought about it as well as going in to the many hosting centers that they owen as well as the mass os sofware dev that they have done and are doing. What is realy going on here is the fact that MS sees a real threat to there Strong hold on the market and are pulling there same old biz practices to shut them down as they have so many other companies of the past many years. The fear that AOL/Time Warner may release a OS is quite frietfull to them do to the fact that in the US alone AOL has over 30 million usesers and when you take in to acount there CABLE NETWORK well then you have a very formable competitor.

Score: 0

By rg10894598

posted May 17, 2001 - 9:25 PM

Instead of discussing MS Windows, everyone should move on and use alternate operating systems, the best right now being Linux.

However, we shouldn't all just flock to Linux, because it's not that easy to learn to use. We need the big corporates to develope Linux and make it more compatiple for everyone to use, if everyone can then use it with ease, the MS will see that they lost.

Look at it this way:
MS Windows is based on MS-DOS;
The new Apple MacOS X is based on UNIX.
Linux is based on UNIX.

UNIX-based OS are going to win the market over, especially with it's non-extension based file system. Open Source means anyone can modify it and make programs for it, and it means it's cheap, even FREE... and there isn't some giant taking it over.

If we work on UNIX-based systems, we'll crush Microsoft and it's .NET thing.

Score: 0

By octavius314

posted May 18, 2001 - 1:39 PM

UNIX is a creature left over the days of the 60s. Although there is alot of unfunctionality exposed to the user, it is best kept away from most people aside from system administrators.

LINUX. i still dont see how great it is. its is simply a kernel written up by Linus Torvalds. Nothing more. And it is certainly not user friendly. Setting up the damned X windows server for your new hardware is certainly no joy. Not to mentioned how slow and clunky it is. Applications for linux tend to be very poorly written. Netscape crashes in linux all the time.

A war ? I think its more like guerilla action from the linux party.

Score: 0

By joshhoelker2001

posted May 19, 2001 - 3:34 AM

Its very true that Linux is stable, the reason why is becasue linux is based off of Unix. But Windows is not entirely run by ms-dos legacy, as of Win98 it is all ms-dos emulation. Dont We All love emulation? Besides, ive tried linux, and it is truely an evil OS. None of my hardware ever works with it, the same goes with AOL. they really need more SW support dont they? I have come to find that the most stable OS that i haev ever used in my enitre life is W2K. Ive tried every flavor of Windows, and Linux. I even use Basilisk2 to emulate all of my Macintosh Needs. But when it comes to stability, and easiness, Win2Kpro is the best. All Ya need to do is pop it in the cdrom drive, and it boots and install itself in like 45 minutes.

Score: 0

By stubear

posted May 18, 2001 - 10:12 AM

Windows NT/2000 is most certainly NOT based on DOS. It is a fully POSIX compliant OS which means anything written for UNIX can be relatively ported over to Windows NT/2000. Windows based on DOS is dead. Microsoft has slain the dying 9x beast with the creation of Windows XP.

Score: 0

By tdf2k

posted May 18, 2001 - 3:22 PM

While NT/2000 are not based on DOS, I can't accept the statement that "it is fully POSIX compliant, and can run any program designed for Unix." That's absurd. Microsoft's products contain the bare minimum POSIX 1.0 implementation to allow it to describe itself as compliant. As anyone who has coded for both types of systems knows, porting can be an amazing headache, even if you stick to POSIX.

Score: 0

By jay007

posted May 17, 2001 - 1:45 PM

Why bother upgrading?
Who said anyone "HAD" to buy every new OS MS pumps out.
Realistically they'll keep pumping OS's out until we've
colonized mars and beyond. Personally I'm quite happy with
my current OS(windows98Se) and I aim to keep it for as long
as I can until something better comes along, prefferably a non MS OS
that can run all my current applications. By upgrading to Windows XP
you can kiss your web privacy goodbye. Sure the XP OS looks cool,
maybe even awesome, but is it worth upgrading to in exchange
for a truckload of new bugs, incompatability issues(both hardware and software wise), loss of of your privacy(freedom) on the web and last but not least; settling for an OS where the creators get to pick which software you can run on it?

Score: 0

By powerlifter

posted May 18, 2001 - 11:12 AM

I already have the XP interface -- through Stardock's Windowblinds, ObjectBar, and DesktopX. No need for a UI upgrade.

Until XP has a set of libs that aren't supported under Win2K, I'm not upgrading.

Score: 0

By cerebraldebris

posted May 8, 2001 - 7:33 AM

It's always amazing how bold people are when they're not face to face... especially that know-it-all windbag who loves to listen to himself talk.
You know, the one who's favorite line is "you sir are an idiot"...
Everyone has an opinion, whether it's liked or not. There's nothing at all idiotic about taking an active part and voicing your opinion about what's important to you.

Anyhow... I've got a few opinions/comments of my own:

Everyone is complaining about corporations and their business tactics. One of those tactics being control of people and forcing them to use their product or whatever...
all businesses do it in one way or another. It's just that some are better and bolder at it... in this case it's AOL & MS.
We complain about such practices, but give in to them all the time.
It's everywhere.
We were all forced to give out specific demographic information about ourselves [bogus or not] just to be able to post opinions onthis very site we're on.
No one HAD TO... unless they wanted speak their mind. No big deal... most of us probably didn't think much of it.
It's a type/level of force that's become normal. A practice that's become accepted.

Control is used in some form by ALL corporations.

It's still simple... we all still have plenty of choices.

I didn't want to, I wouldn't have given information to come here and post a comment.
The same holds true for what run on my PC... if it doesn't suit my needs or I don't like it, I don't put it on my computer.

I didn't like Windows [any version]- so I don't use it. I didn't say I hate Microsoft... just don't like Windows.

Didn't care for the Mac OS- don't use it.

I don't use AOL because I worked for the bas****s and know how their dirty little minds work. Yes, they have lots of nasty tactics...
but aside from that I just don't like their product... so I don't use it.

As with anything, there are plenty of choices, and believe it or not, always will be.

If people cop out and don't bother to educate themselves to the choices out here... then I'm sorry, but they get what they get... and that's exactly why the giants continue to grow.

Score: 0

By powerlifter

posted May 18, 2001 - 11:17 AM

Unfortunately, as a consultant to business, I have to deal with it. In the US, I need to make money.

I do run SuSE at home though. I prefer it MUCH. ;-)

Score: 0

By JoeBob

posted May 7, 2001 - 11:32 AM

Score: 0

By xxtxbxx

posted May 7, 2001 - 10:44 AM

What is AOL Time Warner's core business? I don't recall application - much less OS - development being one of them. But what about the Netscape Browser? It's taken them an inordinate amount of time to release a decent non-beta of the browser (solid 2 years). Even the anti-Microsoft browser consortium begged Netscape to pull 4.5 because it was a step back from W3C standards. AOL will even tell you they didn't have an accurate picture of what they had signed up for. A deal will be struck - end of story. Which could be for the better because I still run into people who believe AOL is the entire Internet.

One note - I agree with the post on WMA (Spoony?) -- I could live without it. I'm a Winamp fool and I thought their Shoutcast network was genius.

Score: 0

By miguelcanada

posted May 7, 2001 - 2:33 AM

I don't really understand why people allways rally to fight against Microsoft, yet they run windows, run Office, and use IE. Its simply because there product is better than anyone else's, nobody out there has come out with something better, its that simple. They have the money, and have the best people working for them, and they build great software. Lets compare quickly.

AOL ICQ/ AOL IM - Bloat full of features, ICQ has banners everywhere now, yes you can remove them, but im sure next versions will be even wors

VS

MSN Messanger - A VERY small, powerfull download. With hailstorm you will be able to send a message to anyone, on any device, get weather warnings, calander events, be told if your flights are delaayed... and at under a megabyte download... its awesome! integrates easily into Netmeeting... its great, and doesnt use up 10MB of ram like icq can get up to

AOL Netscape 6 - Ok, if any of you use this thing, I have to laugh... I wont say anything... but RUINED!

VS

Internet Explorer 6 - Nice small browser, that does everthing very well, and supports all the features a web designer needs. nice interface, unlike Netscape.

Word Processing Suites in general - Ok, they all are pretty bad, and are all trying to copy Microsoft because everyone loves Office.

VS

Office XP - Tight integration. This is great because i can flip to any one of there products and know what im doing... My mom, my dad, can all easily use powerpoint, frontpage, word, excel...

Other Programming Languages - Ok, they have all fallen WAY WAY behind, and have not inovated whatsoever.. Jave will crumble in the comming year to .NET simply because .NET is sooo much better! .NET will be the greatest thing to hit computers ever. Java is incredibly slow, bloat, does not allow you to program in any language, and never really took off.

VS

Visual Studio .NET - Program in any language! I can use a C++ component in my VB application! I can get a Cobol programmer to create a component and use it in my C# application! And my program can load seamlisly on a web browser, on a cell phone, on my desktop... no problem... People are in for a suprise!

In conclusion.. Microsoft may be big and powerfull, people tend to get upset at this... but they are big and powerfull simply because they have greate software! Hey if AOL makes something better... then ill jump abored... but you know what, just like what they did to ICQ, and Netscape... ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN! :) I cant wait to use Windows XP... log into my computer anywhere.. use my files in any location... use my cell phone to check my email at home... check my flights... not have to have sign ins for a million diffrent websites... just one sign in... when i sign into windows... the way it should be.... Empower people through great software... Any place, anywhere, and on any device.

Score: 0

By wa1er

posted May 18, 2001 - 10:02 PM

You sound like you work for Microsoft. Let's go over everything you said point by point.

> AOL ICQ/ AOL IM - Bloat full of features, ICQ has banners everywhere now, yes you can
> remove them, but im sure next versions will be even wors

> VS

> MSN Messanger - A VERY small, powerfull download. With hailstorm you will be able to send > a message to anyone, on any device, get weather warnings, calander events, be told if your > flights are delaayed... and at under a megabyte download... its awesome! integrates easily > into Netmeeting... its great, and doesnt use up 10MB of ram like icq can get up to

What about Yahoo! Messenger? It's free, available for many more operating systems (with full features) than MSN, ICQ, or AIM, small, efficient, and fully integrated with Yahoo's online features. And it's not bloated.

> AOL Netscape 6 - Ok, if any of you use this thing, I have to laugh... I wont say anything... but RUINED!

> VS

> Internet Explorer 6 - Nice small browser, that does everthing very well, and supports all > the features a web designer needs. nice interface, unlike Netscape.

AOL/Netscape and Microsoft do not make the world's only two browsers. Try K-Meleon, based on the Gecko engine. It's the smallest browser I've ever seen, and it supports almost every feature I need to use. For anything it doesn't support, I can just load up Mozilla 0.9, which is every bit as fast as IE6.

> Word Processing Suites in general - Ok, they all are pretty bad, and are all trying to > copy Microsoft because everyone loves Office.

> VS

> Office XP - Tight integration. This is great because i can flip to any one of there > products and know what im doing... My mom, my dad, can all easily use powerpoint, > frontpage, word, excel...

So Japanese cars are bad because they copied American cars? Yeah, maybe AbiSource and StarOffice all copied MS Office to begin with, but they've evolved into something much different, and in many ways better. For integration, you can't beat a word-processor, spreadsheet, database, presentation software, mail client, web client, and drawing program, all built into a single program (StarOffice); Microsoft's programs are all separate and aren't as well integrated as you may think (try loading four different documents in four different Office programs at once on a 466MHz Celeron w/64MB RAM). And my mother can use StarOffice.

> Other Programming Languages - Ok, they have all fallen WAY WAY behind, and have not > inovated whatsoever.. Jave will crumble in the comming year to .NET simply because .NET is > sooo much better! .NET will be the greatest thing to hit computers ever. Java is > incredibly slow, bloat, does not allow you to program in any language, and never really > took off.

VS

> Visual Studio .NET - Program in any language! I can use a C++ component in my VB > application! I can get a Cobol programmer to create a component and use it in my C# > application! And my program can load seamlisly on a web browser, on a cell phone, on my > desktop... no problem... People are in for a suprise!

So you're saying that VS.NET /will/ be better than everything else? There's something important about GCC, Python, and all the other free programming languages out right now: they're out, and you can write programs with them. Not only that, they're free. You can't even get a copy of VS.NET for production use if you tried and had millions of dollars. I, right now, have a copy of gcc installed on my machine, and I can compile as many C, C++, ObjC, etc. programs I want, and I get free updates; as soon as C# comes out, there will be a free version as a gcc enhancement.

> In conclusion.. Microsoft may be big and powerfull, people tend to get upset at this... > but they are big and powerfull simply because they have greate software! Hey if AOL makes > something better... then ill jump abored... but you know what, just like what they did to > ICQ, and Netscape... ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN! :) I cant wait to use Windows XP... log into my > computer anywhere.. use my files in any location... use my cell phone to check my email at > home... check my flights... not have to have sign ins for a million diffrent websites... > just one sign in... when i sign into windows... the way it should be.... Empower people > through great software... Any place, anywhere, and on any device.

I agree that AOL's software is worse than Microsoft's, but does that make Microsoft's good? Anyway, look at how many people use AOL compared to how many people use MSN. Even the number of people who use MSN Explorer with or without MSN Internet Access is less than the total number of people paying for AOL. AOL just became so powerful because of good marketing and strategic tactics. Microsoft became so powerful because of anticompetitive tactics and good timing.

What really should happen, of course, is Microsoft should spin off MSN, so MSN doesn't have to be stigmatized with the Microsoft name (part of the reason I found Yahoo in the first place, and I get way less spam at my Yahoo, Mail.com, school, and Netscape addresses combined, including Bulk Mail folders, than I do at my Hotmail address' Inbox).

Score: 0

By crazycat

posted Oct 24, 2001 - 2:29 AM

I must commend you on this post it sums every thing up and fills in the blanks that some ppl do just leave out. and the last numbers was that MSN is the 3rd largeest isp out there with 4 million ppl and earthlink at 4.75 mill and then aol at 31 million and i might not that msn has been in the isp game for atleast since 1997 that is great growth but if you look at the froth of aol up till 95 only had 5 mill then in the last 6 years grown that up to 31 mill that is a huge jump and the fact that they are currently growing at the rate of about 1 mill a mounth that is hugh and i would look for a solid move from them to target MS in the next year to show them that they are not the only big playerin the "marketing wars" or even end user wars

Score: 0

By omaurice

posted May 7, 2001 - 8:40 AM

I have to agree with some of your points, and as I work with Microsoft, I see what they're good for, BUT :
1. IE is only small because 90% of it load with windows (did you notice how slowly windows load nowdays ? - I tried Win 3.11 on my K7-1000, it loads in less than a second, how odd...) - This is a use of their monopoly, for better ot worse.
2. Other programming languages are left in the dust ? Hardly... Just for one, take Borland Delphi... I use it most of the time, it has every feature that a programmer needs, aside from... A while ago I had to write a driver and a directshow filter. Now, here only MS can create tools that do the job... Believe me dude, creating this was GRUESOME ! Visual C++ 6.0 is about as evolved as Borland Pascal 7... And that was released in 1990. Visual Studio .NET WILL be better for sure, maybe as good as Delphi 1 was (1991).

Score: 0

By octavius314

posted May 18, 2001 - 1:44 PM

Actually the 90% part is not entirely accurate. IE is actually better designed product that netscape because it is a highly modularized system that does incremental loading. Netscape is probably more of a bloatware with minimal structure built into it. Of course, microsoft had the advantage of a latestarter to see all the problems with the Netscape.

IE reuses the components from Windows Explorer and vice versa. As such, it is tied into the operating system. Another reason why it is faster.

Has anyone tried the JVM in Netscape? its pathetic.

Score: 0

By octavius314

posted May 18, 2001 - 1:43 PM

Actually the 90% part is not entirely accurate. IE is actually better designed product that netscape because it is a highly modularized system that does incremental loading. Netscape is probably more of a bloatware with minimal structure built into it. Of course, microsoft had the advantage of a latestarter to see all the problems with the Netscape.

IE reuses the components from Windows Explorer and vice versa. As such, it is tied into the operating system. Another reason why it is faster.

Has anyone tried the JVM in Netscape? its pathetic.

Score: 0

By WebPilot

posted May 7, 2001 - 7:05 AM

Really? Miguel, it seems that you have never worked with anything else than Microsoft products. Otherwise you wouldn't...

... say that they build great software
Sure not all form Microsoft is bad in terms of software design, especially the products they originally bought from another company.
But great software stands the test of time. Which MS product is up to that?

...compare their products to even worse ones
I haven't used AOL software ever, because I did not feel any need to. But from what I have read here, their software is not the spearhead of software design... Still this does not make a competitors product the non-plus-ultra anyway.

... state that IE is small
This one is real classic. What is small in your eyes? Just 80 megabytes for a browser that may load fast but still does not comply to W3C standards in Version 6 the way it should? What is Opera then - supertiny? What about iCab? Both products are not free but still a whole lot more compliant to standards, more flexible and much smaller.

... say that everyone loves Office
Your Mom and your Dad do. Okay. You do obviously. Okay. But there still are bugs in version 10 (?) that already existed in version 2 of MS Word (footnote bug). Word blows up with too many graphics in a document? This is not software that I will ever love.

... hope that Java crumbles
Java is not going to vanish. Your MS version of JRE may be bloat, slow and unstable. But in the real world - on big irons - Java is here to stay. How many companies are so unsatisfied with C, C++, Java that they will jump on the C#-train? I don't know... Most of the larger companies already have huge investments in Java. They are not going to throw money away.

... love a product you haver never seen in action
How .NET-platforms are there really today? Windows and CE. Any more? Does your mobile phone run CE? I can do online banking today, I can buy flight tickets today, check flights, book hotels today. All that with my mobile phone and without MS.NET. So where is the huge advantage?
What files do you want to use in any location? Office documents? Don't make me laugh? How many platforms support MS-Office. Really, only one. Now that's a lot. Still better than none, isn't it?

Score: 0

By octavius314

posted May 18, 2001 - 1:54 PM

Once again I need to point out that the 80 MB is not correct. The IE install is only 5MB. It all the crap with Outlook Express, Additional Fonts etc that blows up the install size.

Office is a great product. Not for the bells and whistles but more for things like tight integration between Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook. Ever tried editing source data of a graph in Framemaker. Ever tried making tables and placing pictures in Latex. You waste half the day trying to format things. As for Lotus or whatever, they are just slower and lousier versions of Office.

Well, as for the death of java. I will have to agree with you. Java is so pervasive both in the educational and professional environment. Although the implementation of the JVM can be very frustrating in terms of performance and limitations. With the .Net stuff coming, it will be interesting to see if MS can muscle its way through. After all, they are offering a Java compiler for its IL.

As for the point on mobile commerce, flight tickets etc, that is not the aim of .Net. Rather .Net is targeted towards glueing many different services that works together. For example, if you want to buy a ticket, system can automatically look up car rental, hotel bookings, medical plans etc for you and recommend to you. Each service is located on a very different system. .Net wants all of this to work for together in a very easy way. CORBA tried that but didnt quite take off.

Score: 0

By octavius314

posted May 18, 2001 - 1:54 PM

Once again I need to point out that the 80 MB is not correct. The IE install is only 5MB. It all the crap with Outlook Express, Additional Fonts etc that blows up the install size.

Office is a great product. Not for the bells and whistles but more for things like tight integration between Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook. Ever tried editing source data of a graph in Framemaker. Ever tried making tables and placing pictures in Latex. You waste half the day trying to format things. As for Lotus or whatever, they are just slower and lousier versions of Office.

Well, as for the death of java. I will have to agree with you. Java is so pervasive both in the educational and professional environment. Although the implementation of the JVM can be very frustrating in terms of performance and limitations. With the .Net stuff coming, it will be interesting to see if MS can muscle its way through. After all, they are offering a Java compiler for its IL.

As for the point on mobile commerce, flight tickets etc, that is not the aim of .Net. Rather .Net is targeted towards glueing many different services that works together. For example, if you want to buy a ticket, system can automatically look up car rental, hotel bookings, medical plans etc for you and recommend to you. Each service is located on a very different system. .Net wants all of this to work for together in a very easy way. CORBA tried that but didnt quite take off.

Score: 0

By AlacrityFitzhugh

posted May 7, 2001 - 10:53 AM

Office is the best office Suite. IE is the best browser. WinXP is the Best OS. Intelli-eye is the best mouse. Windows Media Codec 8.0 is the best streaming media. All developed in house.

You are unable to name one office suite that even comes close. You just whine that you "hate it." How many offices use Star? None!

Java is dead. It was dead as soon as Sun pulled the plug on both Standards committees. Java is proprietary. .Net is an open standard that is not controlled by Microsoft. It is owned and copyrighted by ECMA. Wake up!

Score: 0

By larryran

posted May 8, 2001 - 10:52 AM

Oh, Microsoft heads, will you EVER get your facts straight? Microsoft has NEVER innovated, they have stolen!
Word is simply the DOS Rich Text Format in a windows wrapper, with "features" copied from WordPerfect. Unfortunately, most of these "features" don't work in Word! They do work in WordPerfect. I am a professional writer, who is forced to use Word at the office. (I am now a certified Word Expert.) NONE of the 50+ writers here would even think of using Word at home, and most of us use WordPerfect.

For a professional document with headers, footers, custom page numbering, custom figure numbering, etc., we can create the document in half the time when using WordPerfect, Framemaker, Interleaf, or any true word processor/desktop publisher. Word is simply a bug-riddled, feature sparse, TEXT processor that could not compete with any one of a half-dozen superior programs. It is "the standard" only because the IT people forced it upon users in order to qualify for free Microsoft certifications. In other words, Microsoft bribed them.

Excel? A poor copy of Lotus 123, from which it was reverse engineered. It is slow, weak, difficult to use, and lacks features that have been in Quattro Pro, etc. for years.

PowerPoint? Copied. Featureless and useless. Try Corel Presentations for 30 minutes, and you will NEVER want to use "Powerless" again.

The original Windows was copied from another vendor's DOS multi windowing program, which is what windows remained through Win 95.

In short, Microsoft has copied - or stolen - from others to produce every product they have. This is not innovation. Microsoft's dominance is the result of bullying, stealing, and marketing lies -- and a flock of highly paud attorneys who can "win" a case simply by exhausting the other guy's financial resources. Justice that "ain't", folks!

Score: 0

By SuperMom

posted May 28, 2001 - 5:48 AM

Can you find another server solution like BizTalk anywhere?.. BizTalk is an open standard and it's pretty easy to create a simple and small biztalk compatible server, but I have yet to find anything like Microsoft BizTalk Server 2000. But anyways, there are a huge bunch of MS "only" products, or the other solutions are so crappy they can't even be considered.

And just one thing generally about these betanews postings, to ofte I see people saying they work at Microsoft, etc. but they write postings like a 14 year old boy that really don't have much clue.

Score: 0

By WebPilot

posted May 7, 2001 - 1:09 PM

Sorry folk, but I don't hate Office and I don't whine.

IE is NOT the best browser. Take a look at IE for Solaris. Aaaaaah, Solaris doesn't count?! Okay, IE is perhaps the best browser for Windows. iCab is by far the better browser for MacOS. It is faster, more compliant and lots smaller. It just costs money. If that makes a product inferior, then show me one superior form Microsoft they charge money for.

What makes Office the best suite? It still has lots of bugs, check the MS TechNet database for it. Of course they don't call it a 'bug', it's just an 'issue'. The usual euphemism...
Office is an industry standard, but the A20-gate is one as well. Does this make it automatically technically superior to Smartsuite, StarOffice, KOffice, etc.? NO.

I have used 'Intellieye' mice ten years ago on a SUN Sparc. It was invented by HP (and Xerox?) even longer ago. I have used optical mice ever since.

What makes XP the best OS? Can it do all the things AIX or Solaris or Linux or BSD or ... can? NO!

Concerning MS vs. AOL, none of them both deserve pity. Let them get at each other real hard. Has anyone ever seen one of these companies trying to compete with superior products? If they can't sue then they give away for free. Netscape is no a victim of the Open Source spirit, it is a victim of AOL. At least AOLServer is a stable and fast product...

Score: 0

By JoeBob

posted May 7, 2001 - 11:32 AM

Hate to break it to you, but IE was originally bought and HP developed the Intelli-eye mouse optics.

Microsoft did develop BOB inhouse though.

Score: 0

By msponsler

posted May 7, 2001 - 1:14 AM

AOL vs Microsoft. Sure it didn't seem all that important and big until I really sat down and thought about it, and read a few others opions. I believe that there are chiefly 4 different situations that could take place here.

1) Nothing changes...this whole thing about Microsoft excluding AOL from Windows XP is just hype and rumor, and AOL stuff works fine on the new M$ OS. This whole flame war is soon forgotten and the flag is once again raised up against M$ as if nothing has happened.

2) M$ exlcudes AOL...aol brings out patches so that AOL does work with XP....yada yada

3) M$ excludes AOL completey from the desktop...AOL launches its AOL OS...which could do what Apple did. Take some powerfull open source OS (BSDi) already in existance, bas****ize it, change it (slap Apple logo here, here, and here...more smiley faces....happy colours...happy, happy, happy...ect...) Close the source, call it proprietary, slap your logo on it (yeah! more happy colours, faces, ect...) and sell it. Charge OEMs less for it, making PCs cheaper. Launch ad campains to tell people that AOL OS is more userfriendly, more helpful, and (given apple's stand point) smiles back at you when it throws you errors. I doubt AOL OS would catch on...but it might cause some ripples. An AOL OS would definatly not work, and would cause the down fall of AOL.

I am going with AOL for this one for really one main reason. WMA (windows media). This is what we REALLY have to fear. Although .wma files offer high quality at a lower size than .mp3 files, .wma files have the ability to be more controlled than .mp3 files. Less file sharing, limited listening time (ie can only play file 3 times than it becomes corrupt, ect...) And .wma will not work from Linux...now that hurts me, and I'm sure alot of you. I have heard rumors (and a posting on slashdot a few months ago about this) of M$ having IE, Windows Media Player and (possibly) M$ Office ported to Linux. Which is something I'm all in favor of. Granted I don't like M$, but IE is a better product than Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, Netpositive(BeOS), ect... I welcome IE and office to Linux. I use Star Office on my Linux box at work, windows 2k pro Laptop, and windows 98se home computer. I'd like it better if Star Office didn't try to control the desktop, and just do individual programs losely binded together like M$ Office. Now getting back on topic...AOL has Winamp. Winamp is synonimous (spelling, I know...but its 1am, give me a break...no caffiene in a few hours...it sucks) with mp3 by the mass market. Keeping AOL in the game means keeping Winamp in the game, and windows media player out of the game. And keeping mp3 in the game, .wma files out...keeping music in linux...keeping file sharing available (the napster debate is another story...lets just keep it in the back of our minds for brevity sake).

Yeah I don't like this situation any more than any of you guys do. Hell, I'd rather have everyone just switch over to Linux and be done with it. Open Source benifits everyone else. But for open source to be profitable, we have to change the monetary business model that we have been using for the past umpteen years. We are doing it, slowly but surely. Thanks to the .com frenzy, and failure...investors realized you can't sell a dollar for 95 cents.

Yeah so I ranted...I rant alot. And yeah I got side tracked...I get side tracked alot (more often in differnt ways when I'm with women :-) but then again I'm a Net Admin that runs his stuff on Linux...we consume alot of caffiene, and play alot of ut/quake/frisbee football with the coders down the hall. The twitch factor (and 1:21am factor) certainly has alot to play right now.

--
Spoony

Score: 0

By msponsler

posted May 7, 2001 - 1:19 AM

correction...cheifly 3 not 4 things that I believe will happen...please excuse me....I have more blood in my caffine stream than the norm right now.

Score: 0

By WebPilot

posted May 6, 2001 - 6:47 PM

Although in favour of open source, this is an interesting one for me:

Will Microsoft really be successful with their Hailstorm plans? I guess Linux and the success of open source scared the s... out of Bill and Steve. They are looking for new markets to dominate because the only way the have learned to sell their OSes is by domination. And there are fields where they have to struggle hard - this is everytime when it comes to highly engineered products, like supercomputing OSes and software for these big irons. Microsofts plans to harm Solaris, AIX etc. have plainly failed. So clearly, this is not where the future of M$ is.

Where is it then? They have to sell products that are turnkey-easy-to-use as long as you do not need anything else that goes beyond that what M$-delivered wizards can offer. And they have to sell in high volumes to keep the shareholders happy...

Okay, if they cannot win the software battle against unstoppable open source then they have to sell something that open source cannot deliver. Something that goes beyond pure software. Yeah, let's become an ASP! But how can M$ use sheer marketing power to dominate other independent ASPs? Let's define a strategy that uses the still existing software market power and transform the products so that they will only function with us M$ an ASP. No other company would survive this bold attempt, but hey, we're M$- we'll sell it, you see.

AOL has never really attempted to break into the M$ market. All they wanted was to protect their AOL/Compuserve monopoly from MSN and to share equally. This is true friendship among two thieves... AOL's future is not as bright as their shareholders would like it to be...

Anyway, if M$ fails with its hailstorm strategy, there still is noting to worry about. They have such an enourmous amount of cash that they can continue to look for new markets until ....

If people do not adopt Windows XP and the hailstorm strategy, then they just won't buy the products but keep using whatever have installed (98/ME/NT/2000). Microsoft is going to earn less money, but new PCs will always be sold and they will have XP preinstalled as no other OS will be available from M$.

What would be the next market? Will they start online banking? I still haven't found a single service that Microsoft offers that would be co exclusive or singular that I would use it or even pay for it!

Score: 0

By Kennywins

posted May 6, 2001 - 12:37 PM

I don't see how people can get so pissed about two companies who make terrible products. I mean, Windows? AOL? Come on. These are businesses geared towards people who aren't as technologically savvy as any computer type. How else can anyone justify Windows XP or any version of AOL?

Anyway, what Microsoft and AOL do is smart business. It is like the browser business. Noone gives a damn if Microsoft is a monopoly, or AOL doesn't open up its IM standards. All the average user wants is the ability to browse the net and chat up a storm, and check the mail. Obviously.

If you think that sucks, you're not the only one. But don't complain, and then be the a****** to go out and shell out all this money for Windows XP and all this other trash. Write AOL or your congressman and petition against AOL. Go try out Linux and learn it, or write Microsoft telling them how you feel, or boycott Windows. Don't use Office. If enough people did that, it wouldn' be a problem.

Just as a goodbye note, What AOL and MS do are the truest nature of capitalism.

Score: 0

By Parental_Consent

posted May 6, 2001 - 1:34 PM

Unfortunately the unsavvy masses are being catered to. Just as automobiles aren't marketed soley to mechanics but unmechanical masses. This is why Midas does so well. Changing your front disc brakes is easy as hell but it's scary because if you screw up your car won't stop. Likewise I might screw up my new computer I just bought for $2000. I don't have the money just to burn. That is why these products exist. They do the 'work' to bring the layperson technology. They should be compensated, just like your automechanic.

What AOL and Microsoft do isn't smart business. What are their business goals?
To make as much profit as possible.
To grow their business to capture the entire market.
To expand into others areas and ultimately become the government.

By the last statement I mean that given the opportunity that they will expand until MStores put Wal-Mart out of business. Until they control all aspects of your life. Providing total solutions for the human being that is convient and value added.

Let us take the scenario of Wal-Mart as a autonomous community. It has a cafeteria, clothing, entertainment, plants, pets, books, barber/beauty salon, eye doctor, dry cleaners and EMPLOYMENT OPPERTUNITIES. Build an apartment complex onto it to live in and Wal-Mart becomes your one stop source for life. The biggest thing offered by Wal-Mart is security. I can get everything I need and have my worries taken care of. Store policy is broadened and would transition into my government. After all I don't want to be expelled from the community.

Extreme? Yes. Can is happen? Yes.
Corporate management in place of the bulky bumbling goverment.
Show me the value.

What is smart business is what is good for the community. What is good for your children. Make the world a better place to live. We've seem to forgotten this. Would you want to live your life according business models? I think not. So why should you run a business that way?

You are correct when you say that the average joe-user only wants a few things. They are not going to take the time to learn Linux. Just like my brother won't do his own brakes. The difference is that what we spend our money on has changed.

We used to work to provide food and housing. In the 1920s we started working for luxury items (car, washing machine, refrigerator). Technology made it possible to obtain food cheaply and readily. In the 1960s we made another change. We started spending most of our money on entertainment. TV is a huge success and video games (Atari), VCRs are right around the corner. Now media/entertainment rules our industry. Enter the Information Age. I can now get all my entertainment from a computer. Music, video, games, human interaction (online chat) are now possible from my house. People as a whole are now very lazy not having to work very hard for the basics of life. Technology is now driving our economics. When auto makers don't make sales expectations the stock market doesn't die anymore. When Microsoft takes a loss, EVERYTHING takes a loss.

This in addition to the nature of the corporate business model evolving into the extremely controlling mechanism it is today equals a new breed of company.

They are setting up technology and more importantly the law to totally control the consumer.

It is not a matter of AOL and Microsoft squaring off against each other. It is the principle of a corporation driving out competition and forcing consumers to take what is offered.

This is something that is attacking our democracy and constitution.

Short term solution: Use Linux.

Long term solution: So some interest for law-making and get involved in YOUR government, before it's outsourced in a value-stream.

Score: 0

By Kennywins

posted May 7, 2001 - 1:42 PM

Are you telling me that what AOL and MS do isn't smart? Catering to the lowest common denominator is great. MS and AOL don't give a damn if we don't use their stuff. They care if Joe Average quits for something easier. MS will keep rolling in the money as long as they keep making Windows and convincing everyone it is necessary. AOl will keep makingmoney as long as there is plenty of eye candy in their service.

Rememeber, it doesn't have to be moral, it just has to roll in cash.

Score: 0

By stp

posted May 6, 2001 - 4:21 PM

Interesting thoughts... I have seen many arguments as of late discussing globalization. The argument of corportations superseading government is perhaps the most interesting.
  In the United States, a record amount of "soft money" was donated from corporations and unions to both parties during the last presidential election. Proponents of CFR have battled congress to pass McCain Feingold. The influence of soft money is huge - maybe even bigger than the influence of the people.
&nbsp Also, there has been talk of expanding NAFTA to include nations such as Chile, for example. Critics of these trade agreements point out that environmental and labor laws of a particular nation can be skirted under NAFTA. By feeling is that removing trade barriers is a good thing and that any flaws in trade agreements that do not best serve the needs of the people can easily be fixed. There are many alarmist theories out there at the moment regarding globalization.
&nbsp I fail to see how Linux is the answer to any of this. It is just an OS with strengths and weaknesses like Microsoft's own offerings. It is not a one way ticket to freedom, and Microsoft is not some evil force that needs to be stopped. I would like to see Linus's answer to .Net. I don't think there is one - that would take R&D. Also, if Redhat, etc were to gain considerably more marketshare - wouldn't they try to cash in?

Score: 0

By nashirak

posted May 6, 2001 - 11:30 AM

This is yet another good reason to switch to an open source operating system like Linux.

Score: 0

By mikekol

posted May 7, 2001 - 2:15 AM

... and that's just another reason why you're an idiot.
This article has nothing to do with Linux. You're not offering anything valuable to the conversation, you're just being stupid.

Go compile your kernel or something...

Score: 0

By orbital

posted May 7, 2001 - 12:29 PM

And you? Do you know how to compile a kernel? I don't think so! LOL

Score: 0

By abida420

posted May 6, 2001 - 9:36 AM

Score: 0

By abida420

posted May 6, 2001 - 9:36 AM

i'm of the opinion that while microsoft and aol duke it out, an on-the-rise os (linux) might just take right over. i've been using rehat since 5.2 and have seen the many improvements they have made to it. granted, it's not ready for home use (aol ppl would probably be mystified by it) but it is getting there. the biggest bonus is also that it is free. now i'm not a prophet or anything, but i forsee xp being a big mistake by ms. we'll see, i guess i'm hoping :).

Score: 0

By noise98

posted May 6, 2001 - 4:42 AM

You all forgot that AOL bought Netscape, why would AOL stand with Microsoft when they spend money with Netscape ?

But Microsoft will kick a** again, they got a powerfull support and publicity team, and they know how to put everything together to make things simpler.

Score: 0

By mikekol

posted May 7, 2001 - 2:21 AM

Well, I don't think AOL was interested in Netscape because of it's browser... Netscape had some pretty powerful Enterprise software, and I think that's really what AOL was after...

Score: 0

By anderlan

posted May 6, 2001 - 5:31 AM

If Microsoft was that good at integration, they wouldn't feel the need to lock everyone else out while they were at it. Locking other people out is extra effort for them, but worth it if they can continue to have a guaranteed tax on every PC sold. It is easier to engineer things when they are modular. I'm not saying the top layer the user sees has to be modular and overladen with choice or configurability, but underneath it is very important, to make things easier for the programmers. Modular is Good. The IE "integration" was decreed from the top and caused a lot of trouble internally. Microsoft specifically hurts its designs when aiming to lock out others.

Score: 0

By fisix

posted May 5, 2001 - 12:34 PM

You sir are an Idiot. What AOL is attempting to do here is stop microsoft from dictating (In a very simplistic sense) who can write and distribute applications on their OS. AOL May not be the best internet service provider in the world, but it is by far the easiest and has the biggest customer base, a customer base of who, a large number are in no way to be considered a "computer geek" (if you will. Meaning someone who has vast knowledge of computers). These people aren't going to want to switch to MSXP if it means Leaving their Buddy lists, their friends and what not. Now if MS's Products have full support for these things, that would make the process somewhat easier for most people. But why are they going to want to upgrade their computer they just spent 2,000 dollars on from Gateway to something that will actually run XP. AOL is trying to better the whole here. Microsoft is trying to make a alot of money and tighten their grasp on the world. You sir are an Idiot

Score: 0

By Parental_Consent

posted May 6, 2001 - 12:39 PM

Everyone is aghast at the Evil Empire (Microsoft) taking over all software applications and ultimately controlling the universe.
What you fail to understand is that AOL wants to do the EXACT SAME THING. They want to be your total one stop solution for all online activity. They both are equally evil.

Make no mistake. AOL is not innocent and will rise up as an Evil Empire if given the opportunity. They might be a victim in this case but I feel no pity for them.

We'll probably see a lot of lawsuits akin to the whole "Netscape Fiasco" and nothing will come out of it. Microsoft IS a monopoly and SHOULD break up. I see this happening when the National Guard moves into Redmond forcing the issue.

The problem is the new American dream of dominating the marketplace instead of having a business and returning a 10% profit to live.
Corporate greed will make slaves of us all.

Score: 0

By sarcor

posted May 6, 2001 - 12:12 AM

It's not like AOL is on some crusade to save the world from Microsoft.. It's about $$$.

Score: 0

By dopey_cat

posted May 5, 2001 - 12:52 PM

everybody making a alot of money !!!!!!!!!!!!nothing iz 4 free!!!
(aol 2)

Score: 0

By fisix

posted May 5, 2001 - 1:18 PM

There is a distinct difference between Making money because you are offering a service, and making money because you can force people to pay for it. IF MS were to make it so that AOL could not work easily or well on their OS. Most of AOL's computer un-savvy Customer base would probably Switch to MS's Product. This is a forceful removal of a competetor. It would also in all likelyhood put a big hole in AOL's income meaning downsizing then eventually MS would kill them off. If AOL is making money, then atleast the customers are giving them money by choice. If they don't like AOL they could (if they wanted to) go to MSN or what ever they are callling it now. yes both are making money both are Buisnesses Buisnesses do that.(Unless your amazon *shrugh*) But would you rather have a choice of which company gets your money or be forced to give it to microsoft? Given, from your Excellent grasp of English and apparent intelligence (I can derive your vast genius from the way you so eloquently craft your words) You probably wouldn't be someone who would use AOL. So when I refeer to You I mean the large group of people who will run to either one of those two services.

Score: 0

By miab2

posted May 6, 2001 - 10:06 AM

You are a twat. Who are AOL anyway? Have you seen the abortion they call a browser ? - It looks like something from Windows 31! - AOL installer (like NTL's) hogs your machine, as if that's the only damn thing you use it for! - My personal feeling are let M$ get on with it. They haven't got the nouse to overcome the like of Murdoch and the more traditional media super powers - let them solve the problem of offering services that really nedd broadband class comms when most people are either using 56k modems, 64kn ISDN with ADSL and Cable still 18months away from maturity and even then subject to loading constrictions. Your an ass. Who cares about this area of conputing anyway? - Do you us M$ stuff? - shame on you. Bottom line - change the laws about what a PC should ship with preinstalled and then maybe you get parity.

Score: 0

By chrisjames

posted May 4, 2001 - 9:49 PM

For readers from the UK (who have watched a bit of TV lately) - below is my take on the advert they could use.

Chris.

*** AOL, The XP advert script ***

Middle aged, middle class couple, with two teenage children about to hand over money for a Hewlett Packard computer in a well known computer shop chain. Sales assistant, late teens, pale, skinny, greasy hair, spots etc, puts hand out to accept cash.

Man customer: Yes, ok, if you think it's that important, I suppose I should take the 10 year extended warranty coverage with free yearly healthchecks to protect my shiny new computer from evil hackers.

Assistant: Great, that will be one thousand, two hundred and forty nine pounds then, please.

Suddenly, two men, scandinavian looking, early-mid thirties, of stocky build burst in to the store to save the day, wearing all black squat team style clothes, and balaclavas. Both have suspect dutch accents. Cut to lead hero.

Lead hero: Schtopp! Your computer is not ready for AOL yet. You see, Windows XP was made less slowly, for more bugs and a less usable experience.

Hands the couple an AOL disk. Everyone smiles inanely.

Cut to happy family chatting and laughing with the two heroes huddled around the computer in an perfect picture of suburban utopia. Sitting down at computer, the children are shown chatting in full video (far past the capabilities of the current systems) with people of various token ethnicities all around the world. All helpfully assisted by the omnipresent Condescending Connie.

Connie voice over: Remember, insist that your computer manufacturer bundles AOL instead of Microsoft, and recieve our exclusive zillion hour free trial*,

(Small print at bottom of screen: * valid for one month only. Subsequent months charged at an inflated fixed rate. Subject to a minimum contract lenght of forever.)

Cut to main logo screen - with caption "AOL: For a better Windows XPerience."
End.

***

Score: 0

By sallinson

posted May 8, 2001 - 8:15 AM

Chris,
Hmmm, you should be in advertising - AOL ads could indeed read like this and would have just the right amount of chunder factor we know and loathe. Still, compare with Intel advertising....

PS - surely some IPR infringement from a certain Dutch beer advert?
PPS - is it me or is Connie looking a bit wrinkly nowadays?

Score: 0

By bigmac

posted May 4, 2001 - 7:00 PM

Can anything that gets rid of AOL forever be all bad?

Score: 0

By Canuck

posted May 4, 2001 - 4:09 PM

Score: 0

By nickpowers101

posted May 4, 2001 - 2:56 PM

Both want to rule everyone's lives... They have to, else they'll go belly-up in this capitalistic world. Both MS and AOL are as bad as each other.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted May 4, 2001 - 8:13 AM

I havent used (and dont plan on using) aol, could someone tell me if AOL are actually inovating anything new and interesting within they're main client software? seems to me that they arent doing much, they just seem to be grabbing peoples money and running home with it.

Is everything still very proprietory? Do they offer standard mail protocol support for they're email service?

Microsoft are constantly inovating and improving their software significantly. look at MSN messenger, within months it was not far off the functionality of AIM. What the freak are AOL doing with aim? it hasnt changed a great amount in over a year. AIM still doesnt allow you to go invisible, still doesnt keep a message history. Same with IE, within months it was up to netscape 3s standards, and after that just left netscape programmers standing in a daze. lol like someone flying by in a fast car "where'd THAT come from?! no wait! blow where it came from! where's it going! FOLLOW IT!!!!"

I dont get it!

Score: 0

By gosuc

posted May 4, 2001 - 4:21 PM

not to burst your bubble here fellas, but the only reason microsoft is able to get anywhere is because they have more money than GOD - $27 billion in cash (yes, CASH) last I recall. The only reason they have so much money is because they are a MONOPOLY. duh. AOL may suck, but they do have reason to be concerned. An operating system should be nothing more than an interface to hardware and file systems, but Microsoft believes it should "innovate" the OS and add everything from toasting your bagels, to managing your finances to it. Microsoft justifies this by saying "it's in the best interest to have clear standards that developers can develop for" ... they essentially remove all choice for the consumer. If you believe them, and you want Microsoft to decide which standards are good for you and which are bad for you, then so be it. One governing body deciding what's good and bad for the people is also known as communism. Communism works really well - just look at China and Russia. Remember this equation:
Microsoft junkie = Communist.
nough said.

Score: 0

By hunterk1

posted May 4, 2001 - 6:31 PM

Microsoft Junkies = Communists? No. I think not.

com.mu.nism \'ka:m-y*-.niz-*m\ n [F communisme, fr. commun common] 1a: a theory advocating elimination of private property

Let's try...

to.tal.i.tar.i.an \(.)to--.tal-*-'ter-e--*n\ \-e--*-.niz-*m\ \-.ni-z\ aj [total + -itarian (as in authoritarian)] 1a: of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; esp : DESPOTIC

Ahhh, that's better. Perhaps you meant

Microsoft Junkie = Totalitarian.

I would suggest you not call people morons, when you yourself are also subject to making mistakes.

Score: 0

By anderlan

posted May 6, 2001 - 5:41 AM

First, the dictionary definition of Communism, or the description Marx gave it, is completely valid and is not to be dismissed.
BUT,
I am REALLY sick of people slamming other people for equating communism with command-and-control economies and totalitarianism when we all have a very good reason to equate them, which is 80 years (and counting) of use of the term by certain command-and-control economists and totalitarianists to describe their approach to government and the market.

Feel free to point out the dictionary definition, but DO NOT slam people for having their defintion clouded by 80 years of evil men abusing the ideal. You cannot erase all that. It's dangerous to try.

Score: 0

By Parental_Consent

posted May 6, 2001 - 12:52 PM

Communism is the foundation upon which other 'harsher' forms of government have been built on, i.e. dictatorship, totalitarian.

The reality is that any form of government works. It is the people in the government that determine if it is 'evil' or ineffective. Some of the best governments have been monarchies or other centrally controlled governments.

One benevolent dictator is massively more effective than hundreds of well-intentioned congressmen.

Score: 0

By anarkii

posted May 4, 2001 - 6:37 AM

AOL sucks. Everything they seem to touch just falls to bits. Take a look at Netscape (no one cares anymore bout them) and ICQ (****ing ads galore, now numbers are in decline).

Now look at Microsoft. They make a new OS, new Office suite, new messenger, and keep on doing this stuff every year. updates for the software come out every few weeks.

What it boils down to is this: AOL are ruining the online experiece for everyone. Microsoft arnt. Sure HailStorm might cost $$$, but in the end, you got a much more interactive online experience and new options of what you want to get from the internet. So all in all, if I were Bill Gates, what I would do is simply buy out AOL, and then just send them under and make the company die.

No AOL = A better life for everyone.

Score: 0

By joshhoelker2001

posted May 19, 2001 - 3:45 AM

I would like to do this to SprintPCS also... hehehe

Score: 0

By fisix

posted May 5, 2001 - 12:45 PM

You are also an Idiot.
Netscape isn't dead because of AOL. Netscape is dead because of IE. Which is (in my opion) a better product (IE That is.) However, IE wouldn't have the choke hold on the market that it currently enjoys if it wasn't for Microsofts Monopolistic Power forcing this web browser (Or is it a core part of the OS now?) onto the desktop of everyone who is running Win95 B or greater.
As for ICQ. ICQ has always said. once they go un-beta they would start charging. But their customer base got so large that if it hwere to do this, it would piss alot of people off thus stopping usage. Now. How do you propose a company that develops software, make money with out selling that software? ICQ isn't a Free OS in which they could sell consultants to set it up or tech support for their product. Its a pretty straight forward very easy to use messaging client. They needed to make money some how.

Score: 0

By gosuc

posted May 4, 2001 - 4:22 PM

communist

Score: 0

By aeroleous

posted May 4, 2001 - 6:28 PM

You know, you'd make Joe McCarthy proud with your patriotic remarks. Unless you can distinguish for me the fineries of dictatorial socialism versus communism, I suggest that you don't draw analogies between Microsoft and the governments of China and Russia.
I think what's most annoying about AOL-Time-WarnerBros-Netscape-CNN is that it's trying to play the underdog when it's just as greedy as Microsoft. It's a bigger company and treats most of its employees like crap (unlike MS) and it's one of the happiest members of the RIAA/MPAA.
Bill Gates is annoying, and Microsoft makes bad software (XP and ME are pieces of crap; Win2k would have been fine for the home with a few tweaks; Hailstorm is scary and should be torpedoed), but I'd rather have Gates and MS ruling the world rather than Oracle/AOL/IBM/Sony or any of the other IT contenders. Of course, it'd probably be better for the world to simply forcibly open source Windows as punishment for its monopoly :p

Score: 0

By tasteslikechicken

posted May 6, 2001 - 3:59 PM

Microsoft treats its engineers well. Not all of it's employees. It would much rather hire a bunch of temps and treat them badly, but because it needs a large body of skilled engineers to keep Bill's ugly hairball of an operating system alive it treats them OK. Both are corperations.
Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1816
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws our country."

Score: 0

By tasteslikechicken

posted May 6, 2001 - 3:54 PM

Microsoft treats its engineers well. Not all of it's employees. It would much rather hire a bunch of temps and treat them badly, but because it needs a large body of skilled engineers to keep Bill's ugly hairball of an operating system alive it treats them OK. Both are corperations.
Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1816
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws our country."

Score: 0

By spwolf

posted May 6, 2001 - 3:41 AM

I think he meant more like... North Korea.... and yeah, Russia