AOL needs to stop drawing attention to themselfs. Buying up CompuServ, Netscape, Nullsoft, Time-Warner, Cable Companies etc. If ANYONE had a monopoly over anything they have the monopoly over the internet. Now they are even interested in purchasing an OS company to make an OS to directly compete with Microsoft, which I am going to assume like their browser incorporates a little piece of every company they own.

Down with AOL. MS isnt nearly as bad. Lets see... we keep poking at MS, off to Canada they go. Look at the not only huge loss in a job level, but look at the HUGE loss on Tax revenue!

AOL has a monopoly on the internet? WTF are you smoking? If MS wants to go to Canada, let them. Their arrogance will be their downfall.

AOL needs to stop drawing attention to themselfs. Buying up CompuServ, Netscape, Nullsoft, Time-Warner, Cable Companies etc. If ANYONE had a monopoly over anything they have the monopoly over the internet. Now they are even interested in purchasing an OS company to make an OS to directly compete with Microsoft, which I am going to assume like their browser incorporates a little piece of every company they own.

Down with AOL. MS isnt nearly as bad. Lets see... we keep poking at MS, off to Canada they go. Look at the not only huge loss in a job level, but look at the HUGE loss on Tax revenue!

Wildcard, the reason you can't "pick and choose" what you want to install with Windows is "they didn't make it that way". Look at the way different computer makers do things: HP makes some damn complicated cases, along with Compaq. Personally, I cannot stand the way they do things. I mean, who would think you would need 3 or 4 arms just to get enough items pushed/pulled out of the way, just to snap in a stick of memory? Why would someone have a specific BIOS programmed into their motherboards, with *extremely limited* choice in setting things up? Why should they be allowed to make things that way? BECAUSE THEY CAN. What to do about it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. That is why I offer my *own* systems for sell- I build them they way I want, with what the customer wants.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

agreed. :-)

sister mary and joseph. My eyes were bleeding before I finished this and now I have to go and get spectacles --
Nice posts good content barring some upset moments but for the most part you guys are at least in part discussing it.
Heck I think I am even going to set off another part and play around with linux. hehe I do that about once a year and then I usually need the space for something else. hit shappens. I wonder how long before aol will box up linux under there name with winamp included along with a full suite of proggies and whip it on the market for XXX.XX.
Another question I would have is anyone aware if in the obtaining of it that they signed any contract saying they swore they would keep it open source? Seems to me reading down the page there were hints of that ball severing idea.
Lets just hope the open source guys didnt sell out to the big boys . I dont think I will ever abandon windows no matter what but like everyone else I like new horizons and will not be limited. I can relate to IE 's default thing. It used to bug the s*** out of me. Now that I have sold out to MS my soul rests with not having to deal with it.
I guess I am microsoft forever. It doesnt seem to bother me. excuse me I am just getting over nimda from a fresh install. It got me within minutes after install because I didnt throw the firewall up quick enough I guess. I mean you need a few minutes to get the anti-virus downloaded and the firewall installed. I made the mistake of grabbing a few updates from the MS and rebooted to find and admin.dll on the c:/drive. it kind of stank along with 18 script files infected laying in my vti_script folder that werent there before. anyway all better now. I had noticed something strange is the only thing that saved me and on a newly Low level formatted disk where could it come from? I hadnt even set up outlook yet.
now I get oh heck I dont know like 15 attempts a day from ip's trying to establish net bios sessions with my machine. I get the impression I was in a chain of infected machines that are infected. heads up guys ! this is a first for me so since I had read that nimda swanked its way around the net that way and could enter through IIS if not patched I figured I would pass it on that I was in fact breached for about an hour during which time I immediatley turned off IIS admin and web server along with ftp through component services and set them from auto to manual until I could square it away with a combo of tools> I used avg / fixnimda/fixnimdaEF or whatever that was from symantec and the IIS patch from MS for after sp2 install. Ok my rant is over. Maybe they will come up with some topic because you guys must of set a record on this discussion. Laters

tooling around with the new red hat 7.2 i found it remarkably simple to install and actually it upgrades from older systems really well as long as you dont have a zillion partitions with no space. it was a bit troublesome to retrieve the root password since someone seemed to have lost it and no one knew what it was. it was a major let down that i had to reinstall linux's core files just to reset it and it didnt remember the drives mount points. this was a pain in my a** because i only wanted to reset the root password and the online documentation was clunky and badly worded in most cases. regardless with my limited Linux knowlege i was able to manually mount the drives i needed and retrieve the information.

i wish linux had a more convenient list of built in features for gnome or kde. it has absolutely amazing graphics and lots of cute little features but i still miss my "add to zip" shell extension which could make tar/gziping much easier and my "explore from here" icon was no where to be found. I think there needs to be a generally better hardware manager more closely located to the desktop than having to find it in the menu of kwhatever items that had names which werent comprehensive enough to know what the program did. /dev/ doesn't have any explanation of what devices need what attention. to add some explanation or function to the items on right click would enhance things tons.

one of linux's major flaws has always been its lack of comprehensive explanations. I have always disliked the idea of assuming the user knows what he's doing before he's even started it. It is my understanding that within a GPL/GNU license you cant just outright steal the source and sell it and not give any away. thats why all the major distributers have to offer it to the public at a downloadable site. they actually are charging you for packaging, support, and the software they develop seperate from the OS. mozilla is open source so keep that in mind when you think about what they would be doing. There is nothing to gain from hiding the source people want to help you develop for free.

as a web admin and a programmer i would consider myself knowlegable of the main functions of the consol, and directory structures but i still found the system something that needed to be completely relearned from the entire windows experience. if they could make an even better clone of either windows or mac's interfacing and functionality it would make an awesome desktop OS. i dont like everything on windows. in fact i dont like a lot of things on windows, but i do like directory names with spaces in them, better right click and do whatever features, names for programs that dont sound like riddles that need to be solved, and easily reinstallable software that wont reset your entire current installs settings.

Root password fix: hit control-x at lilo, and type "linux 1" it'll dump you to a single user mode root prompt, and you can "passwd root".

Also.. If you can't figure grub out, boot from the CD. "linux 1 root=/dev/hd(whatever) initrd=" and it'll force the CD to act like a boot disk.

grub was installed and i had tried linux single linux 1 linux rescue etc etc etc.

i also tried booting from the cd but after i got to a #sp_41235: whatever the hell it was prompt i couldnt do much more than mounting random scsi drives which didnt really help me since i didnt know which drive was which. good ole dos had drive labels for a reason.

Didn't AOL bundle Internet Explorer with their online service making it the "preferred" choice of over 33 million users over a 5 or 6 year period? With that being said, shouldn't they be suing themselves? Does the right foot know what the left foot is doing?

aol did that so their software could be bundled with the OS, making them the largest provider in the US. *bonus* if it were netscape making the offer it would have been netscape. but now AOL has newer plans, and they own netscape. netscape was dominated and why wouldnt they take the opportunity to fix what was wrongfully killed. seems like a step in the right direction. protect the freeworld market and the open source industry. freedom of choice will live.

This is from today's Lockergnome newsletter:

"Looks like Trillian is in for a lengthy battle against AOL. John Beelerspace sent me something about it earlier: "I hope you're writing up something on AOL's blocking AIM through Trillian. I thought we had all grown up since Odigo and PowWow, but apparently not. I'd much rather see the two programmers at Trillian spend their time making the best IM program better - instead of playing cat and mouse with AOL engineers. In fact, I don't think I'll ever go back to using AIM even if they do block Trillian 'forever.' And besides, wasn't this the exact same business practices AOL's Netscape is accusing Microsoft of in class action lawsuit? How convenient (and sad) that Trillian lacks the IT resources to play this game with AOL either on a technical front or a legal one." I've never used the AIM package, but now I refuse to even recommend it. Go Trillian!"

Gee, AOL wouldn't be doing something they are trying to sue someone ELSE for, would they?? You can read the entire newsletter here http://www.lockergnome.com/issues/daily.html

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I guess since this isn't more of the "damn Microsoft" type of post, or "damn Linux", it isn't getting any replies, hehe....

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

heh, I haven't replied because I have mixed feelings about it. They are AOL's servers.. On the other hand, Trillian isn't hurting anything..

To everyone that has any AOL-controlled product (icq, winamp, etc) check the following in IE:

go to Tools, Internet Options, Security tab, click "trusted sites", then click on "sites". I want a "show of hands" of everyone that has "free.aol.com" listed in there, WITHOUT AOL BEING GIVEN, OR ASKING FOR, PERMISSION.
This kind of thing royally pisses me off!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Pissed off at AOL for putting it there, or at Microsoft for allowing AOL to put it there? ;-)

nope ..
and I have lets see

AOL
ICQ
Winamp
Spinner

on this box .. lol

At AOL for putting it there. You know they do that kind of thing.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Yep, I have it. Probably from AIM which plasters my desktop with Free AOL junk. With Winamp you can unselect it, which I respect.

hey aol, stop complaining and try to code a good and FAST browser, and maybe, people will use your software.
So again, stop complaining and you should ask yourself whats the real reason why ie is so popular!

'So again, stop complaining and you should ask yourself whats the real reason why ie is so popular!'

Uhh, I thought that's the reason behind the lawsuit. They did ask themselves. ;-)

yup they asked themselves, came up with the answer "ummm our browser is just crud compared to IE... I doubt we could ever dream of ours being that good..... ummm how can we recover the money invested into netscape?! I KNOW! sue microsoft! yey! easy momey! far easier than actually developing our own GOOD software!"

That's your opinion. My opinion of Netscape is much higher than my opinion of IE, and I use both daily. (IE 6 and Mozilla)

yeah but we already know u have some very strange opinions ;o)

Well, there's no denying that haha!

thats what happens when you dont dedicate yourself to being a yes man for the kid with all the toys.

NULLedge, check your postings backing Fewt...looks like you may be guilty of your own wit, hehe!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

im not fewts yes man. i like some of his opinions. when i see him bring up a topic i dont like i call him on it. for the most part he's right.

Agreed.

Look forward to it ;-)

"for the most part he's right" by your opinions ;o)

my opinions are usually backed with both valid reason and solid fact.

but yes. my opinions

no... ie is just a better browser PERIOD. it has better support for all CSS and CSS 2.0 effects... netscape has next to none. so why sue for restoring competition... that isn't going to do a thing unless they make a better browser. plain and simple... design a better browser with more support for style and just simple web languages, and get rid of all the annoy shortcuts on my desktop, or at least prompt me to put it there... don't just assume that i want it because i've downloaded your browser. and at that point right there... they would restore themselves in the browser war.

Yeah, it may be now, but it wasn't when this process started. Learn to read a timeline.

Ok, there are many people here that post that Microsoft should NOT be able to bundle IE, burner software, firewall, media player, etc etc with the Windows OS. I pose this question: Should hardware makers be allowed to bundle their own products in a new computer, to make them more "attractive to buy", vs using a competitors hardware? I see the software bundling and hardware bundling as parallel items. Such as HP bundling an HP burner, HP scanner, HP DVD player, and HP printer with their computer (and an HP monitor). Since they make it all themselves, wouldn't that be anti-competitive to Dell, if they didn't have their own scanners, printers, burners, etc?
That is one of the things that makes a little shop like mine hurt on selling custom systems- I can't compete price-wise against HP, because they have their own brand items (so don't have to buy them) to put together, so can sell for much less.
Any thoughts on this? I would be really interested on this, since hardware bundling can be seen as the same as the software bundling.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Very interesting point you bring up. I don't think there is an established set of rules when it comes to hardware bundling. The big differentiator with hardware however, is that there is no underlying foundation which can control who can build and integrate what. The hardware standards are open and any manufacturer can compete. Although HP may be able to beat out the reseller when it comes to their own hardware, they can't stop you from distributing non-HP parts because they have no leverage. HP doesn't control the PCI bus, or IDE interface to your drives.

There isn't, nor is there a lack of choice in the hardware market. :-)

So, as long as there is other choice, there is no problem with HP bundling everything they make in their own computers, and sell really cheap? Is that the only difference between software and hardware bundling (more choice in hardware)? I think there is plenty choice in the OS department- you have the zillion Linux distros, you have Apple, and the (maybe) soon to be released LindowsOS. All the OSes (except Apple, of course)
can run on Intel and AMD based systems, correct?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Nate, I guess the only counter to your points here would be comparing "Apples" to "other computers". Apple, being the closed system it is, would probably have a time of it if any kind of "open hardware" law were made. Ah, just think- build your own box from *any* hardware- Apple case (for looks), that hot new AMDXP cpu and motherboard you've been eyeing, DDR ram, whichever video, etc; and have it triple-boot XP, Linux, and MacOS/X!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

LoL!

Someone give me a hug, quickly! I'm scared ;)

Now gimme mine, my girlfriend of 2 years just left for another state *I'm stuck in Alaska where it is snowing right now, already around 2ft. Looks like the damn clouds are falling*

I need a hug, and some candy, a lot of icecream.
--William

Did she tell you she was leaving? ;)

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-821854.html

If you can understand the article (thanks, ZDNET) it kinda gives some sort of information about AOL not turning over documents it is supposed to, then complaining that Microsoft filled this "in retaliation" of their Netscape suit...well DUH! If you don't turn over legal documents you are required by law to hand over, then start a lawsuit against the ones requesting the documents, EXPECT TO GET COUNTER SUED, MORON. (Sorry, just had to say it!)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

This is my first time writing a post on Betanews, but I now want to know why you (Fewt) always argue and contradict yourself. Earlier posting said that you dont hate Microsoft and that you use MS OS on a regular basis but then later you say "Can I uninstall IE? OE? Media Player? Explorer?
Yes you can. Either individually or in the case of the last one, you would not install Windows at all, rather use Linux or Mac. You seem to argue against using Windows as well as arguing with (fellow) Windows users. I dont get your position at all.

I have not contradicted myself. I do use Windows every day, I use it at work. I also use many other operating systems. I think it's just plain stupid to have IM, IE, OE, and all of the other glitz on servers. I'd also like to remove it from my corporate desktop (and other users desktops) as well. how much do you think it costs my company every year having a media player, instant messenger, and internet browser on *EVERYONE'S* desktop? I think it's assanine that some folks here claim they are all about capitolism, yet they don't understand that capitolism does *NOT WORK* without guidelines.

Fewt, you asked "how much do you think it costs my company every year having a media player, instant messenger, and internet browser on *EVERYONE'S* desktop?"
Well, considering you can get all of those FREE, I would say "not a damn thing" .
If they use them productively, no problem. If they use those features when they aren't supposed to, or instead of working, then that person needs to be reprimaned about proper use of tools. The tool isn't the problem, it is the user.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

When you have hundreds of thousands of employees, it becomes difficult to track. I'm speaking in terms of lost productivity. Yes, you can turn them off with a policy, but that's rediculous, why not just give me the ability to completely uninstall them. Better yet, why not just give me the ability to not install it in the first place? I used to have that capability. On a more serious note, why is it that every new release gives the user less control of his computer that way?

Fewt-
Well, maybe more stuff (thus less control) is put in because of the people that scream "Microsoft should have done that in the first place!" or, "Microsoft should have put that in for free, instead of charging!". I have read both of those statements for a long time now about Firewalls and Anti-Virus software should be in Windows. But, look at what was posted about the "firewal" in XP (actually you just turn on or off some services)- even you posted that "Microsoft will now put all the firwall makers out of business" or something to that effect. Same about the basic "DirectCD" burning that was *Liscensed* from Roxio. If it is put in, people b****. If it is taken out, people b****. Apple put DVD playing and CD burning in with OS/X- it was hailed as a "good thing to do". Microsoft puts basic cd burning in XP? "Sue them!".
Humans. Who can figure them??

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Why? Because these are all platforms, MS is giving the programmer the benefit of the doubt that if people are running Windows version X (X being a variable), then they will have this software platform that the programer can use instead of making his/her own.

Give it up, that's not a good reason to force it on consumers. Consumers don't give a damn about how easy it was to develop an application.

What I see from that post is that consumers need choice. Only half of them are getting one. ;-)

I think fewt aggues with everybody because he is over worked and under appreciated like most of us in the IT industry. Sometimes message boards become our only release from dealing with those less smart than us and it makes us angry over time...........

That's not it at all, I think *WE* argue because we are all typical IT people. ;-) It's all good, actually I think I've made a friend or two since I've been here, even though we disagree on many areas. I hold no grudges (Even if it becomes personal, which even I have been guilty of heh.)

But of course, as I have read elsewhere "Consumers do not have the right to buy ONLY what they want- they can only buy what is offered". Just like having a computer is not a right, nor being online, or even being able to drive. None of those are "rights". I don't offer printers or scanners here. When asked why, I say "because Office Depot, Sam's Club, and Circut City have better prices". I don't *HAVE* to offer ANY hardware if I don't want to do it. I don't *have* to let the customer sit and watch everything I do when working on their system- I just do. It is not their "right" to get to watch.
Did any of that come out as a coherent arguement?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Okay, that's a pretty stupid comment.

With each of these applications that are bundled (the bundled apps are usually samples of what can be done), there are new API's in the OS for developers to write more powerful apps without having to take the time to write their own software to say, render a webpage, or a build their own messaging client software so their users can communicate... so on and so forth.

If you can't see this, then you have no reason to be posting ANYTHING on this subject, or usually anything that you post about period.

LOL the consumer cares why?

The consumer doesn't have to care... the consumer doesn't even know they SHOULD care, it's the developers who care, and the consumers in turn benefit from it, wheather they know it or not.

LOL Another fine a** backwards comment. F*** the consumers, they are sheep!

Until you find consumers like me, who actually wants a choice, then I'm an idiot for wanting one right? Is that your form of capitolism? That's pretty messed up kid.

How is MSIM an API? How is IE an API? It uses API's in the OS but it's not an API itself.

As I said in the post itself, the apps are usually samples of what can be done with those API's.

Fewt, you either don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are reading, or you are just trying to post a response, which doesn't really even make any sense.

No, I just can't stop laughing at your utter arrogence, I think I'm done with you now though, I've had my laugh. You keep thinking that way of your fellow consumers, and I'll wave at you while I'm getting off 275. Maybe I'll even give you a dollar so you can buy some inet time. :-P

Ok, yep, you are just looking for a fight.... good, I'm glad your done, I'm done putting up with your total BS.

Did you even read my post?

Yep, it pretty much spelled out how Windows is designed for a developer, and no one really cares about the consumer because they are just dumb end users.

Pretty much spelled it out exactly how you see it right? I'm not looking for a fight, if you'd quit putting your foot in your mouth, I'd quit laughing at you. Just look at your Apple and Adobe comments below. ROTFLMAO!

um well actually IE/MSIM(I assume havent looked)/netmeeting/outlook express are all objects which any programmer can do anything with. so comparing them to APIs was kinda valid.

u argue cos u are a linux user, thats what linux users do.

I can leverage iexplore.exe in my application? Please, tell me how! :-P

And just what the hell do you think the developers do?
They make applications FOR the consumer.

That is why the consumer SHOULD care, however, most do not know that they SHOULD care.

I assume thats another sarcastic response? oh well i'll answer it anyway... I cant remember the name of the object (it was a couple of few years ago!) but I wrote a fairly simple VB app for one of my clients that produced html reports + used one of the IE objects to display the reports. It was all very very simple to do but wouldnt have been possible without IE installed.

No objects, I want to use iexplore.exe. (Yes it was sarcastic ;-)

I'm not the every day Linux user though. (Add another dozen O/S's to that list and you'll be pretty close though. haha) Besides, you guys are arguing with me remember? :-P

Ah so you define internet explorer as iexplore.exe? Hmmm 89k web browser! very impressive microsoft!.

u ALWAYS start the arguments! most articles on this site are pretty quite + only have a few posts until you start one of your ranting sessions!

That's not the point, and you know it. Look at the comment again..

'um well actually IE/MSIM(I assume havent looked)/netmeeting/outlook express are all objects which any programmer can do anything with. so comparing them to APIs was kinda valid.'

ok, if that's what you want to believe.

what?! lol. you've lost me. IE isnt just iexplore.exe. iexplore.exe is just the host application that uses all the other objects (which form IE as a whole). Anyone can make use of most of those objects. If IE wasnt installed those objects wouldnt be available. whats your point?

You said IE is an object, IE is not an object, it is the combination of several objects. If IE itself is an object, then tell me how I can leverage iexplore.exe in my application.

Oh, they do do they? How does a consumer benefit if a developer is making all of the decisions for them?

Do you understand the concept of using software?

It doesn't seem like it.
The consumer uses the software that they choose, based on his/her needs and what the developer has offered in the particular application. It's the developers job to try and create demand for their product by including the features that they potential customers would want, and MS makes this easier by including these platforms into the OS.

Yes, I do actually understand the process. You apparently don't. I really have no interest in continuing this discussion as I have better things to do than chat with a "wall" that's only interested in forcing me (as a consumer) to use half a** products that don't give ME (again, the consumer) the choice of choosing not to install certain components.

now u are just being pedantic! ok so IE is made up of several objects. either way! there are many bits of IE that are usable by other programmers.

Should you be able to get rid of the apps themselves (IE's frontend, OE, etc....) sure, but should you be able to get rid of these things built into the system, NO. Not allowing it makes a standard among Windows users for the benefit of all developers, and then in turn for the consumer.

Calling an application isn't the same as using an API. I can call word and give it the document as argument from any application and it will startup and display it.

"IE is not an object"....
"it is the combination of several objects"....

So it's not an object because it composes of multiple objects. Right....so if I've written a class in Java (for instance) which has several other objects in it (private members), it is no longer an object itself because it now falls under some new definition meaning 'composes of multiple objects'?

Sure, it's still an object. However, you haven't quite managed to twist the topic to suit you yet, please continue.

Again Fewt- you are only limited on what the developer gives you. Demand certain features in/out all you want, it doesn't matter. You will have to contract someone to build it especially for you, just how you want it, so don't expect something "for the masses" to be custom designed/taylored for your needs alone. Just doesn't work that way unless you go to the person/outfit/whatever that offers that route.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

We don't Argue, we "Discuss very passionately"- yeah, that's the ticket! LOL!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Why should I contract someone to put an uninstaller BACK into a product that it used to already exist in? These applications aren't truly part of the O/S, it just appears that way. Look at 98 lite for example.

heh

My goal wasn't to twise the topic...in fact this wasn't a topic I was even taking a part in, I just couldn't understand your logic behind IE not being an object if it's composed of many objects.

You may not be able to use iexplore.exe, but the original? comment made by FunkyFred was that IE is one of the objects any programmer can make use of. Without getting paedantic over the issue, he's right. You and I can write an application that makes use of the IE html rendering engine and we can distribute it to anyone running windows knowing full well that they will have the engine already on their computers. e.g. WinAmp uses the IE html rendering engine for it's mini-browser. So in that way any programmer can make use of the components that make up IE.

Phew! And you were right in your original comment, the end consumer doesn't care if the html rendering engine component is on their computer or not, they only care if the application they want to use runs or not. The reason for distributing all these components is to aid the developer by trying to create a uniform set of components/libraries. As a consumer you don't care about any of this, as a developer you do. Note that it doesn't harm the consumer in any way to have these 'building blocks' pre-installed on their pc.

No, it does harm the consumer to have those components on the system simply for the fact that the consumer now has no reason to download a browser, causing the browser market to s*** and stagnate. (Just as it has done) ;-) Why should the consumer not have the option to wipe the ketchup off of his bun? Why should the hood be welded shut so I can't put in a better set of plugs?

Fewt, I understand you want all the control you can get over a piece of software. But, you have to look at it this way- any software developer will build the app the way they think is best, whether that be in line with what you want, or in line with what they want. You can complain to the author of that app about how "limited" it is, and that you can't fiddle with it, but it is the right of the programmer/developer to make it that way. THAT is the point you seem to miss.
That's why there are other apps out there to "help out" with configuring parts of the Windows OS. Plus, the makers of those helper apps make $$$ from their apps. I run a few of those apps myself (CustomizerXP, Tweak-XP, System Mechanic for examples). I also learned from xp-erience.org and ZDTV's "The Screen Savers" how to edit one little file, so I can have more uninstall options under XP. But, that's because I love to tinker with the utilities more than the games, hehe...

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Why doesn't MS allow other vendors to write their own rendering engine (e.g. Gecko) and plug it in the OS to do the rendering. Now, they are limited to a non-W3C compliant, MS proprietary-hooks-built-in rendering engine. In an ideal world, all rendering engines should display the same on all different platforms (i.e. they all are standards compliant). MS doesn't even manage to do this with its own engine; just look at IE for Mac vs. Windows. Same version of IE but different rendering engine.

A developer CAN use any rendering engine he/she wants. The point is, Gecko doesn't come with Windows, so it would have to ship with the product that the developer is making, and would increase the size of the app, and also making installation more of a hassle.

Second, IE's rendering engine is very much standards compliant, the thing is, MS also has thier own extra stuff to go on top of the standards already there, to extend the functionality, and most of it is very good stuff.

"Why doesn't MS allow other vendors..."
Best person to ask would be MS themselves, however if I were to have a stab at it I'd say it would more than likely have something to do with them wanting full control of the OS.

"In an ideal world..."
We'd have world peace. We have as much chance of attaining World Peace as we do of creating html rendering engines that all display pages in exactly the same way. A standard is all well and good but there are many ways of implementing that standard - ironical huh. If you want a good example have a look at all the different implementations of the TCP/IP stack. They are all based on the same standard, yet without a few hacks here and there they wouldn't be able to communicate with eachother.

"look at IE for Mac vs. Windows. Same version of IE...."
Two completely different versions of IE, written by two completely different teams as far as I am aware. All goes back to what I was saying in the previous paragraph.

It hurts the consumer? Ooooh poor baby...have you been hurt?

The browser market is more active now then it was when Netscape was fairly much the only browser available. (Note that I am talking mainly about graphical browsers hence lynx doesn't get included). If the browser market is how you pretend it to be then why is Opera continually releasing new versions and becoming popular? Why is Mozilla continually 'innovating' (had to throw that word in somewhere) new additions to add to the browser (even though they should be concentrating on fixing bugs)?

As for the browser market s***ing...yes it has, it is moving more towards xml if anything and incorporating newer technologies. I have no idea where you get the impression that Microsoft somehow killed the browser market.

As for your comparisons of food and cars to Operating Systems, I'm glad you're focused on comparing apples to oranges. You can put your own html rendering engine into Windows (e.g. Gecko). You cannot replace IE's html rendering engine with it but you can add it as an alternative. The mere fact that you have IE's html rendering engine along side your preferred rendering engine shouldn't cause you any harm. If you want to replace IE's html rendering engine...talk to MS, although I don't know how much good that will do.

Chris, besides wanting full control over the OS, Microsoft also wants full control over the internet. That's why they built in a rendering engine with proprietary tags and non 100% W3C-compliant so that pages designed for it don't display well on other rendering engines (because of the extra tags and because they don't support W3C fully; I haven't tested it with IE6 but IE5 displayed some test-pages that we're fully compliant very ugly). For all it's worth, Microsoft can keep there browser but they have to make it W3C compliant (to the letter); first implement all existing standards to the letter, 100% and then add your tags. That way, any other developper that builds a W3C compliant browser will be able to compete as the pages will display the same as longs as MS's tags are not used.
As for the TCP/IP stacks; all implementations are able to communicate with eachother or we wouldn't have an internet. They all follow the RFC's to accomplish that; W3C recommendations are the RFC's for web-content; let browsers do the same.

"As for the TCP/IP stacks; all implementations are able to communicate with eachother or we wouldn't have an internet."

Correct, but they all needed a bit of tweaking here and there and some needed a fair amount of hacking here and there to make them communicate with eachother. Wether that is due to the RFC not being clear enough is arguable, but the point still stands that just because you followed a standard doesn't mean the end result will be identical to another person that followed the same standard (as ironical as that sounds given that it is supposed to be a 'standard').

Should IE's html rendering engine be 100% compliant - sure in a perfect world why not. Will it be....maybe, but doubtful. Then again I can't see the other html rendering engine's becoming 100% compliant either. Opera's rendering engine sure isn't and neither is Gecko.

As for Microsoft wanting control over the Internet and all that goes with that....sure...they're a large corporation like any other, at the moment the big guys are all fighting it out to see who will 'control' web services. You cannot tell me that AOL or IBM or SUN don't want control over the Internet.

Fewt,

Actually, IE does have API's available to programmers to use within their programs. While the following is a VBScript, it can be used within any application.

==================================================
Dim objIE
Set objIE = WScript.CreateObject ("InternetExplorer.Application")
objIE.Toolbar = False
objIE.Navigate "http://www.microsoft.com/technet/"
objIE.Visible = True
==================================================

You could use this in an application to provide a small "browser" or use it as your main interface.

Whether or not Outlook Express or Windows Messenger offer similar API's with the installed application or not, I can't say. Windows Media Player does offer extensible objects, and there are API's available for Windows Messenger.

This means, and I suppose further demonstrates the point that by including an application with the OS that has an API available to develop applications with developers and developers within corporations can develop powerful applications that provide capabilities that are either customized or enhanced.

With regard to Windows Media Player, this has been something that has been included with the OS since 1992. The only reason why people are up in arms is because it finally is a reasonable application, where as, before it was only rudimentary.

With respect to Microsoft Windows OS's, they are clearly more extensible than the majority of people understand. You've asked how much money is wasted from the default installation of applications in Windows OS's. Had you had a better understanding of the Windows API's and tools available you could have built a version available for your company with those features removed, burned it to a network server, and had it available to silently install to your workstations. With Windows .Net Server you'll be able to do so with your servers as well.

I would recommend you look into the tools that are already available from Microsoft for "control" of your desktop and make a valid attempt to use them before you suggest that Microsoft's default installation (for Professional or otherwise) installs something without your control.

Melman

I can promise you that my understanding of Windows Internals is at least as good as anyone elses on this site. My point is not that I can't remove components myself with tools that I create, it's that microsoft removed the components that were already built to do so. If you are a developer that's been around for a while you'll know that the setup wizard that has been part of VB since I started using it (v3.0 16-bit professional) will take the OCX's and VXD's off of your computer, and build them into the installer. You gain NOTHING by bundling these applications into the O/S other than marketshare.

"It hurts the consumer? Ooooh poor baby...have you been hurt?"

This is exactly the "redmond attitude" that says they need to be chopped up a few times. Microsoft needs to rip IE MSN MSIM OE out of the O/S, and they need to put their IE application into the public domain under a BSD source code license as their punishment. It's high time consumers actually had some control over the market, and folks like you can't do jack about it. I am comparing apples to apples as I am comparing the principles. You just have to attempt to discredit it by attempting to blur the lines because you can't refute it. You are just another typical Microsoft crone.

"any software developer will build the app the way they think is best, whether that be in line with what you want, or in line with what they want. You can complain to the author of that app about how "limited" it is, and that you can't fiddle with it, but it is the right of the programmer/developer to make it that way."

Funny, my developers don't develop the way "they think is best".

When both software and hamburgers are no longer products, then I will be comparing apples and oranges. As long as they are products however they are both apples. They are just different colored apples. I thought you were a developer, this is common sense 101 now.

FEWT, you posted "Microsoft needs to rip IE MSN MSIM OE out of the O/S, and they need to put their IE application into the public domain under a BSD source code license as their punishment."

Personally, I wouldn't want ANY software developer that uses software as their main/primary means of income, FORCED to "open source any/all their software" like you are advocating. Soon as that happens with Microsoft, any other software developer (Adobe, etc)could be forced next.
I have a very hard time understanding why there are those with the idea Microsoft "should be FORCED to open-source EVERYTHING they make money on!". Those softwares are property of Microsoft, and soon as they are FORCED to open-source ANYTHING, all software companies and developers need to start looking for another job, because they will be next!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Fewt, you say "Funny, my developers don't develop the way "they think is best". "
Ok, are they the ones in control of what they develop? If not, then No, they don't develop what they think is best. HOWEVER- if your developers worked For Themselves, like Microsoft does, like Apple does, like Adobe does, then they will develope what they want, how they want. If you are an "employee", you develop how you are told, but you still have input. Understand now? There is a BIG difference in YOUR developers, and Microsoft. Microsoft develops what they want, your developers do what they are told by Management.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Funny, I don't recall saying that they needed to open source everything, just the product that they used illegaly (I could stretch that to include Windows, but I don't think it's necessary). Would you allow a thief to keep his picks?

No, my developers work directly with the end users. Microsoft should be doing exactly the same thing. Everyone including you should have a problem with the fact that they don't.

"Product used illegally". Hmm. Let's see how *I* can play with that too. "You jaywalked, so let's cut off your legs. You ran a red light- let's take away your car. You looked at porn- let's take away your computer. You took a pen, and didn't return it (stole it). So, let's cut off that hand."

Now, let's see what that has to do with Software, like your "would you let a thief keep his picks". NOTHING.
Sometimes you you come up with the silliest arguements to "help prove your point".
Sorry if I seem a bit harsh there, but after some of the crap I have had to deal with lately with other morons, that post kind of bugs me. I get tired of "I did this, it messed things up, so it is YOUR responsibility to fix it, FREE. Or, Microsoft screwed up my system after I just clicked on some window on a porn site".

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Ok, next time the cops catch a bank robber, we'll put him in jail, but we'll let him keep the cash, and his gun.

I don't have any problem with it, because I don't believe in forcing one company to do what I want them to do on the piddly, non important, little stuff. I can always find other places to spend my money, or other things to buy.
"Oh, I can't uninstall wordpad!" Poor baby. Download or use something else. Or, to use one of your arguements (hehehe) "Linux won't let me do what I want! It won't let me run 'whatever app' the way *I* want! Anyone is a fool for using it then!" (not a dead-on, but close )

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Gee, reaching "way out in left field in the next state" to get your "point" across? ;-)
Honestly, some of your "arguements and comments" are extremely idiotic, and do NOT apply to the software industry, or business in general. Seems you like to just argue for the sake of arguing at times! Were you on the debate team in school??

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

That argument doesn't work here because you have the power to run anything you want in a linux environment, including Windows applications (Where even then you have a large choice of ways to approach that task).

Why not just finish the ones we started, I see lots of posts that you M$ folks should be tearing up. What's up with that, only post when it suits you? Can't admit you are wrong?

Check and Mate

I'm not even going to dignify that with a real response.

Then why did you? You have yet to put any meat behind any of your replies, they are all just like this one. ;-) You even got personal the other day instead of attempting to rebute my post. Well thought out posts indeed LOL! Show me the money CPUGuy!

You really need to grow up.

Personal attacks seem to be the only argument you are capable of. I'm not going to fall into your style of mindset again. You should do everyone a favor, and not bother to reply to any of my posts until you can actually cough up an educated argument, ok. :-)

Hmmm, well let's read all my posts.... each one is responded by you with the same exact response, which tells me that you either did not read them, or you can't respond to it, so you resort to bashing.

If you'd reply with some meat I wouldn't have to say it over and over. Come back when you can answer a simple question, and we'll talk.

Just buy another OS ? or make your own OS

What's your point? I pretty much do "make my own o/s". You'd have that freedom too if you replaced Windows. ;-)

You would *love* to see my system then- I have it customized the way *I* want; multiple desktops, colors, look, sound...people actually have to ask what I am running, from the way it is. And it is WinXP Pro, with a few "special touches", hehe...

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

heh

Same here.

You've completely made half of my argument. Sure, you have your XP configured the way you want it, but why can't I configure it the way *I* want it too?

Good question Fewt: Why can't YOU configure XP the way YOU want? Because you want more than they offer, it seems, which they are not entitled to give unless Microsoft wants to build it in. I can't do what I want/need in Linux, because the things I want/need to do are not yet built in nor designed. I see it as the same thing.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Actually I want LESS than they offer. ;-)

fewt, have u ever thought that all this time u spend moaning about microsoft and all the stuff u dont want, you could have maybe spent a few weeks investigating how to remove all the bits you didnt want + thrown together a simple app to do it for you? Ok so you wouldnt have the option to NOT install what u didnt want in the first place, but Im sure someone with your inteligence (heh!) could throw together a simple single click app to remove everything u didnt want after you had finished installing windows.

Why? I want checkboxes, I want out of the box support for batched installation without these components. I know hoe to remove dcom, and MSIM, why can't I do the same with OE, etc? Why should I waste my time adding uninstall options for applications that used to come with them?

why should u waste your time? because it would be more productive than your constant moaning about it in here!

If you would shut up and allow me to have my opinion, I wouldn't post nearly as much. ;-)

Fewt, you said "Sure, you have your XP configured the way you want it, but why can't I configure it the way *I* want it too?" (smart-ass comment coming up, hehe)

Well, that's because *I can, and You can't!* Bwahahaha!!!
(end smart-ass comments)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

heh

Im not stopping you having your opinion! Im just making sure you are aware that your opinion isnt shared by everyone!

heh ;-)

I just bought a popular Microwave oven and I didn’t see the others inside ?

Okay, you're stretching this out of shape.
You could also say "I bought a car and didn't get the other makes with it."
"I bought a Coke and didn't get Pepsi with it."
Etc, etc..

Product is Product

That's what Fewt says further up, hehe!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Give it a waaa
Give it a waaa
Give it a waaa now.........

Exactly what I thought as I read this line.

"AOL Time Warner has been using the political and legal system to compete against Microsoft for years."

What babies..

They're smart to fight back. If M$ gets sued too many times, it could eventually lose.

My feelings exactly. (I was referring to Microsoft as the baby in my post :-)

New way to deal with competition that "made it big"- sue them for stuff they did while they were still little. Sounds stupid.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I have never liked AOL, or Netscape, so I see no problem with "forcing" people to use IE.... if consumers are so dumb now that they can't figure out a way to install a secondary Internet Browser, then they should be forced on to something as easy to use as "Internet Explorer" until they know how to do things for themselves.

Its a shame AOHELL bought ICQ, cause I use ICQ... and its an insult as they like their bloatware addons... although at least I got rid of the pesky adverts (ICQhttp.dll anyone?)

Not a lot I can do about it... but just think... if AOL do win in the end and remove Microsoft..
If consumers cant install an Internet Browser, how are they going to cope with Linux!

You must be kidding.
The typical consumer has difficulty powering on their PC, and you think it's trivial for them to install a new browser?
The only browser the average user knows is IE. They are very likely surprised when they are told that there are alternatives. But why would they care? They already have one and it works, so why would they switch? Microsoft knew this when they included IE with Windows. They knew that the majority of their users won't bother to find a different browser.
As long as Microsoft owns the primary operating system that average consumers use, average consumers will continue to be stupid.

You say the word "stupid", hmmm, does stupid mean "happy" with what they have, or do users HAVE to find other software to be SMART.

As i've said before, MS have made IE, its a great piece of software, it gets the job done, people are happy with it, doesn't mean their stupid tho!

But i get your drift ;)

Gimie

Sure, it may be good now, but you need to look it on the proper timeline. Seems lots of people here don't do that. IE Sucked until 4 (sucked until 5.02 IMHO). Unfortunately it was "good enough" and "came with my computer". Who's gonna download a 10-15MB browser on a 14.4K or 28.8K modem, when a "just as good" browser is already installed.

People download WinAMP instead of using WMP, which comes with the OS.

IE wasn't just "good enough" it was superior once MS released 4.0... IE3 vs. NS3, they were about the same, but IE4 was superior to NS4.

IE 3 was good enough, very few if any non technical people downloaded IE 4. The ONLY reason I had it was because it happened to come bundled (There's that bad word again) with NT Workstation 4.0.

Then tell me, how did IE start gaining large amounts of market share before Win98 was even released?

What did I just say? It was bundled on a seperate CD with NT 4.0. It was also bundled with Windows 95B and C. Did you even read what I wrote? It gained marketshare because techs like me took the little CD that came in the OEM kit, and installed it on the PC. (Yes, I was a PC tech in 1996 when this was happening.) I was RIGHT THERE helping it.

Fewt, IE 4 wasn't bundled with Win95B- it was with Win95C, then Win98 first edition.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Well gee, I downloaded it, and every preview beta of it that was available (as I also did with Netscape's stuff), and I know many other people who downloaded too.

The point is, IE started getting popular BEFORE it was being bundled with anything.

Yes, it was. They started bundling it in the OEM package just a few months before C was released. Regardless, it started to become popular because of it getting bundled on new PC's. :-)

Yeah, but I'm sure you aren't an average end user, if you were you wouldn't be posting on a beta testing news website. ;-) Average consumers don't know the difference between IE and NS, and they sure as hell aren't going to leave their 56K modem online for an hour downloading patches (what the heck are patches?) just to download a new web browser when the one that came with their computer works just fine. Step back, put your "geekness" aside and look at things realistically.

Then explain why people still download things like WinAMP or AOLIM instead of using what's built into the OS? And these are average users.

I didn't realize that they did. You still aren't looking at it from a pure consumer point of view. Most users turn it on, check their mail, and turn it off. They don't download *ANYTHING*.

Maybe grama and grampa get on, check their his/her email, and then get off.... but I can tell you right now, every teenager that uses a computer downloads music, apps, and the like.... adults tend to read their e-mail, visit news sites, play thinking games (such as Myst) and the like.

Fewt, I meant "bundle" as in "bundled with the OS". It may have come as a seperate CD with 95B, but it was installed automatically after 95C was installed.
Talking about "bundling"- I had more Netscape and AOL floppies with modems (before they went to CDs) than IE. Now, I mainly just get AOL CDs with the modems. Why does AOL need to be "everywhere"??

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Gotchya. I meant bundle as in "include with". I can see where the confusion happened. :-)

I bet if you walk around an average university dorm (im not just talking about computer students rooms either) that 90% have winamp on their computers. People DO download something if its worth the download. I bet a lot of those students wouldnt even know what WMP was or that they already had it.

Whats the ICQ numbers up to these days? certainly millions of people have downloaded it by their own choice.

Most people download things because their friends say "you NEED this". People dont NEED netscape, it offers nothing over IE to the average user so they simply dont download it.

it was popular before then!!!!

"People dont NEED netscape, it offers nothing over IE to the average user so they simply dont download it. "

Right, now if IE wasn't tied to the desktop the user would have to actually look at both before making a decision. That's the WHOLE POINT of the lawsuit against Microsoft. heh

No, they would still say "my friend told me i NEED IE" (like the winamp situation).

No, some people really do prefer Mozilla, and other applications to IE. Their friend would say "Oh, you need a web browser, I use opera".

Prove it.

IE6 doesnt support cookies well. i watched a grown man struggle with an error message on mp3.com because he couldnt download a song. i finally stepped in and politely showed him how to use mozilla. he had no trouble downloading the music he wanted to listen to and i might add that he used windows mediaplayer 7.1 to play his music because it was already there and downloading something else even though it may cause him grief was just not worth the experience of learning something that wasnt preinstalled everywhere.

NULLedge, what was the "cookie problem" the man had? What was the error message he kept getting? Just saying "he got an error message" and "IE 6 doesn't support cookies well" doesn't help understand the problem. Post more info, please"

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

It seems lots of these lawsuits are popping up more and more. Some are "worth while" based on blatant activities, while others are based on "one company buys a failed company, then sues that failed companies competitors".
With that in mind, I say we need to put a "statute of limitations" on tech suits since "tech years" seem to be akin to "dog years" vs "real years". Also, I would say if Company A goes out of business, and Company B buys Company A (which competes with Companies C, D, and E, with D being the largest) Company B cannot sue any other company "on behaf of Company A".
What say you, fellow posters? The tech sector needs "special laws" to be able to handle the fast, constantly changing nature of Tech.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I can sort of agree with that.

Fewt, what part(s) do you "sort of agree with"? What would you suggest?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I don't know what I'd suggest. I think it needs to be revisited though. I do think that AOL is well within it's right to sue Microsoft, as was Caldera. I think that you'll see things work themselves out, as the current PC market is stagnant, and I expect it to remain that way for some time to come. There's no real compelling reason to upgrade, so people are staying with their current PC until it breaks

I found this about the Caldera DrDos / Microsoft case:
(from the http://www.moraldefense....titrust_FAQ/default.htm web site. I have also read this a couple other places too)

Take the Caldera suit. This case is based on a preposterous allegation: the claim that, in the early 1990's, if not for the underhanded tactics of Microsoft, DR-DOS might have unseated MS-DOS and Microsoft. This claim is nothing short of fiction; DR-DOS was never a major player in the operating-system market. Moreover, by the time of the events cited in this suit, Windows was well on its way to being the standard, and DOS?whether MS-DOS or DR-DOS?was on its way to obsolescence.

Moreover, there has never been any evidence that Microsoft did anything to prevent Windows from working with DR-DOS. The most prominent evidence cited by Caldera was the claim that, when Windows was run on DR-DOS, it sent the user a message warning that he was using an unsupported version of DOS and that Microsoft could not be responsible for how Windows would operate. But Microsoft had every right to make that disclaimer?especially at a time when MS-DOS provided Windows with key functionality.

But the "evidence" is even flimsier than that. The message in question appeared only in a limited-distribution beta release of Windows; it was never included in the final version that was shipped to customers.

Caldera's suit provides the real example of a morally reprehensible attack on a rival business: Your competitor beats you in the marketplace, fair and square?so you try to make back your losses by going to court. Indeed, Caldera was not even the developer of DR-DOS; the company didn't even exist then. It bought DR-DOS?and thus the right to sue Microsoft?well after DR-DOS had already failed.

No, as I stated before, AOL Netscape has no case here.

Netscape themselves proclaimed the the browser would take over the need of the full fledged operating system, and back then, Netscape had over 70% market share. So what does MS do? They take that idea and say "gee, we oughta do something about that," and they take the advantages of a browser type UI, integrated it with the Windows UI, and essentially made the shell a browser. All this in order to compete with Netscapes idea, and ensure the future of Windows.

Not only did they do this, but the dramatically improved IE, and made it quite a bit better than Netscape's equivelant product.

Now, am I saying that bundling IE didn't cause an increase in IE's market share? Nope, not at all, I'm sure it did. But the point is, Microsoft built a product to compete with Netscapes plans for the future, and they did so successfully.

Now, let's look at something totally different, Opera. Opera costs $30 to use, and is no better than IE (IE actually has a lot more functionality), and people STILL use it, despite IE being a (mostly) superior product, free, and coming with the OS.

Honestly, DR-DOS was every bit as good as MS-DOS. If it weren't for thousands of developers seeing the message, perhaps it could have given Microsoft competition. You just don't know. Fact is they put the message there, and they shouldn't have.

Shouldn't have? You don't think they should have "warned" people that things may not work "as planned" with a different DOS? Maybe they would have done a bit different programming on something to get it to work just right or better under DRDOS than with MSDOS? I don't know, as I have never used, nor seen, DRDOS before.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Come on Fewt... no response?

"Show me the money!"

Now, how childish does that sound?

What does MS do? They take IE bundle it with the O/S and push Netscape off the face of the earth. That's exactly what they did, and they did it using their monopoly O/S which makes it illegal.

That's an interesting article, but if I read it correctly, they beleive that Microsoft has never, ever wronged. They are completely innocent of everything. Evidence be damned, Microsoft is a complete angel.
I don't agree with most of that article.

Yeah, it does tend to lean the other way (from the typical MS/Gates is Satan). I wasn't in to computers during the MSDOS vs DrDos bit, so I don't have "first hand" knowledge.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

By the law, sure it may be illegal... but is the law correct in this instance? No, it is most absolutley not. If other companies are aloud to include browsers in their OS, then MS should be able to do the same... especially since browsing is generally a fundamental part of using the computer these days.

The law's "correctness" is your opinion. You have every right to work to change that law. In the mean time however, they remain guilty of breaking it. I for one think the law works very well.

Example: What would you think of a crack dealer that thinks the law making it illegal to sell crack to kids was wrong, so he did it anyway? Should he be let off because he feels that the law is wrong?

I was ;-). DRDOS was every bit as good as MSDOS, I knew first hand several people that ran their BBS's on top of DRDOS. It worked just as well as MSDOS.

That has no relevance here, even in the slightest.

The law is not doing it's job if it is making it so Microsoft is no longer to add features to the OS (which is what it has done, if you get out of your Linux user attitude of MS is from the pit of hell, you would see this.

There's lots of relevance there. You said yourself the law is wrong, but it's still a LAW, and as long as it is a LAW it has to be followed.

If the law means certain death of the company, then no, it should not be followed, and even be questioned in court.

Wow, so if I start a company called crackwesellz and I sell to kids because the law "would put me out of business so it's wrong", you'd be ok with that huh? You are a pretty messed up person.

You know full well what I meant, stop trying to turn around what I'm saying...

Athe anti-trust laws, in this case, hinder Microsoft's ability to compete, plain and simple.

Drug laws hinder the crack dealers ability to compete as well. Your point is worthless, laws are there to protect capitalism and just like any other law, until it's overturned it needs to be enforced. If you don't follow the law, then you become a criminal.

AOL needs to look at themself in the mirror. Hmmm... aren't they the ones constantly and intentionally preventing other instant chat messenger programs from being able to connect to their instant messenger?

And talk about monopoly. How about AOL and their 10's of millions of subscribers. According to the AOL theory, that would make them a monopoly on the internet.

This whole thing is nothing but pure greed. They figure they will try to get some big bucks from Microsoft. Even though the AOL pockets are already full of money.

Its the same thing the RIAA is doing. They are sueing anybody and everybody because they know they can make big bucks off the lawsuits. Anybody who believes the RIAA is truely sticking up for the artists is a fool. Its all about greed.

I would also like to add that this whole browser thing is totally stupid.

I for one am glad Microsoft bundles the browser with the operating system. They never charged for the browser in the first place, which makes *any* argument AOL/Netscape has totally worthless.

If Microsoft had charged for the browser initially, then made it free, that would be different. But they didn't.

I know a lot of Microsofts products are way overpriced, and I think its only fair they give a few free ones. If Netscapes browser was any good whatsoever, they would have no problems.

You can look anywhere on the internet and find a free version of some software that is similar to a pay version from another company... there is nothing illegal about it. (well the only thing illegal would be some computer illiterate judge who would have no clue as to what he is talking about).

I would also like to add that this whole browser thing is totally stupid.

I for one am glad Microsoft bundles the browser with the operating system. They never charged for the browser in the first place, which makes *any* argument AOL/Netscape has totally worthless.

If Microsoft had charged for the browser initially, then made it free, that would be different. But they didn't.

I know a lot of Microsofts products are way overpriced, and I think its only fair they give a few free ones. If Netscapes browser was any good whatsoever, they would have no problems.

You can look anywhere on the internet and find a free version of some software that is similar to a pay version from another company... there is nothing illegal about it. (well the only thing illegal would be some computer illiterate judge who would have no clue as to what he is talking about).

"well the only thing illegal would be some computer illiterate judge who would have no clue as to what he is talking about"

Right.. He became a judge because he's an idiot huh. We can completely disregard the fact that the US has laws which prevent monopoly products from being used to benefit only the company that holds the monopoly product too huh. FYI, Microsoft did charge for IE at one time.

For a boxed copy in the store, yeah, but it was always freely downloadable.

"He became a judge because he's an idiot "
I would say he may have been "book smart" about some things, but a complete moron about the tech sector (especially computers). But, that's my opinion.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Actually Microsoft had gotten to him IMHO. Why else would he speak out? I think his remedy was a perfect fit. He also had a history of dealing with Microsoft. I'm sure if they had pulled in your court the sorts of things they pulled in his court, your blood would have been boiling too. I'm shocked that Gates wasn't up on purjury charges myself.

Actually, the past 2 trials he was in involving Microsoft, he was overturned for being biased AGAINST Microsoft. This makes the 3rd case he has been done this way (not all overturned, but shown as being biased). Maybe he just has an axe to grind? If so, he should NOT have been involved in the case. A judge is not supposed to let "personal feelings" dictate a case, but rather the LAW. Judge Jackson repeatedly showed he could not do that. In my opinion, the trial should have been stopped, and a different, non-biased judge put in place.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I do agree that a different judge should have been chosen early on in the case. I believe it was part of Microsoft's ace. The fact that Jackson spoke against them in public gave them another one.

To be installed on my freely downloadable Windows? Nope, whatever way you turn it, you pay for IE. MS just used their OS monopoly to put a competitor out of business. They still got paid for the development of IE as for each copy of IE, their is a copy of Windows being sold (except for Mac and Solaris but that's a small number compared to the number of Windows PC's)

If they were making money off it throught Windows, then the price would have had to go up, and it didn't.

Have you looked at the price of Windows lately; all it's done is going up, getting filled with "free" stuff I don't want/need.

The only version of Windows that has gone up in price is XP, and for a darn good reason, it's based on NT, instead of the 9x kernel, and even then, it only went up $10.

That's another questionable tactic. How is it that as other products mature in other markets their prices go down, including software. Yet Microsoft's software has always either stayed the same price, or become more expensive? I saw Windows 98 next to Windows ME next to Windows 2000 next to Windows XP home yesterday at staples.

Windows 98 - $199
Windows ME - $199
Windows 2000 - $189
Windows XP Home - $199

(All full editions retail box)

What's up with that?

The current market tells me that Windows XP home is worth no more than $120.00

Windows XP home - $199
Windows 2000 - $189
Windows ME - $199
Windows 98 - $199

(The following are all the latest versions)
OS/X - $125
RedHat - $59
Mandrake - $29
BSD 4.x - $49

Something's just not right here.

Well no crap XP is going to be more expensive than the other OS's AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Now, are you just trying to bash Microsoft, or did you just not think it out? You have to compare the price points from similar elapsed times after introduction of the product.

That's like saying "Ok, this '92 Saturn is cheaper than this 2002 Saturn, Saturn has been raising their prices."

And one more thing... if MS were to lower their prices, they would be charged of using anti-competitive pricing.

They are using monopoly pricing. If they were to be competetive they would charge no more than the highest x86 O/S.

I was, how many other software packages can you list off the top of your head that stay at full price indefinately? Most software prices get marked down as they age. Take Warctaft II for example, it's about the same age as Win98. I saw it on the clearance rack for $2.99, why wasn't Win98 there with it?

And if that, they would be charged of using anti-competitive pricing.... as I said before.

You can't compare it to Linux distros, because they don't even develop their prodcuts, except the setup process, and things like rpms and whatnot. They aren't developing the OS, the UI, or hardly anything, so that means that they have much lower costs.

Supply and Demand.

No, it's monopoly pricing, go get economics 101 guy.

Microsoft doesn't make a fair portion of their o/s either. They wouldn't be charged with anti-competitive pricing unless they attempted to leverage by undercutting their competition.

A fair portion... heh, a few licenses here and there is more like it, and even then, they have to implement that themeselves. Microsoft pays people to write the kernel, and all it's extentions, etc...

No, if people are still buying Win98 at it's current price point, why should they lower the price? The whole point of lowering the price is to create more demand for a product

Economics 101 didn't teach you about Supply and Demand?

Yes, and it also tought about predatory pricing. Take that class again. I'm starting to wonder if you are paid to sit here and rebute everything that anyone says that may make Microsoft look bad in the eyes of the consumer. If that's the case, there's no need to continue, it's TOO LATE.

"I'm starting to wonder if you are paid to sit here ..."
I really wish I were! I'd find it even more fun to argue with you =) But sorry, I'm not. I have not taken Eco 101, or anything 101 for that matter as we don't call courses/classes 101 etc here in Australia. But I did do Economics in High School, in yr11, not sure what the equivalent is for you. Hence if you did Eco (of any kind) and put away your "anything to do with MS must be evil attitude" you'd quickly realise that things cost whatever people are prepared to pay for them.

J-E-A-O-U-L-S-Y...............

That is the ONLY reason for ANY of the lawsuits against MS.

J-E-A-L-O-U-S-Y

So MS is right, and the rest of the ENTIRE INDUSTRY is wrong? That's a very open minded view.

Your SO right!!, and GREED...Isn't AOL using IE as there browser in the first place? Does that mean, we can sue AOL for sending out these disks in the mail and all those icons they put on our desktops??

One other thing...I feel sorry for Netscape because there in the middle of all this.

M$ must be doing something wrong - even it's not immediately noticable.

OMG! ROTFLMFAO!

Since everyone has already voiced their opinions on this subject, and that that there seems to be nothing much more to be said. I'm gonna clear up a few things that are left.

The main one, being you my anti *everything* friend.
Your like a virus on this forum, you voice your opinions, believe their 100% true, and ignore,take the piss and deny everyone elses.

Now, i like your opinions, everys entitled to them, but you really gotta shutup and stop forcing your views over others, because there worth just as much, open your g** d*** mind.

Your Microsoft's biggest foe, now let me ask you,

What are your opinions on Microsoft, and why do you hate them too much?

Gimie

I don't hate them, I use their products on a daily basis. They have just grown too big. XP is not worth the cost compared to 2K, nor is there a killer app that makes it look promising. Microsoft has used their monopoly status which they gained through illegal contracts with OEMs and adding code to their software so it will only work with other microsoft products to create a stagnant computer market. No one is buying not just because the economy is low, the real reason is there's just no reason to upgrade. It's time for a change, in order to jumpstart the industry as a whole Microsoft needs serious competition. It's been so long that they don't even know HOW to compete anymore (MS vs Lindows). They have broken many laws, and they need to pay for what they have done to the industry. Had they not added code to Win3x betas telling testers that DRDOS and PCDOS wouldn't run it, or if they had not put IE on the desktop, the market would be a very different place today. I think it would be a much better place.

Fewt, i totally agree with your last statement, put across in a friendy and mature way, your other comments ain't like that, so your put across as an idiot, you should do more posts like this and there would be less arguments, heh.

Yep, XP is far too expencive, rather be with 2k, and yes, competition is great for industries, you say that MS have run their monopoly along side illegal OEMS, ok, maybe they have, i don't know, but what i want to know is:

Why is this important?
Who is this hurting?

Thx for replys!

Gimie

Hmm forgot to make a satement on this comment:

"if they had not put IE on the desktop, the market would be a very different place today. I think it would be a much better place".

Why would life be better?, ok better for the little guy who wants to make software, but MS have overpowered them, thus kicked their a** in a bad way.

IE brings lots of happyness into peoples lives, i know i can't live without it, its simply the best broswer in my opinion, i thank MS for its fixes and continueal development.

I also use Mozilla, and Opera as secondary browsers, but these are slower at loading pages and the program itself, so they are not as good as IE in my opinion, but they have some really great features, IE haven't got too.

If by making IE a standard by bundleing it with their O.S , i think its a god send, and something MS had to do.

Gimie

I disagree, by placing it on the O/S for free and only offering it for the Mac as an alternate platform, not only did they leverage their desktop market to increase their marketshare in the browser market, they also pushed their form of web standards to their desktop platform only. It was a genius move, but it was also illegal. I will say that it could have been a good thing as far as standards are concerned, but IE (or IE's API) would have to have been available on all platforms in order for Microsoft's standards to actually become true standards.

Oh, Life would have been better because there would have been competition in webspace. Who knows vrml may very well have taken off if the browser market didn't stagnate when IE took it over back in the mid 90's. Since IE pushed Netscape off the market, we really haven't seen any killer technologies over the past few years when we really should have.

Hmmm, my question to this comment is:

Do we need any new technology's in browsers?

Whats missing?, We can browse, we can download, we can edit, we can make, what new could we possible want?

Gimie

I don't know, that's what would have made competition in this area so great. ;-)

*I disagree, by placing it on the O/S for free and only offering it for the Mac as an alternate platform, not only did they leverage their desktop market to increase their marketshare in the browser market, they also pushed their form of web standards to their desktop platform only. It was a genius move, but it was also illegal. I will say that it could have been a good thing as far as standards are concerned, but IE (or IE's API) would have to have been available on all platforms in order for Microsoft's standards to actually become true standards*

I agree, it was a move, only mounted for MS, but what you expect, its a business, they are out only for themselves and to make money, but is that illegal?

I'm sure MS do everything in their power to kill off the opposition within legal means because they don't wanna get there a** sued, but they do anyway, but i haven't heard of a case thats acturally won over MS, can you sate one, be an interesting read.

I agree with MS only making IE for Windows, thier software, their work, why should anyone else have it unless they pay for it?

I would say that IE is a true standard, since Windows is the main O/S today, and conquers most the pc market.

See the reason Windows acturally won the O/S war, is not because they shoved it down our throuts, but because Windows simply does everything "home users" want it to, and if it don't, we wait patently for a fix or new feature.

Or the smart people, that have learned from the past mistakes, go out and find other software to aid then, like MOZILLA for instance, you having problems with downloading with IE, and you don't know of a download manager, then go get MOZILLA to help you.

I think people that are not experienced enought o acturally do just this, and find and get exactly what they want, don't deserve browsers like MOZILLA, and should stick with IE as a basis til they can use something so complex and wonderful :).

I believe MS monopolly has acturally helped the pc world, and where MS had failed, other programmers have won, e.g. IE doesn't download files that good, so GOZILLA and FLASHGET were born to help, thus money for the cool people.

Big competition like MS, is a good thing, if you play your cards right, for example, netscape have tried playing MS at its own game and failed, now they are moaning, they should have tried a different approch, now they moan instead of doing something about it, silly gits :).

Gimie

"but i haven't heard of a case thats acturally won over MS, can you sate one, be an interesting read."

Caldera vs Microsoft, Modifying Windows source code so it will not run on any OS but MSDOS. Microsoft and Caldera settled out of court.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-501906.html

But Fewt, you *know* "out of court settlement" does NOT mean an admission of guilt, or wrong doing. It is a way of saying "screw it, I don't have time to deal with this"

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

They knew they were guilty, there is no denying it, look back at the evidence presented.

Sweeet, reading now, i knew MS had screwed up somewhere ;).

And fewt, when i qasked that question, i didn't mean it to sound like there was never a case against MS that they lost to, i was just in a rush since i was suppose to be working, hehe and didn't word it right, thx for the info!

I've read some of it, i'm a bit worried about that out of court settlement, bit fishy, one of or both parties, didn't want something to come out in court, i wonder what it was? :)

Gimie

Here's more, the "microsoft catalog" looks like it's last update was 1999 though.

This also has lots of good info. Wonderful company, simply fantastic. I like the part where $1 was awarded to bristol.

http://www.zdnet.com/anc...k/story/story_4608.html

http://www.vcnet.com/bms...catalog/yrcatalog.shtml

Fewt, could you further explain your comment "They have just grown too big"? Do you mean to big as a company, or to big as in the software install?? If you are talking about to big as a company, I would have to disagree with your opinion. I don't want my business getting that big (I want to stay a small, local store), but I have nothing against someone else making it big.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

They've gotten so big that they have lost their focus. It happens to a lot of companies. It's not so much their size, it's their mindset, or perhaps their "ego" if you will.

Fewt, you posted "ad they not added code to Win3x betas telling testers that DRDOS and PCDOS wouldn't run it, or if they had not put IE on the desktop,"
1) see an above post about the DRDOS/MSDOS Windows case. From what I read, it basically was "We cannot guarranty Windows will run on an unsupported version of DOS (Windows was optimized for MSDOS), which was only shown in beta versions of Windows. I have seen that disclaimer when installing Quake on WinXP- Quake (for DOS) was not made to run on NT systems.
2) IE made it to the desktop long after AOL had already BEEN on the desktop, so I personally don't see what the deal is there. With XP, there is only the recycle bin on the desktop, so no one can b**** about "being more prominently displayed". I like the idea of no icons on the desktop myself!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Lost their focus, eh? Sounds like lots of other companies to me!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Agreed.

Just a quick question:
How would a company proceed to include their competing browser in any release of Windows?

I think the answer you're looking for is over Microsoft's dead body.

I would say the same about having to offer new Compaq or HP's at my store....

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

That depends on who's asking, I'd wager that I know first hand a company or two that could get your attention if the numbers were right. heh

You sure about that, Fewt?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

No, but it sounded good. haha

Got your hopes up huh? (just kidding) :-P

"Just a quick question: How would a company proceed to include their competing browser in any release of Windows?"

I am not sure how the big OEMs could do it, but I could do it, by showing the customer what is out there, and them asking me to put something else on after building.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Netscape is just mad at this point because MS stole their marketing tactic. Netscape said at the beginning that they didn't want to sell a shrink wrapped product that they envisioned their product shipping with the computer equipment and bundled with other software. About 6 months to a year later after Netscape failed to realize that goal MS began to do just that. NS then cried foul as did IBM (remember IBM was shipping OS/2 warp and pushing that idea about tighter integration with the internet? a better windows than windows?? sound familiar) Netscape spent so much time and energy screaming about how life was unfair and attempting to wrest control of the internet from microsoft that they failed to keep delivering key features that people wanted and fell behind in keeping up with published standards. This is the key to why the company and product failed much more than MS's tactics. While MS's tactics may have helped it was more like pushing a suicidal jumper off of a building than pushing someone who fighting for their own survival.

Not so true. Netscape and microsoft both had horrible yet acceptable browsing at version 1 and 2. It wasn't great, but it worked. Netscape lost ground when it had to compete against a company with a free browser preinstalled to the windows 95 and NT4 OS's. As you may recall, AOL ran solely on Windows 95 overlaying the internet explorer browser. Now on top of that if you can remember those good ole pentium 133 with the expandable 256 cache slots on the mobo's you'll recall that windows was rather unreliable. Guess who had all the source for windows to code around the bugs. You think MS shared any of that with netscape? So the push for features ended up in a rather microsoft like bugged up product. By the time the Netscape browser hit version 4 it was 4.5 it was dead.

Where's the fair compition when you're competing in a market where the platform you're developing for is actually fighting your every move, and doing so zealously. I've personally never liked the netscape browsers until their latest releases of 6.2.x, but i'd still like an alternative without having to install linux, wouldnt you?

*pulls out a copy of IE2* This was acceptable? I don't think so... IE2 was total crap (IE 1 obviously being worse).

I actually remember quite a few local ISPs in this area that ONLY supported netscape. Their install disks/cds ONLY set up netscape. When you said you had IE, they said "Sorry, we only support Netscape."
Plus, I remember downloading various versions of FREE Netscape for home use. Today, I use (mainly) the K-Meleon web browser, and show it to many of my customers. Works quicker then IE 6 on page rendering (at least I think so).
Anyway, my train of thought just got derailed, so I'll end this post....(not enough Tea in my system yet)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

NULLedge posted: " I've personally never liked the netscape browsers until their latest releases of 6.2.x, but i'd still like an alternative without having to install linux, wouldnt you? "

Null, there ARE alternatives to just IE. There's Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, K-Meleon, and I am sure there are others you can download at browsers.com. All run on MS Windows products. I like using K-Meleon myself, and wish it were ported to Linux.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I used to be an ardent Netscape fan. I hated IE. Bleck. IE 2.0 and IE 3.0 were just plain inferior products. IE 4.0 was better, but still IMHO not really on par with Netscape. It was a silly add-on browser that Microsoft supplied with their O/S, just like WordPad and calculator. If you wanted something better, you had to go download it, and I did right from Netscape 1.0 on up the ladder (remember that night it was released! I downloaded that puppy as fast as my 14.4k would receive it!).

But, starting around IE 5.0, the product became clearly superior to Netscape in my opinion. It was less buggy, more functional, and faster. I started to use IE because it was better, not because it was integrated. I think the worst thing to happen to Netscape was the AOL purchase. Since then, Netscape went through an identity crisis that I don't think it has ever fully emerged from.

I'm getting a bit tired of the anti-Microsoft rants that can't admit that Microsoft played the game as well as it could and won. There was no intent on Microsoft's part to break the anti-trust law at the time these alleged acts were committed. At the time they bundled it, they bundled a piece of garbage anyways.

We should give Netscape their due, but I think it is clear that Microsoft just did better in the end. And who cares anyways, it's just a friggin' web browser.

(didn't appear the first time, it may later)

IE wasn't good until 5.0, you are absolutely correct. IE 5.0 and 6.0 are good products. Mozilla is just as good. Most people don't know Mozilla even exists because they have no reason to look for it. By the time IE became a good product, Netscape was already dead. Your argument is faulted. IE was included in the O/S and it was good enough, most computer users didn't even know Netscape existed after buying a computer, because there was no reason to look. Microsoft broke the law by leveraging their monopoly O/S to move into the internet browser market.

End of story.

and your argument is flawed as well. most people DID know netscape existed. right from back when IE WAS inferior to netscape (i personally think we are talking IE2 here) the "browser wars" were common knowledge to 99% of people who used the internet. comparisons were on all computer magazine covers (remember magazines exist for all levels of users), it was on the news, it was everywhere. to say people didnt even know netscape existed is pure rubish.

That argument is getting very old. Why don't we just go and sue Microsoft for including Notepad and Word, which may have kept some people from buying another company's word processor???

While we're at it, let's sue them for including a Media Player and a messenger and an email client etc etc ....

This is all bulls***. Microsoft has NEVER EVER FORCED anyone to use their OS. Microsoft won because they have the best products.

It's not winning when you break the law to get to the top. It's not capitalism when you force yourself into a new market by leveraging a monopoly product. It's not winning when you have to add code to exit your gui and inform the user to upgrade to a microsoft product to continue. (Caldera vs MS) It's not winning when the only way you can compete is through the court (MS vs Lindows). It's not winning when you send an email begging your employees to rig a poll to show false demand for your new product (ZDNet). It's not winning when you are cought faking test results (Mindcraft). It's not winning when you lie to your audience and tell them you've sold 10x more product than you have really sold (Bill Gates xbox address). It's not winning when you fake a demonstration to the court and you get cought (DOJ vs MS Trial). It's not winning when you force competitors out of the market by taking the hard work your competitors put into an application and bundle it into their target product to gain space in their market.

You want I should keep giving you SOLID examples, or is this enough for you? Maybe you should only talk about things you actually know something about.

rock on fewt. rock on.

Damn that argument is getting old. If you lose, you lose, end of story. And in this case, Netscape lost.

Microsoft are not in the wrong here, they are just a standard of computing on general people like, you either hate Microsoft because you have a secret hatred against the world you have to release or at one time or another you *felt* you got screwed by them and hated them from then on, or your just bored, either way, there's no way of changing your mind on MS, but be prepared to keep arguing in vain to put your point across that isn't very well thought out and it totally negative.

People only agree with you because they haven't thought it out either.

No point arguing though, MS will win this court case hands down if there is to be any justice in this world and reasonable people.

I don't know what law Microsoft has suppose to have broken.

But, if they have broken a law and it can be proved, then the law is FLAWED, and should be revised.

Gimie

I don't know what law Microsoft has suppose to have broken.

But, if they have broken a law and it can be proved, then the law is FLAWED, and should be revised.

Gimie

No, I *HAVE* thought it out, the other people here that are seemingly in agreement with me are posting their own well thought out opinions. Another critical piece that's missing when you boot Illegal Monopoly exploit XP "Choice".

Then you obviously haven't seen the news over the last 5 years. The law is not flawed, there is nothing to change.

:-)

"And who cares anyways, it's just a friggin' web browser."

That's where you have it wrong. If it was just a friggin' web browser, why did MS push so hard with IE?
Fact is that the browser was a platform independent product. You could view the same content on whatever platform you were running (Windows, Mac, Unix, VMS...). That was a big threat to Microsoft. They want us to be dependent of their OS so they "gave" us IE (mind you, if you pay for Windows, you also pay for IE's development so forget about it being free). By putting it in their OS (used on +90% of all desktop PC's), they reached a very large market. They still needed a good product which didn't arrive until IE5 but once they had it, people indeed were better of with it. By giving it away for free, they also forced their competitors (ie. Netscape at the time) to give it for free. Without money, how could Netscape further develop their browser and compete with MS?
Now MS has reached it's goal; besides being the dominant OS, they also have the dominant browser and made sure it is platform dependent (IE for Windows and Mac doesn't render the same); you (almost) need Windows these days to go on the internet (this wasn't true 5 years ago) as most sites have been developed to be displayed on Microsoft's "standard".
Basicly, they used their OS monopoly to have the browser "monopoly" and now use their proprietary web "standard" to keep both those monopolies. And what's their next step? The IM and streaming audio/video market.

Sure, but nobody even used IE until it was a decent browser. Most people started switching over to IE4 BEFORE Win98 was evenreleased (and then a version of Win95 w/ IE4 later).

BTW, most of Netscape's revenue has been from their webserver software, not the Netscape Browser.

Fewt, there is no such thing as an "Illegal Monopoly", just a Monopoly that does Illegal things. Besides, there are no more exploits in XP than in any other OS (except maybe BeOS and QNX, hehe)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Depends on your point of view, if a monopoly holding company uses it illegaly, in my mind it becomes an "illegal monopoly". ;-)

A lot of folks I know didn't switch to IE until version 5. Most who used IE4 did cause it was installed on their windows-box when they bought it.

BTW, Netscape made aprox. 20% of its revenue from the browser (which isn't neglectable); if you've worked for a major corporation, you know that most divisions have to self-support (i.e. their revenue is used for their own bussiness).

Just heared this on TechTV; AOL was going to give Netscape $10 for each copy of AOL's software before Microsoft illegally competed with that offer by "giving" IE to AOL.
So I guess they could've made some money if Microsoft hadn't illegally interfered.

Some folks are bashing Linux saying its too hard to install, doesn't support their hardware, etc.

I installed two distributions last weekend - Mandrake 8.1 and RedHat 7.2 Mandrake installed flawlessly, detected everything and I never touched a command prompt until it was fully installed. I wanted to give RH a shot, so I installed that. I had two small problems with the install, it didn't detected my network card or sound card. A simple sndconfig worked just fine. I finally realized these problems were due to Plug and Play being enabled in my BIOS. I simply turned it off, and RH fired up Kudzu and picked up the network card and sound card upon boot. Perfect.

Also this install was on an HP desktop I bought a few months ago that came with XP. Everything is intel integrated on the motherboard (sound and network that is) and this machine was clearly meant for Windows.

I did try Linux a few years ago and I did have some problems, so I know why people doubt it as a desktop. I would highly suggest revisting it, it is improving at a remarkable speed as far usability. I really love this program called Red Carpet. RC keeps the system up to date and lets you subscribe to channels which provide things like games, office apps, etc. It handles all the installation and updating for you. Very nice. It's a bit like the Windows Update, but much more content. (www.ximian.com)

I originally installed Linux just as a temporary OS (I was resizing a partition and it killed XP) but I think I may just keep Linux after all. I love the freedom of choice among programs\vendors. I like how Linux isn't made out to be how other people *want* you to use it, you can use it any way you like.

I was also able to get apache and an ftp server up and running in under an hour (my first real experience with Linux, too). Thats simplicity.

Just my little bit here.

RedCarpet is everything Windows Update should be, and more. :-)

You're proving that Linux is easy to install and supports all your hardware because you happened to not have too many problems installing Linux for Dummies (RedHat) and Linux for Even Bigger Dummies (Mandrake)?? Wow.... QED!

Thats exactly the kind of mentality that keeps Linux at bay when it comes to usability. Anything that is user friendly is for idiots, and anything which requires reading many documents and trial and error is the "real" linux and requires a "real hacker" to use. What a blatent show of insecurity.

In the real world, people realize that time is money. Most people don't want to waste their time shuffling through 15 or 20 documents just to make their sound work. Maybe if you're some reclusive college geek who has lots of time on your hands you can see that as viable, but that won't work when you have deadlines and things that needed done yesterday.

I was able to kick out some of a proposal we're working on for an RFP using StarOffice in about 2 hours because I was able to focus on the content and not the inner workings of the program. Does that make me an "aOl LaMuh" because I didn't use pico or vi to create it? Linux is secure, Linux is stable. Linux' direction is now going towards being user friendly. Like it or not, that's whats happening. People want to be efficient and they don't care if they're considered a "l33t haX0r" by their peers.

Gee, go ahead and insult folks trying to get away from the MS OS. Real encouraging to all us newbie *nix users. And folks wonder why we fail or don't even try. It's because when we ask the stinking questions, we get attitudes like this more often than not.

This is typical, they can't stand the notion of losing dollars because an end user wants freedom. My ICQ UIN is 3947763 , I'll help *ANYONE* that has Linux questions for *FREE*. I'd start by recommending that you locate and join a LUG (Linux Users Group) LUG folks are generally very helpful. I've provided a worldwide listing of known LUGs below.

http://www.linux.org/groups/

Who are 'they'?
And rather than a LUG, connect to an irc server, goto one of the many Linux channels and start bragging about your latest distro of Redhat or Mandrake and see what 'real Linux' users have to say about it. I have $20 on them laughing their asses off at you and being as helpful as telling you to RTFM. Give me a break.

We all have to start SOMEWHERE. Yeah, RedHat is a relative simple install, if you do a generic install. The manuals flat out stink. These tech writers have to do a better job at putting it in plain English, not some version from the Tower of Babel. Using RedHat and Mandrake helps me get my feet wet, learn the terminology, get the brain thinking in *nix once again (been a couple centuries or so it feels), get warm and fuzzy with the shell, etc.

I do DOS quite well, but I started with the very basics when it first came out and progressed as the software did. I DO remember the days of saying WTF do they mean by that and used that knowledge to help me teach other folks how to do things at a DOS prompt. Patience and understanding go a lot further to promoting the windows cleansing than RTFM responses will ever do. Yeah, sometimes you do get tired of answering the same question from 30 different folks, but it's all part of the revolution of GPL.

Whew, I've said enuf!

No, DON'T GO TO IRC. Are you an idiot? That's the last place to go for anything, unless you are into talking about how l337 you are, and how everyone else is a L053r. Telling people to go to IRC, it doesn't get much lower than that.

FYI they aren't 'real linux users', they are losers no better than anyone that would send a newbie to them. RedHat is THE INDUSTRY SUPPORTED BRAND period, if you think it's not l337 enough for you, then good luck when you start sending that resume out.

I propose a theory.

AOL has by far the biggest Userbase for any ISP on the market. They have bought a browser, a streaming meadia client/server package, a messanging service that works really well (btw AOL is using ICQ's protocol to run its AIM service), and now they are looking at purchasing the biggest competitor to MS, Redhat for thier operating system.

Now look at what they are doing in comparison to what is happening in the market right now. Today we see RAM hit rock bottom prices, you can now purchase low cost hard drive solutions that are still extremely fast with IDE working at 100MB/S on UDMA. Flat panels are getting cheaper by the day. The internet Appliance is starting to take some market share with MS creating thier Entertainment Center PC and 3COM and PALM and even SAMSUNG manufactring them. Everyone wants the small pretty little devices because its convenient and with technology at a considerable level for preformance/dollar. Most of all broadband is becoming affordable for the average user and is reaching its quick succulent hand into the furthest reaches of the population. But most importantly, things like Terminal Services in WIN2K/XP, CITRIX, and VNCprotocols are allowing for a populated server to sustaing hundreds of applications on thousands of clients worldwide via an IP Broadband connection.

Here is what I propose: within the next few years the desktop will start to dwindle in the home. Users will move to internet appliances which will be more powerful than they ever have before because of the power/price ratio being so high. Applications will start being ran on the server and being delivered via a console window to these clients. Games will become more JAVA and Applet based and people will be continually connected and the plug and play internet culture will take over.

If my predictions are correct in any way or form, I think this is why AOL is buying these specific companies. They have everything they need to make thier new AOL-Machine or whatever they call it possible. Linux can be cut down to a very small size and only the libraries that are needed will be placed on it plus its extremely secure and one of the more difficult systems to take advantage of. And lets face it NS runs rather well in the *nix OS'. They can stream all kinds of media to thier users via Nullsofts WINAMP and they have by far the best, most secure protocol available for instant messanging: ICQ. AOL may actually take a new kind of market and surpass MS in one thing they haven't yet had the ability to touch until this Media Machine that you can hang on your wall comes out. (we'll see how that goes)

hmmm i notice a few flaws in your statements.

ide now goes at 133. icq protocol is wonderful apart from the excessive amount of spamming people use it for these days. internet appliance/java - people have been saying it since java first appeared, yet it hasnt happened yet. webtv didnt take off, java based versions of wp office didnt even get finished did they? i know some people here like to dream about the end of microsoft.... but guys, it aint gonna happen. microsoft are the only people innovating these days. microsoft arent going away anytime soon.

Microsoft is the only one innovating? What the hell are Apple, Adobe, RedHat, IBM, and all of the other players in the industry doing then? LOL Microsoft the only one innovating. Tell me ForumTrollFred, how much you get paid to spew that crap?

Well, let's see, the only thing Apple 'innovates' is sexy designs for computer cases. IBM is an inventer, not an innovator, RedHat blatently copies everything MS does (and then you Linux folk say MS copies everyone else, and how non-innovative MS is), and Adobe doesn't do anything other than graphics apps.

>Well, let's see, the only thing Apple 'innovates' is sexy >designs for computer cases.

So what was OS/10 then?

> IBM is an inventer, not an innovator,

Notes, WebSphere, Linux-390, etc are inventions? I thought they were software.

> RedHat blatently copies everything MS does (and then you

Bulls***, name one item that RedHat has copied.

>Linux folk say MS copies everyone else, and how non->innovative MS is),

What has Microsoft given you that wasn't a part of the last release? (Luna is a joke)

> and Adobe doesn't do anything other than graphics apps.

Oh, so they aren't releasing new versions then?

You bet'cha. So blatant that none come to mind. Oh wait! They copied the TCP/IP stack from Microsoft! Nope. That's not it. Hmmm.

>So what was OS/10 then?

OS/X? hmm well iv heard a lot of apple users say it was extremely sluggish, buggy, and lacking key features. other than that it looks good i suppose... and unix fans will of course love the fact its a nice looking gui built on bsd.

>Notes, WebSphere, Linux-390, etc are inventions? I thought they were software.

notes? hmmm well ibm was hardly important in getting notes to be the product it is/was. Websphere is cool, but its hardly a killer app. Linux-390? hmmm an open source OS tweaked and compiled for their own hardware - most of the linux code already existed though, they hardly invented it.

>Bulls***, name one item that RedHat has copied.
hmmm well u keep mentioning redcarpet and comparing it to windows update. i believe windows update has been around longer (at least as an ms research team project).

>What has Microsoft given you that wasn't a part of the last release? (Luna is a joke)

autoplay of all removable storage was a cool addition for a start. xp is a .1 release remember, so the added features are small. but the features they added for photo files, all the extended file properties exposed in my computer(etc), built in cd burning, fast user switching, remote assistance, none of them were part of the last release. Luna isnt a joke btw. they wanted to push xp into the home market, and a brighter, more appealing interface helped there. although i still think the watercolor theme was better. are you totally blind to not see the new features they added?!

>> and Adobe doesn't do anything other than graphics apps.
>Oh, so they aren't releasing new versions then
thats not what he said! he said they just do graphics apps which is pretty much true! (graphics/publishing anyway).

OS/X was a buggy 1.0 product as all 1.0 products are. It is no longer 1.0, it has had time to mature, it is a very innovative operating system. (Yes, I actually know people that actually own a Mac, including myself.)

XP is a .1 release? Then why the hell does it cost almost twice what it's .0 release cost? (Win2K pro is currently $120.00, Win98 is $99)

I see no features that make XP a killer app, so it looks at my CD and tells me what's on it, big frigging deal. It looks like it was designed by a first grader with a set of bad crayons. It's klunky luna interface rarely puts windows on the display where you left them the last time they were open, it's far from innovative.

As for adobe, he implied that Adobe was a graphics company so they don't innovate.

OH, RedHat did not create RedCarpet, Ximian did. That's just one of those things you get when you choose a non stagnant non communist O/S. "CHOICE"

Sure, OSX's innovative... Unix with several programming layers on top of it, and a pretty GUI... that's about all it is.
Sure, the GUI is innovative, but it is still total crap when it comes to true usability.

For a list of all the kernel enhancements ALONE for WinXP, go to http://msdn.microsoft.co.../enhancements5_9b74.asp

You may not like the default color scheme... you complain that it's fisher price looking, but there are other color schemes that come with the OS that look nothing like Fisher Price, AND there are ways to apply your own skin to the OS, if you so desire, as well as new logon screens (for people who are not joined to a domain)... you complain, but have you looked at all for anything to fix what you are complaining about? Abviously not.

I said what I meant.... All Adobe does is graphics, high-end graphics at that, and don not do much to better the lives of the average consumer.

Yay, kernel enhancements, nuttin like buying the bug fixes they promised 2 years ago! That's innovation!

lets think about that apple slander. everyone hates the one button mouse other than die hard mac retards. but mac's have always had an edge in hardware. s'video style cabling for keyboards, standard SCSI drives, their superdrive was rather remarkable. How about the first company to reinvent its operating system around a BSD kernal. nifty? maybe a little? 22 inch flat screen sure turned heads. ahhhh.. but mac's are just pretty machines in a race thats already been run. isn't that what you're getting at? hmmm. which cam first. the apple or the mafiasoft?

then try asking your graphic designer to use an older version of photoshop than he's using. in fact. ask anyone who would use the program to go backwards. if they arent innovating anything then no one should mind.

you're really a very amusing guy fewt. one minute your are complaining about extra stuff microsoft puts in service packs that you dont want, the next minute you are claiming they never actually add new stuff at all (so what were u complaining about the service packs for then?!).

there are a lot (probably hundreds) of small new FEATURES in xp - it just doesnt fit your argument to admit it does it fewt? and dont come back yet again asking me or someone to mention any because i already did and u blatently ignored what i said and claimed they were just fixes!

Perhaps it was FTP? No, that's not it either.

No, that's not what I'm getting at, at all.

I'm saying the only innovations that Apple does these days is sexy designs for cases.

What's so innovative about rebuilding your OS around BSD? Nothing at all that I can see. The only thing decent I can see that came out of it is Apple has finally made it so you can start an application in a Unix type environment and not have to wait an hour for it to load.

Finally, it doesn't matter who came first, it's about who has the better product for what I need to do (and in some cases what others need to do, and for the rest, it's just ABM, ABA, or AB*nix)

What's the killer app that makes it a good buy in comparison to Win2K or WinME?

Maybe you should try reading my post again?

I never said that Adobe didn't innovate, nor did I even hint at that, heck, I even said that Adobe has lots of killer apps.

"Apple has finally made it so you can start an application in a Unix type environment and not have to wait an hour for it to load."

Well, that proves it. At first I thought maybe you should've just plead ignorance. Now I'm thinking stupidity. Do you even know what UNIX is? And what it's used for?

you still seem to be ignoring that most of the work that went into xp was for the home market.

2k in the home market is a bit of a nightmare. games support wasnt good, there was a little too much security and other complicated stuff that might just baffle home users.

winme was just plan pathetic and unstable. everyone knows that.

XP's killer features are that it works, and it fills the job it was designed for perfectly (making an os based on the nt kernal suitable for the home).

Fewt, you can post this "What's the killer app that makes it a good buy in comparison to Win2K or WinME?", with the WinME in there, and consider yourself in IT? Win95 seems better than WinME!! LOL!!! (I fully agree WinME was a mistake to put out- they should have just discarded it completely, and concentrated on XP!)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Agreed, but it comes with the multimedia apps that are bundled into XP, that's the *ONLY* reason I used it as an example.

"XP's killer features are that it works"

That is the single sorriest reason to buy an operating system that I've ever heard! If that's the only reason you can come up with, then Microsoft needs to make that XP upgrade free. As for it being NT based, the O/S never should have had to move to a new architecture in order to become "stable" that's just bad QA, and bad business in general. You don't sell something knowing it's broken, with the intention of fixing it later. That's like saying it's OK for ford to ship that new mustang knowing that it has a broken seatbelt bolt, and a faulty airbag, but they'll just fix that later.

Yes..... do you know how to read?

you seem to be back tracking to avoid making a stand on a statement that clearly implyed certain things. one of those things was that adobe did not innovate. now if you want to elaborate on what you REALLY meant i'm all eyes.

I REALLY meant what I am saying... Adobe only makes graphics apps.... that's it... is that so hard to comprehend? Or are you just looking for a fight?

I might ask you the same question. Re-read my post. Theres more to a computer than the shell that covers it. What's so innovative about it you ask? Mac's are faster than PC's. Couple that with the fact that they ported major amounts of code over to their new OS which happens to be the first main stream default to install workstation/desktop software to ever run on a BSD type system providing the stability, security, AND usability features into one OS. Some might call that innovative thinking. Most would consider the project at least to be nothing less than an amazing user interface.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/theater/genie.html

just thought i'd let you see what you're referring to as "not inovative"

Apple does not make the componants in the Mac (such as the processor, RAM, etc... everything that theorteically makes it faster).

The OSX UI is not a great UI, sure it's pretty, heck, it's gourgous, but it is not good from a standpoint of getting things done quickly.

That's your opinion, not fact. I think that Windows is lacking in that area also. I like the fact that I can hit control-z type the app name, and have it start within a second. Win2K let me use win-r XP uses win-r unless there's another app on the startmenu that starts with an r. That's just klunky, but that's just my opinion. I also don't like that fact that there is a single entity (registry) that can corrupt and kill my entire system. I also think it's a shame that Microsoft doesn't use a universal bin folder for executables.

Null, for the last time, I never said the UI wasn't innovative, it is, and it's very pretty, but that's it.

Ok, let's change UI to GUI.

Windows (XP in particular) has a great UI... it looks decent, it's customizeable, easy to use, and very powerful.
WindowsXP's task-oriented approach is much better than OSX's in the capacity of getting things done more quickly.

And yes, I do study user interface design, and how today's UI's work, feel, etc...

XP has the ugliest bulkiest look to the GUI I have ever seen. If your studying interface design and this is what you are coming up with as good interface design then the teachers are blowing peppermint air up your ass. Look at it. The buttons are oversized. The exterior of the window takes up space I could be using for reading material. IF you want it to look halfway decent you have to be running a resolution of 1.6/1.4k or up. Windows in general just looks cluttered. And this is the problem with most operating systems now a days. There used to be one way to do something and thats how you did it. You didn't get 5 options that are just adding to space the operating system takes up or memory that is being wasted or even processes that do nothing but allow that extra icon to be previlent on the desktop. Maybe I'm wrong but I think all OS' should have the following basic components.

1. One method for accessing applications via the keyboard or mouse.

2. One method for switching applications via either the kbd or mouse.

3. The individual windows should take up no more room than absolutely necissary. (As in all this pretty 3D or Aqua bullcrap is useless). Quit making a primarily two dimentional working enviormnent 3D it just adds 2 extra and uneeded pixels to every edge of everything.

4. Processes should be easily killed and respawned without the need for a restart.

5. Served Processes should be easy to restart/reconfigure/shutdown without a restart and should be separated form clientside processes.

6. All memory should be protected for each individual program that is ran in its space. When the program is userdestroyed or dies the memory space is then wiped and open for another app to use.

7. The operating system itself does not control security and hardware handling. Yet instead a control interface is accessed by the software. If the software has the rights to use it under that user then it connects, if not the app is told no. The software is also user oriented not running or even being available without the user haveing sufficient rights. This is all controled by a server object/control interface and happens on the lowest part of the totem pole. All the software to software and hardware to hardware communicatino is done at the top.

And you know I could be wrong in how I think this is done, but by God, if MS can't figure it out, and MAC has such trouble with it, and *nix OS' can't do it efficiently someone needs to. The people at BeOS had some really good ideas, unfortunately they didn't have the needed customer base. They were so close to making a very nice alternative to Windows. Clean, Quick, Smooth, and very small. Such a sad farewell to such a possible newcomer.

The idea of adding 3dish stuff, and Aquas whole thing is to add a sense of realism. All these effects work together to make the user experience, and to give the user a feel for what is going on.

Btw, the XP UI is completley customizeable.

dont make me quote you on something posted two lines up. just reread your damn post. i know what you said. you said apple only inovates sexy cases. thats what you said. dont be dodgy.

HAHA!

It took what, 5.1 releases and 10 years to realize that a themeable GUI was necessary? I had that on my unix machines 10 years ago. So much for innovation.

As I comprehend it, Adobe doesn't innovate in the computer industry because they only make graphics apps. Apple doesn't innovate either because well they make sexy cases, but that's all. We don't have ESP If you want us to understand something, spell it out! :-P

Yes, and that was used as Apple has a great sense of style, and makes things pretty.

You seem to be looking for hidden meanings in things that have no hidden meaning, and then take other things totally literal, and don't try to find the hidden meaning.

Ok, so now that you know that XP's UI is completly customizeable (earlier, you were complaining about how 'fisher price' it is), now you say, "Oh well, uh, Unix has been doing this for ten years."

Windows has ALWAYS had the ability to use different graphics shells, Win95 had themeing, and Win98 had hooks to allow skinning (with apps such as Windowblinds)

Sorry guy, we don't have ESP if you want us to understand what you are trying to say, you'll have to explain it.

It is Fisher Price out of the box. 95 and 98 were skinnable? I didn't know that! Tell me, how do I change the close bitmap in 95/98/NT/2000?

Download Windowblinds from www.stardock.com and download a skin for it.

I don't know that it works on 95, b/c it's based on hooks in the OS, that may have been added in 98, but it could work.

Not sure if it works on NT4, but it works fine on Win2k (better than Win9x, actually).

Fewt, Desktop Architect can manage your desktop themes, AND help change the startup/shutdown wait/shutdown screens in the Win9x line. Not sure how it will work with NT. You can get LogonUI to change logon/off screens for XP (may work in 2K, I don't know).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

its not a hidden meaning when you make a bold statement in plain text.

because they dont make the silicon waffers you're telling me that it doesnt matter how they put together their total computer package? thats nonsense. And because they borrowed source from the BSD distributions that makes them non innovative as well. This is how I understand your views on this. Because they're using quality components that they themselves didnt make they are not innovative. You would rather maybe that they swallow up the companys who design components they need? theres a problem with that. apple cant swallow up motorola. and with its BSD code, you cant buy out a freesource project. because they like to use things that work that doesnt make them less innovative.

logo.sys, and the two .sys files in \windows? That's hardly skinning. I don't want windowblinds. He said I could do it, now damn it I want to change the little X to an O without installing *ANYTHING*. ;-) He's just continuing down the path of talking out his ass.

i think they need to make it more 3D not less.

Well, seeing where as I've said that I like how the OSX UI looks many times in this forum alone, as well as to MANY other articles.

No, I told you that you can skin the OS because of hooks in it, which requires an application such as Windowblinds... Windowblinds uses features that are IN the OS to skin Windows.

Oh, right right it requires an application. I can make movies with my O/S but I can't change the little X to an O. Very innovative.

if this were football i would have had the touch down and the two point conversion and you'd be out of time outs.

the press box wont challenge this play.

I used to love Netscape and dislike MS Explorer. Somewhere around Netscape 4.x it started to crash my system and I had no choice but to switch. (IE used to crash too, but I could recover from those) I looked forward to Ne6.x until I used the thing. I Just plain didn't like it anymore. That fact, with the buggy nature of Ne4 and just being associated with AOL lead the way for me to switch. I haven't used it since NE6.0. My switch had nothing to do with microsoft and everything to do with Netscape.

Now I use www.netcaptor.com. Clean, simple, multi-tab driven and NOT bloated. It is IE based and can handle 20 webpages open easy (right now) and automatically intercepts pop-ups. Nuff said.

Because I offer free phone tech support (virtually 24 hour),and don't always charge a full hours labor for every computer that comes in. My "competition" that charges over $75 an hour (just that much to put a screw in a case, believe it or not!) could possibly sue me for being "anti-competitive" since my charges are less ($35 per hour)or for a 5 minute fix- could be "free".

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

You don't have significant enough market share to even be considered competetion. But nice way to _try_ and make a point. It just didn't work.

Now if you were MicroAGE or some huge consulting firm and actually had market share and a significant enough amount of employees to pay there is no way in hell you would give it away for free.

Microsoft had the upper hand because they already had 95% of the user base and the money to blow on a product and give it away for free. Plus it allows them to take control of a new corner of the market until then they had no part of... the INTERNET! They don't have to abide by open standards and being compliant because they are the king and they can make thier own standards that people will naturally build for. Its oversaturation. You don't see them giving away MS Office. Because it was already a significant product. They don't have to gain any market in that arena.

There is a point where your beating the competition with a baseball bat and not playing the actual game. Thats what microsoft does. They want total and absolute dominating control of every market of the computer industry. AOL is no better. And I'm not defending NS because it sucks just as much. But MS Cant just stomp the competetion with Guerilla Tactics. Forget IE and NS, get MOZILLA!

>Forget IE and NS, get MOZILLA!

the majority of the source for mozilla is licensed to netscape, not so much for money or control but to institute standards to move forward with. Netscape is a product release of the mozilla branch of browsers. all you're doing is getting the newest untested features with it. if you want something thats functional get netscape 6.2.x . mozilla in my experience is just the hack happy version of the actual product.

xer-_kelvin, you posted "You don't have significant enough market share to even be considered competetion. But nice way to _try_ and make a point. It just didn't work."

Maybe you should read that again. I was being sarcastic. I know the main way I will be subject to all sorts of lawsuits if I got "big enough". That is why I *don't* want to get bigger than a "local store". Even though one "competitor" already tried suing, and lost...

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

xer-_kelvin, you posted "You don't have significant enough market share to even be considered competetion. But nice way to _try_ and make a point. It just didn't work."

Maybe you should read that again. I was being sarcastic. I know the main way I will be subject to all sorts of lawsuits if I got "big enough". That is why I *don't* want to get bigger than a "local store". Even though one "competitor" already tried suing, and lost...

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Well, let's see here....

As I recall, Netscape said that it would rule, because the browser would become the OS, in a sense, and thus, make MS obsolete... so what does MS do? They integrate the browser into the OS, making the UI more browser like (which was a VERY VERY VERY great enhancement, in my opinion).

So that statement perhaps makes Netscape's suit null and void.

Not to mention, MS had been shipping Windows with IE since Win95, and nobody used it because it was pretty bad. IE3 came along, and people started to switch over to IE, as both provided about the same functionality, but IE was faster, then IE4 came out, right before IE4 came out, Netscape had 74% of the market. BEFORE Win98 came out with IE4 integrated into the UI, but after the release of IE4, IE started gaining a large popularity, simply because it was by far the superior browser, and to this day, IE still remains the best.

Not only that, but Netscape has always been available as a free download, at least from version 2 and on.

Really, this is just a stunt to slap down MS because AOL/Netscape is too lazy to really compete with MS.

LOL You call AOL lazy, that's funny.. Microsoft doesn't compete, look at how they are "competing" with Lindows..

That seems to be your only response on the whole article.

Let's look at how MS is 'competing' with Lindows. Lindows chose a name that could very well be confused with a Microsoft product, or even be mistaken for a product made or endorsed by Microsoft. MS has done this many times before, even with non-competing products.
An example would be activewin.com, they used to be ActiveWindows, but they were givin a cease and desist order... same with winfiles.com, it used to be Windows95.com... hmmm, am I painting a good enough picture for you?

Now, you tell me, how would forcing Lindows to change their name hinder their ability to compete? That's all they would have to do, change their name.

No, you sure aren't. I can see windows95.com potentialy confusing consumers, but "LindowsOS" give me a break.

So you are saying to the average user, the software LindowsOS couldn't even be confused of being a Microsoft product?

Lindows is very close to Windows, and it is obviously used in order to leech off of the success of Windows.

But like I said, all the company has to do is change their name.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Microsoft was the stupid one who chose to use a common name for thier operating system. I'd like to see them take Doerr to court for calling thier product they sell that allow you to see the outside from the inside of the house. You know.. what are those things called? umm... doors.. no.. oh yeah WINDOWS!

The same person who might confuse Lindows with Windows probably needs help tying their own shoes in the morning.

Not that Lindows would be confused with Windows (although, that could be a possibility, you have no idea how dumb people are, and how hard it is to get them to actually READ something, but that's a whole other topic), it's the possibility of people seeing Lindows and thinking it's a piece of software written by Microsoft, or meant to be coupled with Windows itself.

Hmm... ok, you make no sense at all... it's obvious all you are trying to do is bash Microsoft at any and every cornor (both in this post and every other post you have ever written here).

Well then, sir, I must say you are even more simple-minded than the people who don't actually bother reading what something is.

Fewt, you need to open up your eyes, and get your head out of your ass.

My eyes are open my friend, I support over a dozen platforms, a closed minded person knows only one.

No, a close-minded bashes one because it's the "cool" thing to do.

Funny, I didn't know telling the truth about something was bashing, I always thought it was "telling it like it is".

Go figure..

Most computer users are indeed dumb; and there lies the big problem and Microsofts big advantage. Bundle everything with the most used OS (the monopoly OS) and those people are not even going to look at other products. They want to go on the internet; hey, here we have IE and it does the job. Why would they even bother or think about going to find another product that is better or does the same thing. There is no room for competition; now if they didn't include it but made it available free on the internet for all users, they would have to download something and might (but that's having high hopes) look at other solutions. Microsoft even prohibited OEM's for installing other browsers so they wouldn't even have a choice but to use IE.
Same is going on with all the other apps Microsoft is jamming in it's OS. They want to burn CD's; they can with WindowsXP and be honest, we both know they most likely will not even think about looking at other software and just think this is the only solution.
Point is, yes Microsoft made a better browser than Netscape 4.x but by bundling it with the OS, they remove the incentive to go and look at competing products.

Don't be a smart-ass. You should know fairly well the difference between 'telling it like it is' and bashing something. There is more than one way of of 'telling it like it is'. You always seem to go for the 'bash' approach which seems to come easy to you. As a result rather than putting forward your thoughts in a simple manner, you start throwing insults and using words like 'communism' either completely out of context or without understanding of what communism is.

And people reply back to your comments in much the same way that your original comment was structured and we go round and round in circles =)

Just tellin it like it is, sometimes it just takes a bit of "tough love" to get that point across. What's the best way to talk to a wall? With a sledgehammer. ;-) We are going round and round about the same things because your livelyhood depends on me being wrong, and the truth here is that I'm not.

those were microsoft trademarked names. lindows is a play on words.

x-windows has the word windows in it. do you think it was because the software generates windows? or is it because the makers were tying to stiffle users?

and if he were wrong, then i wouldnt have any reason to complain about the hundreds of hours of lost work due to inheret flaws in the OS that were advertised as "non existant". A windows 2000 ad i once saw had a two page spread with a blue screen of dead on a computer monitor and read "miss the downtime? cut this out and paste it on your monitor." now i'm not sure if anyone else gets flurried up at a company mocking its own obvious faults to sell more of the same pitch, but to ad insult to injury they put the cut out an inch into the left side of the page so you COULD NOT cut it out and paste it up as advertised. It was so diliberate it's not even amusing. My ears are still red.

That's fine and dandy, but it's not X-Windows, it's just X.

Well let's see, MSN Messenger (a far superior product to AOLIM) ships with the OS, yet people still constantly go and download AOLIM.

I know quite a few people that download alternatives to what is built into the OS.

It's simply not right to say that MS cannot build these features into the OS when others are doing the exact same thing. If they are not aloud to do this, then they can not compete in the market.

No, it's "X Window System" or in short XWindows.

http://www.x.org/about.htm

How is it superior? I'd like to know since I haven't used it. What makes it's protocol better than any other?

Most people I know who (also) use other IM's we're people who owned a PC before Messenger got built into WindowsXP. Most people I know who bought their first PC with XP are using Messenger and look weird at me when I say I use ICQ or AIM.

Who else is building "features" into their OS? And who has MS to compete with on the desktop market? They own aprox. 95% of that market.

Ender- you posted "And who has MS to compete with on the desktop market?"
Are you trying to say the many distro's of Linux, Apple, and the soon to be (hopefully, at least) released LindowsOS are NOT competition to MS Windows? I am sure there are many who would disagree with you on this! Have you every tried out www.qnx.com for the QNX OS? Any Linux distro? The BeOS, before they went bust (then wanted to sue MS because they went out of business, hehe...)
Either MS has competition, or all these other Choices in an OS are not to be considered as competition (like Judge Jackson says- Apple is not a choice, neither is Linux, or anything else as it would cost way to much money to change from a Windows shop to anything else).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

"In short" meaning abbreviation.

I said the Messenger, not the protocol... the different protocols all do the same thing, which is allow instant messaging. Simply because no protocol is better than the other, there should be one standard IM protocol.

The Messenger app itself is better because it has things like .NET Alerts, audio/video chat, small foot print on the system, great interface, unobtrustive...

Regardless, people called it XWindows before Windows was a thought.

And XWindows is not a trademark, nor is it the name of the product, it's a nickname... like Win95 (or Win whatever) is a nickname for Windows95.

Ok, how about Microsoft Chat? If I'm not mistaken, Windows came with MS Chat... nobody used that.

*unobtrusive

Lets see, MS needs to put a browser (that cannot be removed) and a Media Player and an Instant Messenger in their OS 'cause Apple and Linux etc are doing the same? Where is the browser I cannot remove in Linux or MacOS? Why does Microsoft have to have their own streaming format (that only works on it's own OS); I'm pretty happy with RealPlayer.
Apple's OS runs on a complete different processor platform so how will that compete. Users would have to go buy a new computer.
Linux face it is good for server but for the "mass" it's not a suitable alternative. Lindows? Have to see it first before I would even consider it as a viable alternative. Microsoft own's the windows API's so they can easely change them and make it so Lindows (or whatever they will call it) won't run the latest software.
Fact is that people want to run the same programs as their neighbour is and so will probably end up with a Windows box anyway.
My point is, MS doesn't need to put all these things in their OS because of competition for their OS but because they also want to become dominant on other markets (streaming audio/video, media, instant messenging) and compete through their monopoly OS against competitors in those markets.
Like it or not, Windows has become the default desktop OS and that power is being used to make their other proprietary products/protocols "standards".

So what's your point about MS Chat?

So what's your point about MS Chat?

"Why does Microsoft have to have their own streaming format (that only works on it's own OS)"
I guess Quicktime can be played with any media player?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

ummm... Windows Media isn't a Windows only product... how do you think digital music players can play them?

MS bundled it with the OS, it didn't make everyone switch from mIRC, PIRCH, or anything else.

My point is, MS bundling IE with the OS is not what made it popular.

Same goes with Windows Media Player... many many people still download WinAMP instead of using WMP. Feature wise, in my opinion, WMP is superior in most cases (notice I said most, not all), but WinAMP has a MUCH lower footprint.

Anyway, that just proves that people don't just use what's in the OS 'because it's good enough.'

u and your 'tough love'...heheeh
And my livelyhood doesn't depend on you being wrong....sorry you're not *THAT* important =)

Can you please point me to the OS which has no inherent flaws? Ahhhh you can't. Strange huh!
How about the OS with the least inherent flaws based on the number and severity of the flaws found over it's lifetime? Of course if the OS you're going to point out to that question is one which doesn't have a full office suite, graphics application, 3d animation applications, scientific applications (e.g. mathcad), audio and video applications (for playing, capturing and converting), etc etc then it ISN'T OF ANY USE TO ME and therefore I couldn't give a rat's a** about it, because if the OS doesn't let me do what I want to do then I don't care how secure or insecure it is!

Actually it can. It's the sorensen codec that's proprietary. Quicktime is just another mpeg 4. (http://mplayer.sourceforge.net can play non sorensen QT)

Well, for starters whatever player wants to play WM they have to license the technology from MS, which drives up the cost of the player. Closed audio and video formats are wrong, period. ;-)

Yahoo Messenger handles all of those things. (Well, exception being .net support for now I think) It's light weight, and unobtrusive.

I was referring to being right or wrong about the industry in general. I never ment to imply that I was important. ;-)

"a full office suite, graphics application, 3d animation applications, scientific applications (e.g. mathcad), audio and video applications (for playing, capturing and converting)"

Uhh, I know you aren't referring to Linux, because you would have every single one of these things. ;-)

And guess what, whatever product wants to play MP3's has to do the same thing... mp3 is a closed audio format, weather you like it or not.

ogg vorbis is a royalty free codec. MP3 is free as long as the product it is included in is free, yes I agree.

It's a pity that none of those open-source alternatives don't quite cut it in comparison to the current applications I am using. e.g Gimp, whilst good, has absolutely nothing on Adobe Photoshop, there is nothing comparable to Adobe Premier (or even Ulead Media Studio Pro for that matter), etc etc. But thanks, if it did have all those programs I might think about installing it and dual booting =) Until then, it's of no use to me.

well when they release Lindows95 OSR2 with internet explorer we'll know for certain then wont we.

i'm sensing that you would be describing the effects of a monopolist power player in the world of commerce with its thumb on life vein of innovation. every comment you've made seems to point to the fact that microsoft, and only microsoft makes brilliant innovations. now i dont want to put words in your mouth but in this case i dont think i have to. you seem to have filled yourself up on the reasoning that just because they have all the money and market share that they can do no wrong. Let me pose an example you'll find anywhere. If you go to any store anywhere and buy a product that turns out to be broken and it wasnt your fault it broke you could return that product and exchange it for one that functioned. I want that functionality for windows. win9x is garbage. total, utter, horrible garbage. I want to trade in my old windows copies for a free upgrade to a version that works. If you deny that win9x is garbage i have a slew of images and videos of candid blue screen shots. i also have a video you might like of bill gates standing next to a win98 machine while his goober buddy plugs in a scanner and it goes blue screen. mmmm.. the audience liked it.

"a full office suite, graphics application, 3d animation applications, scientific applications (e.g. mathcad), audio and video applications (for playing, capturing and converting)"

(Why do I have to make this post weekly?)
Office suite - koffice, staroffice, gnomeoffice, MS Office (Wine)
Graphics - PhotoPaint, GIMP, Photogenics, etc.
3D - Blender, Maya ('nuff said)
Scientific Applications - http://www.mathsoft.com/press/linux.htm (You forget unix's roots?)
Audio and Video - Movie player (record/rip/play), Xine, xmms, real, timidity, and hundreds of others.

You want weblinks? This lack of applications argument is getting way old, I disprove it weekly. When are you going to listen? Like everyone else, you probably won't even reply because I'm right yet again.

Null, Lindows is a trademark violation pure and simple.... I have actually asked people if they heard the word Lindows or LindowsOS if they thought that it should be coupled with Windows, or even that it was a Microsoft product... every single person said yes.

It's thievery of a name, and they know it, but they want to keep that simularity in the names to gain market share, plain and simple.... if they were to change their name, Microsoft would NOT have a trademark violation case against them, and their legal woes would be over....

But again, I guess you are just looking for a fight.

I'm wondering if you listen or if you just pick up a few key words and then go off on a tangent. Yes there are lots of applications available for Linux, yes some of them are good, some even have certain features that are better then those available on the windows platform....BUT....as an overall product they do not CUT IT. The graphics applications you mentioned are good, but they do not even compare to Photoshop, are you going to ask me or professional graphic designers to switch to Linux and use an inferior product because of your mission to get everyone to use Linux? Same thing for many of the other applications you mentioned.

I am not arguing the 'lack of applications', there are a s***load of applications available for Linux, but quantity != quality! And I am not going to settle for running applications through WINE and neither will most people. So that argument of yours is going nowhere. So no you're not right, you're completely wrong, you're just too stubborn to realise it.

"every comment you've made seems to point to the fact that microsoft, and only microsoft makes brilliant innovations."
Really? Prove it. I don't think I've said very much about their innovations let alone wether or not they are brilliant.

"now i dont want to put words in your mouth but "
too late

"you seem to have filled yourself up on the reasoning that just because they have all the money and market share that they can do no wrong."
They can do and have done lots of wrong. I just personally disagree that bundling hurts the consumer, or has hurt the consumer in this case. Netscape lost out in the end, that's business. Business isn't fair, there usually aren't a hell of a lot of morals involved and no-one assures you that just because you started a business that it'll be in existance forever. This law suit is a joke. A blind person can see that AOL is just in it for the money and the only way they know how to compete is using the government and the courts. Yet you fail to see that.

"win9x is garbage"
No Duh! I thought we were talking about Windows XP? Or is it easier to compare Linux to Win9X?

"I want to trade in my old windows copies for a free upgrade to a version that works."
Do you also want to trade in your old car for the latest model for free because it doesn't work as well as it used to?

Just use Trillion (one client that handles AIM, IRC, MSN, ICQ, and Yahoo).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

NULLedge, you posted "If you go to any store anywhere and buy a product that turns out to be broken and it wasnt your fault it broke you could return that product and exchange it for one that functioned. I want that functionality for windows. win9x is garbage. total, utter, horrible garbage. I want to trade in my old windows copies for a free upgrade to a version that works"

First off, NO SOFTWARE company guarrantees the product to work. No software maker will take any responsibility for any flaws in their product, or any problems their product causes. Ever read that disclaimer?
Second- more and more businesses will NOT give you a refund on ANY OPENED software. Sam's Club won't do it now in this area, Wal-Mart is that way now, with Circut City and Office Depot following suite. Tell me *ONE software company that will let you do what you want Microsoft to do by "giving you a free upgrade for your old copies you "didn't like".

Either say "all companies should do it", or none. Enough of this "only Microsoft" should be forced to do it.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Not until it's proven in court it's not. I'd be a slap in your face if Microsoft was laughed out of court now wouldn't it.

Lindows and Windows are two completely different words, just go to google and start putting different letters in front of indows, go ahead, see what you come up with.

That would be nice, but I couldn't find a version for my O/S. (It may be there, but it didn't jump out and grab me.)

Do you know what PhotoPaint, or photogenics even are? I wouldn't ever ask a graphics design person to switch, I never said I would. You listed apps that "weren't there" I proved you wrong. 3D shops world wide are switching to Linux in droves, just the word MAYA should tell you that it's big. I'll agree with you that wine isn't a good solution, but it's not even a 1.0 product yet. I'm sorry, but I am 100% right.

You said:

"NO SOFTWARE company guarrantees the product to work. No software maker will take any responsibility for any flaws in their product, or any problems their product causes. Ever read that disclaimer?"

I agree, however I think that there should be some HUGE accountability in the software sector for buggy products.

You said "Name one company".

Apple, or (Insert most shareware developers here)

If it didn't work (a new car) "out of the box", yes I would demand a new one.

To bad trillian (I misspelled it earlier) isn't supported on what you use. It is a cool little thing. It also checks Yahoo Mail and Hotmail.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Fewt, do you mean Apple with give you an upgraded version FREE of their OS if you don't like the one you have, or you think it has to many bugs? If so, maybe I can turn in this old MacOS 7 I have, for OS/X.
Maybe you didn't read what I posted correctly. I should have also said "only the major software vendors" in that also.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Working out of the box- are you refering to buying a Compaq, and things crashing, then demanding a new one? If so, I would say Go For It. If you buy an OS, and it doesn't install or work (like Debian for my setup), it may or may not be the OS's fault. Need to be more specific for things like that. Case in point- a customer of mine bought all the parts to put his system togther: case, MB, etc. I made sure he did everything correct (only thing not done was pluggin in the wires for optional front USB). The system ran great. He went home, then came back the next day with a burned chip on the board from plugging up the optional front USB wrong. He tried to convince me he should get a NEW Motherboard, since the USB shorted out from hooking things up wrong. I told him NO. He then said "Somebody needs to replace it", but not him.
I think of it this way- he did something wrong, not the motherboard.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

No, they aren't completley different words, It's a one letter difference that barely changes the sound of the word.

Reguardless of that, it's a violation if it can confuse consumers... it can, and will.

It's also kind of annoying, and doesn't conform to Windows UI standards in the slightest, but I still use it, haha.

WINE hasn't been a 100% product for the past few years.... in reality, it can never be 100%, as it can not mimic all API calls, nor can it always keep up with the newest version of Windows.

So, it's a violation if they use a word changing only one letter, but it's not a violation if a company makes their desktop look like another companies? Please, explain.

Make your point. A 1.0 product is scheduled for release this year. If the court forces Microsoft to open it's API's then we will see huge compatibility gains. The potential is enormous.

Uhh, they realized 10.0 sucked, and they gave away a 10.1 CD to anyone that owned 10.0.

I'm talking about upnp, I'm talking about nimda, I'm talking about all of the other glaring bugs. Did you know that NT SP4 had over 10 pages of fixes? 10 pages! Not to mention 63,000 known bugs in Win2K. How many flaws would you say your threshold was when buying a fridge, microwave, TV, or car? I think we need software liability in the computer industry. If Microsoft was held responsible for things like nimda (yes I know a patch was available, it took out one of my other services, so I was forced to run that box unpatched.) then things like nimda, melissa, upnp, etc would no longer exist. Don't blame it on the security people that post the fact that the hole exists, blame both MS and the people that exploit the hole. ;-)

why would i want a fight? i'm not being antagonistic. i'm not making condescending remarks. i'm telling it how it is. why are you being so defensive. its ok to be wrong sometimes. as soon as you point out a case in which linux has in some way abused you, you let me know.

fact: microsoft leverages its position illegally. the courts say so. the developers say so. the consumers say so. who doesnt? people who want to get paid.

fact: microsoft produces software which is notoriously insecure, unstable, and feature rich at the expense of the consumer. we know this. you cant argue it. its there in history. software was released and sold before it was ever market stable. if you think linux, BSD, or unix servers take less of a pounding you can do a little research by asking around to your l33t haxor friends and try to collect a list of "critical" security issues with default installs. Only one comes to my mind for red hat, and there was a patch available for it less than a month after the initial version release. I'm fairly certain that their share of servers gets them a significant share of attacks by would be hackers.

fact: linux, unix, and bsd servers have been hitting the uptime marks of over a year since MS was in its diapers. only since 2000 has MS released a product that can maintain even a remote slice of that uptime, and thats post SP2, not pre sp2.

fact: linux prevents serious viruses in a slew of different ways that are built in by default. windows advertised that microsoft windows ME was virus proof. it was right on their site three lines down in reasons to upgrade. being someone who has seen the work of nimda on a win2k server and watched helpless admins try to remove it i can tell you there are no perfect microsoft servers. for the price you pay there damn well should be.

opinion: i like linux. i like bsd. i like solaris. i've used all of them for web servers. i'm going to repartition my drive once my 100gig drive gets back from RMA and reinstall either red hat, suse, or mandrake and see how things are progressing on the desktop scene. and you know how much i'll pay for those three OS's? i paid 50 cents to buy the blank cd's and there's a total of 6 cd's for all 3. that's... hmmm.. (tough math) 3 dollars for 3 OS's. if you like i can add in the cost of the burner

that sounds like a replacement of something broken for something fixed. WHAT A NOVEL IDEA! maybe they can market that? and you know whats funny? i'm pretty sure OS X is what you would call a .0 release like win2k, only it came with all the goodies of the MS counter OS at .1 . you know whats even crazier? it performs like a champ and looks cool to boot. i bet if you were to snail mail apple your copy of OS 7 with a list of reasons you wanted a copy of OS 9 (which lets be reasonable, it's no OS-X but It works) 5 bucks says they'd send you a copy. if not os-x. and if not they'd send you to a place you could get patches for your os7 bugs.

most motherboard manufacturers will replace boards that have been burnt if its by a valid reason. consider it a design flaw and work into the next model something that protects themselves from such loses

blame the marketing and the propoganda and the defenders of that which is broken for leading the masses of stupid cow like software graizers to believe its ok to have these billion (thats billion with a B) dollar issues.

"It's a pity that none of those open-source alternatives don't quite cut it in comparison to the current applications I am using. "

Strike one.

"Can you please point me to the OS which has no inherent flaws? Ahhhh you can't. Strange huh! How about the OS with the least inherent flaws based on the number and severity of the flaws found over it's lifetime? "

Strike two.

"You're proving that Linux is easy to install and supports all your hardware because you happened to not have too many problems installing Linux for Dummies (RedHat) and Linux for Even Bigger Dummies (Mandrake)?? Wow.... QED! "

Strike three. you're outa there, shooter.

nix that last post. its in the wrong spot.

"It's a pity that none of those open-source alternatives don't quite cut it in comparison to the current applications I am using. "

Strike one.

"Can you please point me to the OS which has no inherent flaws? Ahhhh you can't. Strange huh! How about the OS with the least inherent flaws based on the number and severity of the flaws found over it's lifetime? "

Strike two.

"You're proving that Linux is easy to install and supports all your hardware because you happened to not have too many problems installing Linux for Dummies (RedHat) and Linux for Even Bigger Dummies (Mandrake)?? Wow.... QED! "

Strike three. you're outa there, shooter.

"Do you also want to trade in your old car for the latest model for free because it doesn't work as well as it used to? "

heard of a lemon law? 3 strikes and you get a new car. i posted your three strikes. i think im entitled to my working copy of windows 95, 98, ME, and XP home since i hear its got more issues than a bipolar hooker with no hands.

It is a great idea, who'd ever have thought that a company would replace faulty products at no cost to the consumer! hahaha

agreed.

IRC is a niche market; how many people use it compared to webbrowsing, instant messaging, streaming media? So no big market can be gained here (that's why they abandoned it).
Winamp is primarily a mp3 player. WMP is a Media Player that tries to force users to use Microsofts proprietary formats (why else would MS build in a cripple mp3-encoder?).
As said before, I'm not discussing weather MS makes good products, I'm questioning their bussiness practices...

Microsoft took the idea of a GUI, which wasn't even really Apple's idea in the first place, they did not take how that GUI looks for feels. Nor did it confuse consumers.

Why build in a crippled mp3 encoder (which isn't even bundled with the final OS, btw)? Because there is a royaltee fee for having it able to encode any higher.
And if they included an uncrippled one, people would be b****ing that MS is trying to put other companies out of business.

Ok, all you can say is strike? No reasons? No information? No credibility.

"Windows" wasn't Microsoft's idea either. You didn't explain very well, I'm still confused. ;-)

Can my free media player play MS's new format?

I was referring to how you implied (however, may not have meant) that MS stole the GUI from Apple.

I think the old MacSE I have would need some major upgrading to run 9 or higher...which is something that has been b****ed about WinXP; you would have to upgrade your system that came with 3.0 or 95 to run it.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Ah. They gave 10.1 to those that bought 10.0? What were the requirements to get the 10.1 release?
Sounds like being able to go to WindowsUpdate, and downloading fixes, patches, etc....
Although I admit I am not a Mac user, so I don't know if the 10.1 version was mainly bug fixes, or an "upgraded version" of 10.0

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

NULLedge, you posted: "most motherboard manufacturers will replace boards that have been burnt if its by a valid reason."
Did you not read that it was USER ERROR that caused the problem? I have always been told that user error is NON WARRANTABLE by every company I have ever dealt with.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

FEWT, I blame the viruses on the virus makers, not the system it takes advantage of. I also blame the person pulling the trigger for killing a person, not the gun used in the killing. You and I have a difference of opinion on some of the software side (about viruses it seems), but I do agree the software maker should be responsible up to a point. Like I posted in another article- do you hold the maker of a baseball bat responsible for someone using it to murder, or the one using the bat for that purpose?
If most "hackers" use Linux (any disto) for illegal activities, should the distro developers (and maybe Linus himself?) be held accountable, the same way you and others want Microsoft held responsible? I hope you are the "all do it, or none" type of person (meaning, they are all held to the same standards and responsibilities, or none are).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

if you jabbed the motherboard with a screwdriver and left it sit in the rain it sound like a reasonable user error. if you start the computer with no cooling fan on it and the chip frys thats reasonable. it sounds like the board was correctly setup minus one cable which was put on backwards or some such. a simple adapter adjustment would have solved that or perhaps some internal breaker system to keep the board from shorting. IDE's and SCSI's dont fry the board if the computer's turned on with them in backwards. at least not in my experience. so yeah. i would call that manufacturer not user error

i posted my reasons, you've seen my views, you know my remarks. if you didnt have the memory span of a goldfish you might remember. if you had the capacity to reread what i posted you might not make such rediculous statements.

I did imply that, they stole the look of Apples desktop. Apple sued them because it looked like System (5 was it then?) and LOST. Lindows sounds like Windows but well it's just not Windows.

yeah, but a Mac SE is over 10 years old now. Please, at least use a recent machine. ;-)

heh So it's not just me then? I thought I was the only one that saw a problem here. haha!

'I hope you are the "all do it, or none" type of person (meaning, they are all held to the same standards and responsibilities, or none are). '

Yes I am.

But Lindows is a trademark violation... the desktops looking somewhat similar is not the same at all.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'd think Microsoft should give away NT 5.1 myself..

NULLedge- you posted "i think im entitled to my working copy of windows 95, 98, ME, and XP home since i hear its got more issues than a bipolar hooker with no hands."

Well, keep us informed of how it goes, trying to force Microsoft into doing that ;-)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

And about those "bugs". Try this: buy a good sized novel, and check for all the "bugs" (mispelled words, missed punctuation, ink spots, mis-inked words, etc) and see how many there are. Makes for an interesting exercise.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Sure it is, ask Apple.

Everything, don't dance around the question. I want to play WM files in my FREE player just like I can play MP3. Tell me HOW.

"Bugs" in a book do not cost corporations millions of dollars in man hours cleaning up behind a company that should take responsibility for it's problems. Microsoft should have the same accountability that firestone did, period.

You can't own a concept such as a graphical user interface.

You tell the developer I want to play WM files, and if there is enough demand, the developer will do it.

You can't own a concept, but you can own a word? Gee, that's not right, we shouldn't follow that law!

Who's going to pay the licensing fee for the codec? I think you've managed to completely miss my point.

wheres my squirt gun. this CPUguy needs to get hosed.

Sounds to me like AOL wants to rule the world. It's not about being fair.. It's about AOL being in control of the internet and desktop. Look at all they are buying... ICQ, TM, now Red Hat. With TM they can start to take control of the Internet it self by having control of the back bone... I wish the government would open their eyes and see this. Just like they have to open the AOL messenger if they put Streaming Video in it... Strange how a company just released the software to add into messenger do this Now AOL doesn't have to open their messenger... How much you want to bet AOL had something to do with this company? And you know that you'll never find out.
All AOL is doing is making everyone open their eyes and seeing they are nothing but cry babies.
As for Red Hat... Let them buy it.. Bill Gates ownes alot of stock in Red Hat. Makes you think uh?

It's all BS anyway... Use what works that's what I do.