Hey, you still didn't try to refute these:

1) The sky is blue

2) Grass is green

Cant wait........

Compdoc posted;
1) The sky is blue

No it isn't. Right now, anyway

2) Grass is green

Unless you live in Texas, then in most areas it is Brown (unless growing over the septic tank!)

(ye gods, but this friday has been boring!)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

If I didn't know better, I would have thought fewt answered this himself : ) LOL!

But............. I almost feel bad for picking on him like this :(

Actually, Fewt would have done a bit better job than I did..

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I live in Texas and my lawn is green year-round. Texas is quite a big state to be making a generalization like that. :)

I used to live in NorthEast Texas (general area- Gladewater - Gilmer area) and I remember grass being brown most of the summer long. $ to 5 months at 110 degrees, high humidity, and no rain....ugh. I do NOT miss that (as being up in Ohio now, I have gotten used to cooler weather!)
What part of Texas do you live?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

1) The sky is blue

Not really. The sky is devoid of color. It's the air molecules and other particals (dust, water, etc.) that cause the perception that the sky is blue. Remember the extremly cloudy days when it's gray. Or in the mornings and afternoons when it can range from red to purple.

2) Grass is green

Not always. It depends on region, humidity, water tables, soil conditions etc. I have seen grass that was grown in a local gov. hydroponics lab that was white in color and some that were tan to beige in color which was a variety of kentucky bluegrass.

But again, it deals more on perception than anything else.
Don't forget about people who may be color blind. ;-)

I've been a long-time follower of Be; purchased their demo disks of their O/S back in 1999-- good stuff. However, this is utter BS about MS destroying their business.

I recall very clearly Be's CEO (a former Apple exec) stating that they were not in competition with MS, and that they were aiming for a niche market.

Wow. How things have changed. By wanting to get onto the desktops of the world, Be changed their tune.

Laughable. Really, really laughable. I hope they get their a** kicked out of court.

Hehe : )

Ok so I read the article and read the posts. Your all right Bill Gates is not Microsoft, Steve Balmer is. Usually the guy in charge makes the desicions.

And think about the computer manufacturers before they enter into these agreements with Microsoft. I doubt they do it blindly. Be should hace sued Hatachi for renigging on their deal. Microsoft was just an excuse and an easy one to use at that.

I also found this quote funny... "technically superior operating system." What the hell is that. Ya its a lot easier when you are not trying to please the masses. Especially people who are not technically savy. I would have to say that is pretty bold a statement.

Personally, I was always a big Redhat fan, well until Linus stopped doing kernel development, and third parties brought it to s***. Also having something stable like the windows 2000 platform kinda helped that too.

Back to the subject, what does Be really expect to get from this. The market is slow for jobs right now and they want to take a hit at one of the richest companies in the world. And If I get fired from Microsoft because of budget I will take a little visit to Be.

You work at Microsoft and dare to say that Microsoft isn't Bill Gates?! Sorry bud, Bill was the DRIVING FORCE behind the start of MS and therefore IS MS! Forget Be, you should be fired for stabbing your checkwriter in the back! If you don't think Bill is VERY MUCH behind the inner workings of MS, THINK AGAIN.......

Bill is still not MS. Yes he was the original driving force behind it... I'm talking presently. Also he's not my check writer. He may own the company but he doesn't write the checks. The man went back to development and left his company in the hands of a quite capable man. I'm a big MS supporter... the only reason people b**** is because they are ignorant of what Microsoft tries to provide.

Sorry if you got the wrong message in my original post.

I'm sorry, I'm not ignorant.

Thank you for admitting that he owns Microsoft. The owner is usually equated with BEING the company. That would mean that ultimately, he IS Microsoft and therefore writes your check via proxy.

He is the majority shareholder, and I believe he also still carries the title of chairman of the board. He does not own Microsoft, however yes he does have more control over it's direction than the CEO.

If Bill Gates is Microsoft I guess us 40,000 employees can just leave.

Thank god... If you were I would really start complaining.

Nothing like showing respect for a man that is THE example of capitalism. I'm not saying that the 40,000 employees have nothing to do with the day to day running of Microsoft, what I'm saying is that 40,000 people wouldn't have a job without him. I'm sure you guys are treated fairly and shown appreciation for your efforts. Heck, I Beta Test for MS and think that they treat the testers very well. Sure, you have the idiots that gave their tagged ISO's away to their buddies and got canned after the XP test, but who's fault was that?

He is the example of how to run bad business, not capitalism. Just look at his depositions, he looks like a child with ADD.

Gee, I wish I could learn to run MY business that "bad"!

Business in a capitalist society can be described as "dog eat dog", a "rat race", etc.

If you can't accept that, move to a communist country where the governments do not allow "competition" and FORCE everyone to be equal. Bill would have been executed in China long ago..........

But then again, most of you Linux guys wouldn't lose any sleep over that.......

Capitalist societies require laws to function properly. They (Microsoft) broke these laws in order to gain their dominant market position. It is far from dog eat dog. It's more like dog muggs dog.

You sure?

If you can't stand the heat.... Get out of the kitchen.

Dead honestly, how do you figure that Bill Gates is an example of running a bad business? Or is that just your hatred and bias coming out again? Now if you had said that Bill Gates is an example of how to run an ethically bad business, then we'd all agree. But at the same time we'd be asking you about this nice notion you have of business ethics and wether or not it actually exists in reality (at least in any medium to high success business).

WOW, that's a bold statement. So, it's ok to break the law in order to better yourself (or your company). I do hope you didn't b**** at that guy that posted that he stole Microsoft software, you just justified his theft.

Fewt- If you want to get technicial, then TRUE capitialism is a society in which government has NO say in what business can do or how they run. The way a TRUE capitalism works is business and the consumers regulate themselves, and when a better product comes along, it wins. I mean if you want to get technicial you have to get it right.

I do have it right, everyone else that's arguing with me doesn't. America is not a real capitalistic nation. ;-)

You've got me all wrong... I'm not justifying theft, and I'm not justifying what big business and, more so, big corporations do. I'm simply aware of how the real world works, in this case it was in regards to Business Ethics.

Gee fewt, you think you could teach me to be right ALL the time like you?

I must say, I've never seen so many responses posted to an article before!

Just thought I'd throw another response on the pile!

Aaron D. Priest
Coastal Technologies
aaronpriest@hotmail.com

Go back to BetaNew's front page, and check out the "Trillian fights back". Almost *600* postings.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Then why did Bill Gates and his wife already give 24 BILLION dollars to various charities? Because he is some mean ogre? Don't think so.......

MS is Bill Gates?

Most people seem to equate Microsoft as being Bill Gates, and vice-versa. You have even done that yourself a time or two, I think....

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Also, a few things I forgot to mention above.

Has ANY other company given as much as Microsoft to charities? Oracle's Larry Ellison is running a close second to Bill Gates as the worlds richest man and has he given anywhere near what Bill has? I also wonder if Red Hat became the OS of choice if they would give anywhere near what MS has to charity? What about the latest whiner, Be. Would they?

Just some food for thought for those who think MS is evil incarnate............

What about those poor kids in australia that wanted to get a used PC with the old used OEM license. Microsoft had a hissy fit, like a bunch of poor spoiled little children.

Yeah, but you have to remember the original use of Austrailia. It was England's unwalled jail for it's hardened criminals and mentally disturbed. It's no wonder that MS resisted this.

(Note: This reply was in classic fewt style)

Hehe : P

Uhh, no that is not my style.

Yeah, that reply was much to TAME to be classic Fewt! LOL!!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

From what I remember, they were NOT giving the win95/win98 CD, OEM numbers, nor EULA with the systems- they were all just preloaded with the one copy of Windows OS they had. Around here, you CANNOT do that, as it is Software Piracy. If they wanted to give away a "free" OS, then they should have used one of the free ones that are easilly and leagally distributed without the original CD or documentation.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

LOL!! :D

As long as a serial number off of the PC is tied to a Windows license (for the original sale), and that very same version is what's loaded on the PC, Microsoft can go to hell. ;-)

heh heh

You and I have been through this before, Fewt ;)
It is illegal if you put the SAME OEM number on multiple systems if that OEM number is a Single License. Which was proven. Plus, the WindowsOS that was installed was NOT the original OS that came on the systems.
But, seeing as how you just LOVE being "Devil's Advocate", I think I can count on you refuting this LOL ;-)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Actually, while I don't agree that the OEM product ID must be unique on each machine, I do agree that the machine should not be loaded unless it has or had a valid license. The CD Key is used to generate the ID used as your windows "serial number" however, Microsoft does not support OEM machines so it's a non issue IMHO. ;-)

Yeah I remember when bill gates gave 6 billion to a charity. it was the gates foundation...thats like giving yourself money.

The issue here is that you think Microsoft should NOT be allowed to say what customers can and cant do with a copyrighted product that they have created but would defend the parasitic GNU to your last breath. It has been said that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

I actually think fewt would enjoy playing tennis with HIMSELF.........

That was a good attempt, you are wrong though. If there were parts of the GPL that violated my rights, I'd blast it too. Microsoft is wrong to tell anyone that they can not resell their OEM license with the original hardware.

Fewt, I have no problem personally or professionally with someone selling their original OS software and OEM numbers to a friend- but I have a big problem with any organization that gives or sells systems with an OS on it, without the original CD or OEM license. Really makes it hell when things have to be reinstalled, because the person doesn't have legal software. That would be like me putting my personal Windows98SE and registered numbers on used systems, and selling them to customers.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

If the system originally came with a valid 98SE license, then yeah you have every right to install 98SE on that system, and not give them the CD. Otherwise you are not reading my comments properly. ;-)

"PC's for Kids ceased the distribution of computers to children immediately until it could find a way to obtain LEGAL software."

Thanks for providing links to shoot down what you are trying to unsuccessfully prove..........

This one, from the last link, was just too funny to pass up on after Sun and some obscure Linux group took advantage of this situation to push their inferior products:

"Having just entered Linux it is a whole new learning curve for the charity--and for the kids it will be like switching from football to handball," PCs for Kids director Colin Bayes said."

LOL!!!

Legal in Microsoft's eyes, and *LEGAL* have proven to be two different things.

Not really; especially if there is a governing body that decides who and what gets any money.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Sure it is, he likely wrote off all $6M.

He wrote all $6M off his donation of $6 BILLION? That still leaves the majority intact =)

heh uhh yeah, wrong letter, my bad.. $6B

I am a big user of BeOS, and anti MS. Anything Linux, Netware and BeOS are my main platforms. Microsoft deserves to get sued by BeOS for their domination and for their scheming ways of selling their stuff. They are by far a monopoly and must be stopped!

Mousetek, thanks for sharing your opinion. At least you are straight forward and honest about your feelings, hehe!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

you're an idiot and no one cares

Oh? Over 50% of everyone polled seems to care.

I never used the OS myself but there are some things that cannot be disputed.

Success is almost always looked upon as evil by those who are not successful. Success causes JEALOUSY (AKA: p**** envy.....) Sun, Oracle and Netscape are guilty of this "p**** envy" because they don't have as "big" a portion of market share as Microsoft does. They are using the government as a child uses their mother to "stop Spike from picking on my poor little Johnny" and costing the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars in the process (I'll bet fewt never looked at it this way) Now we have the Linux community and Be jumping on the bandwagon to make Microsoft PAY for having a "bigger one" than they do. Let me say this, complaining that you have a "small one" will never make it grow. Suing someone with a "bigger one" will also NEVER make it grow. The ONLY thing that will "make it grow" is actively taking a positive course of action INTROSPECTIVELY to fix the problem that is keeping it small. I've heard it said that "Living well is the best revenge". So I say to all companies that want to succeed "Live well"

Aww, you know I hear that they can fix that little problem of yours now. :-P hahaha

Sorry, I, like MS, don't have that problem. I think that would be more of an alternative OS users problem :)

That's odd, because it's not a problem for me either. :-P

Since MS is the richest IT corp worldwide...
Be has nothing else to do except to launch their last attack on MS... or else they will be doomed.

I think Be is doomed anyways...
Filing a useless lawsuit... even the US Gov't couldn't slice this undefeatable giant....

FINALLY! Someone who realizes the FACTS......

mmm, I hate to tell you this, but Be is already dead. They've sold everything, from the BeOS kernel, to office furniture and computers.

All that is left of Be is the "legal team".

Can I get some of what your smoking? :-P

No No No No, I don't smoke it no mo'..............

LOL!

Boy do we waste our lives away here

Every comment basically started with a comment like "Oooo Be is such a crybaby and they just want to get money from Microsoft like everyone else."

If you kept up on BeOS news the last couple years and used BeOS like myself and others have you would know that this is just not the case. Be had been planning to file suit against MS for a long time, and the MS restrictions of charging OEM's more money if they load another OS besides just Windows has really hurt BeOS. Honestly, think about it here...with Windows on so many millions and millions of computers do you think any OS no matter how good it is or how much people like it would stand a chance when OEM's would lose money installing that OS alongside Windows on a new PC? I don't think so, and that's anti-competitive.

You want me to build you a dual-boot system? I'll charge you extra for it, just because it will take more time to build it so all the hardware works with both OSes, then the time to install both OSes, and make sure it all works.
Money is what a business is about. I tried offering BeOS, but NO ONE wanted it. Same with Linux in this area. So, I just build what people want (WindowsXP systems now).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

You totally misunderstood me. I am talking about MICROSOFT charging more to OEM's (Computer makers) just for the computer makers being able to load another OS besides Windows onto their PC. Does Microsoft have to do any extra work for this? No, the computer maker (OEM) does, and they have to pay Microsoft more just because of that, and they shouldn't have to.

And of course no one wanted BeOS on your computers, it never really got into the mainstream, i'm sure 99.9% of all people didn't even know what it was, and that's mainly because the hardware support and available software programs never reached the height to make the OS more useable and popular, but it very well could have if Be, inc. had the money to keep on going.

Good comment James. Nothing like installing an OS and EVERYTHING actually working upon first boot with ALL drivers installed :) Customers really DO like this contrary to the opinions of masochists that enjoy editing thousands of config files before they can use their systems...........

You really think we edit thousands of text files? Even still, I'd rather have one bad text file that broke one app than a bad registry that took out the whole machine. Most Windows folks would agree ;-)

It's not exactly all that hard to restore the registry.

Haven't you ever heard of a contract?

Correction, if Be had a marketing department, and if JLG had half a brian for business sense, then Be could have gotten at least SOMEWHERE.

Compdoc, I think you misunderstood. I was not being sarcastic when I posted, just realistic. If someone wants a Linux system only, the OEM cost of the WindowsOS comes out of the final cost, and I'll set up the system with what I know works. I can't support Linux, though, as I have no idea how to fix problems with it.
Besides, I am trying to learn a bit about how Linux works, just for my own knowledge. I have been playing with the newest build of Redmond Linux, and it is really good for the new Linux user from what I have seen so far.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Chriz, you posted "I am talking about MICROSOFT charging more to OEM's (Computer makers) just for the computer makers being able to load another OS besides Windows onto their PC"
Well, *I* am an OEM, and I have signed NO contracts like that. If the OEMs want to b**** about the contract THEY WILLINGLY SIGNED, it is THEIR problem. That's MY opinion, being an OEM myself. They knew what kind of contract they signed, and they are using the Anti-Trust mess to try and get out of it. Go over to ZDNET, and check out how the "big 2 or 3" PC makers are b****ing about a $4 increase in licensing fees to MS, and charging "they only are doing this for a profit", while ignoring the fact the 20 or so smaller pc makers are getting price CUTS.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

It is for a home user.

Only if the registry gets to a point where it's just too bad to use System Restore. Even then, it's still not too hard.

It is if you are a home user. Most home users don't even know there is a feature called "System Restore".

Maybe with OS's before XP. It does it pretty much automagically now...........

Until other OS's get to the point where the are as USER FRIENDLY as MS OS's, there will be no hope for any real competition in the market. That means you 'Nix guys will have to concede to "EASY TO USE" is the best way and I don't see that happening.........

Ease of use, or learning curve? If you are simply saying that there is a greater learning curve then I would have to agree, but as for ease of use no. ;-)

All I can say is..................LOL!! :)

Many alternative Operating Systems have a greater ease of use for what they're designed to be used for. BeOS is multimedia, Linux is server/programming, MacOS is productivity, Windows is all around. However, pre-2000, the code is HORRIBLE. Windows XP is a newbie-ized 2000. It's a good operating system, but there's lots of unnecessary bloat to further Microsoft's claim in the computer software realm. Windows Messenger has to be the worst thing about XP, but I can live with it.

There are steep learning curves involved with using any operating system. But once someone's used to the Windows OS, it's quite difficult to get used to an operating system that gives you far more control over every aspect. *shrug*

Not to mention that only Millenium Edition and XP have System Restore. Millenium Edition, however, is just a broken down 98SE. System Restore is a great feature, but if you can't boot into the OS, how are you supposed to utilize the feature? I'm not sure though, never screwed up my system so far that I had to restore a previous registry state before being able to boot into Windows. Only had the occasion of one time not being able to boot into the OS because I had set the shell to C:\Explorer.exe, big mistake. Had to boot into the DOS prompt and edit my system.ini, hehe. I like breaking my Windoze computer. I'm that bored usually :).

Most people were used to Windows by the time they modified their contracts to make it so that you had to pay more if you wanted to pre-install another OS. Even so, most PC makers would rather sign contracts to get the OS at a lower price even if they wouldn't be able to have that option of pre-installing multiple OS'. It's bad for the consumers and very anti-competitive, but it saved the OEM's money. Many computer users still don't know about anything but Windows and Linux. They usually think that Linux is for hackers or something, at that.

fewt, I think you would disagree if someone said the sky is blue............

...........But Betanews wouldn't be the same without you just the same :)

Yep, Windows is all around ease of use, hands down.

As far as learning curves, with Windows XP you have to be a complete retard to not learn it quickly and it also has the stability that we have all longed for in an OS. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I control my OS, nobody else, and I don't need text files to do it.

There are rare cases that you need to open a text file in Windows to get something done, like removing Windows Messenger, which I also despise. To totally remove Windows Messenger from an XP install, take the following steps:

There are two ways, number 1 being the

best.

1) Type or copy and paste "C:\Windows\INF\SYSOC.INF" in Start > Run and

find the line below:

msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7

Remove the word "hide" from the line and save the file. You will now

have an entry in Add/Remove Programs. Remove the bia***!

OR

2) (XP Pro Only) Leave it installed, but tell Windows to never let it

run. If you're running XP Professional, you can use GPEDIT.MSC to

prevent Messenger from loading. Otherwise, even disabling it in startup

won't cause it to "always" not run. NOTE: Outlook, Outlook Express and

some Microsoft web pages can still make it load. Also, Outlook Express

takes a long time to load when you use this method.

Type or copy and paste "GPEDIT.MSC" in Start > Run

Go to

Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components

> Windows Messenger

You can now modify whether it starts initially and/or whether it's to run at all.

1) Type or copy and paste "C:\Windows\INF\SYSOC.INF" in Start > Run and

find the line below:

msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7

Remove the word "hide" from the line and save the file. You will now have an entry in Add or Remove Programs. Go to the Control Panel > Add or Remove Programs > Add/Remove Windows Components and scroll to the bottom of the list. Uncheck Windows Messenger, click Next and viola, it's gone for good!

You do it in safe mode.

Yeah, hehe, the shell is not in C:\Explorer.exe, to use the Explorer shell, in the registry, the setting is just Explorer, I think.... it could be just explorer.exe, been awhile since I've screwed around with that.

Explorer is called from the following locations. (Off the top of my head. 3.x also used the system.ini method, just
s/EXPLORER/PROGMAN/i

(95, 98, ME)
system.ini - SHELL=C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE

(NT, 2000, XP)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Windows NT\WinLogon\SHELL="%SYSTEMROOT%\explorer.exe"

I can understand the thinking about not wanting someone to set up a "dual-boot" system, especially if they screw something up. I just *hate* when some "computer expert friend" works on a customer's new system. I have had to break the bad news about replacing a motherboard to one customer, because their "computer expert friend" fried the board for them. Another had the entire system hosed (3 days after she bought it from me!) because she let her "computer expert" nephew on it.
Ok, none of that has to do with the post....sorry...not here today...

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

and every comment that didn't start off that way, i.e. seeing the situation for what it is, has b****ed and moaned about Microsoft being the big bad evil company that crushed BeOS.

The OEM's that you speak of could have installed BeOS on their computers right alongside Windows. No-one would have stopped them! They would mearly have to pay a bit more per copy of Windows to do that. It was in Microsoft's best interests to do that and it was in the OEM's best interests (i.e. money) to keep to those contracts.

The contracts were found to be illegal, so BE may have a case. (I'm sure they do, else it would not have gone this far.)

Fewt, *which* contracts were found to be illegal? All, or part? If part, which parts? Facts, man, not blanket statements....

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I posted the link the other day, Jackson found the OEM licensing restrictions to be illegal. (I have it linked on my office PC)

Jackson was biased.

Who cares, most of his ruling was upheld.

http://www.microsoft.com...v01/11-02settlement.asp

"A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by altering Microsoft’s commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of existing forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:

1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;

2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or

3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.

"

Here's another, dated *1995*

http://www.cmcnyls.edu/USCases/USvMSJud.HTM

"B. Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement that by its terms prohibits or restricts the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-Microsoft Operating System Software product. "

Here's another.

http://biz.yahoo.com/msft3/final2.html

"iii. OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration. Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence, startup folder, internet connection wizard, desktop, preferences, favorites, start page, first screen, or other aspect of a Windows Operating System Product to -

(1) include a registration sequence to obtain subscription or other information from the user;
(2) display icons of or otherwise feature other products or services, regardless of the size or shape of such icons or features, or to remove the icons, folders, start menu entries, or favorites of Microsoft products or services;
(3) display any user interfaces, provided that an icon is also displayed that allows the user to access the Windows user interface; or
(4) launch automatically any non-Microsoft Middleware, Operating System or application, offer its own Internet access provider or other start-up sequence, or offer an option to make non-Microsoft Middleware the Default Middleware and to remove the means of End-User Access for Microsoft's Middleware Product. "

I don't think this answers the question about the pricing structure, though. I don't think the bit of added cost for being able to dual-boot would be "restrictive" unless it is a triple-cost increase.
I guess I need to ask an attorny about all this (just to have someone that can understand the doubletalk legalspeak).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

It's all good :)

Nuff said.........

Bull, he spoke out against a company that attempted to turn his courtroom into a circus. I don't blame the guy one little bit.

I blame him very much, Fewt. A judge is supposed to be UNbiased, and NOT allow his emotions to come in to play in his court. If a judge cannot do that, that judge does NOT need to be there at all. Judge Jackson has proven in *3*- count them *THREE* trials, against the same company, that he can NOT be that way. Microsoft should have brought that up right off, and gotten a non-biased and impartial judge. Their loss for being stupid and not doing that in the beginnning.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

No judge is unbias, just as no person is. ;-)

Fewt, you posted "No judge is unbias, just as no person is. "
This is true. BUT, all judges are supposed to go by LAW, not emotion or personal feelings. That is what has gotten this judge in trouble before. I wonder if BeOS will try to get Judge Jackson to preside over their case, seeing as how this judge has a huge ax to grind against MS?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I'm sorry, he did go by law. He made his comments to the media, not in his findings of fact. ;-)

You seem to be missing one big thing here fewt.

You posted three quotes that you claim prohibit the actions and OEM agreements in question in the Be -vs- Microsoft suit.

One at 8:03, one at 8:05, and one at 8:07

The one at 8:05 was from a 1995 ruling. Please note that it does not apply as Microsoft did NOT "prohibit or restrict the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-Microsoft Operating System Software product." OEMs were free to install and sell BeOS on as many machines as they liked. If you read the rest of the 1995 ruling and the rulings in the subsequent appeals cases you will see that this clause addresses standalone OS installs, not the dual-boot configuration that Be wanted.

As for the 8:03 and 8:07 posts, both of these agreements were written AFTER the supposed injury to Be by Miccrosoft. Neither of these rulings was in effect at the time that Be claims to have been damaged.

So, nice try, but it'll take more than that to support the case.

You understand that the monopoly case opens the door to retroactive lawsuits, including companies that *HAVE BEEN* (past tense) damaged. BE fits right in. They are making the claim that they were damaged because HP was not allowed to bundle their O/S. It's a credable claim.

Fewt, you posted "They (BeOS) are making the claim that they were damaged because HP was not allowed to bundle their O/S."

I say this is BS, as Microsoft did not prohibit the bundling- it was a decision made be the OEMs ALONE, based on "the almighty dollar". Even if it only cost fifty cents more per machine, the OEMs would still b****, and would still say no. You read that article on ZDNet about how the 2 biggest OEMs are b****ing about paying $4.00 more per copy of of MS software, claiming "MS is only changing the pricing to increase profit!" while completely ignoring the price DROP the 20+ smaller OEMs are getting. HP is one of those b****ing about the $4.00.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

They can make that claim....but as we've said before, they can claim ANYTHING. (claiming it doesn't make it true)

The fact that Microsoft agreed to the inclusion of these clauses in the settlement agreements does NOT in any way imply admission of wrongdoing.

So citing these clauses does not have ANY relevance to the Be -vs- Microsoft case.

Funny, even his peers blamed him QUITE A BIT. Are you now an expert on the US justice system as well?

Nope, I just realize that he's human. Humans do things like that. It's a fact of life. ;-)

OMG, stop making pathetic excuses for EVERYONE except Microsoft. Everyone else is allowed to have flaws and can be excused for them but not the "evil" Microsoft.........

It's sickening

That's funny, just a few articles ago I gave them the benefit of the doubt about a security hole (SQL 7). Perhaps you just missed it because you couldn't attempt to bash me for it. ;-) haha

I've never understood why everyone's so Hell-bent on ripping MSN Messenger out of Windows... it only takes up a meg or so... not exactly much these days :o)
Unticking "load on startup" in the options worked for me. And it's still lying dormant on the system in case I give up on Trillian one day.

It's been a lone time since I last changed the shell= line :o) Anyone remember Litestep? That was neat. Wonder if it's still in development.

Agreed that it's currently only a claim, I never implied otherwise. The past cases have lots of relevance to this one. Past cases are sited constantly, you should know that, you tried to use it against me just the other day. :-P

Some of us enjoy having a choice.

Except that you didn't cite past cases.

You cited two of the new settlement agreements.

Findings of fact in past cases would be relevant, but the only relevance settlement agreements are going to have is if there is an admission of guilt in the settlement.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!

No, we don't.. We have Wendor's OPINION. ;-)

I totally agree with that point of it, that Be Should have marketed BeOS more. But then again, maybe they didn't think it was evolved enough to market like that. Cause really it wasn't. It was evolved enough for a lot of people, but not the mainstream. It was coming very close though....THEN came that stupid focus s***.

No, we have a Wendor! LOL!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I'm guessing you didn't follow the links, the most important being the document titled "FINAL JUDGMENT".

Actualy I did. And again we are back to where the problem is your lack of knowledge of legal terms.

The judge did not write the "Final Judgement"

The "Final Judgement" is a settlement agreement worked out by both parties and submitted for approval by the court. The judge may chosse to modify or add language to the document (neither of these two have such) and the judgement does not go into effect until signed byt he judge and recorded with signature and seal (please note that both of the "Final Judgements" you posted links to have NOT yet been approved by the judge)

The other key point is that conditions on future behavior in the settlements are not admissible evidence of wrongdoing in US courts for any future cases unless an admission of guilt, fault, or wrongdoing is also included. (neither of the links you posted include any such)

So, in the limited scope of the Be -vs- Microsoft suit, none of the three links you posted have any relevance to the case at all.

Excuse me? Come again? What's this part then? "The Court having jurisdiction of the parties hereto and of the subject matter hereof and having conducted a trial thereon and entered Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999, and Conclusions of Law on April 3, 2000;

The Court having entered judgment in accordance with the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law on April 3, 2000, that Microsoft has violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, as well as the following state law provisions: Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16726, 16727, 17200; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-26, 35-27, 35-29; D.C. Code §§ 28-4502, 28-4503; Fla. Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 10/3; Iowa Code §§ 553.4, 553.5; Kan. Stat. §§ 50-101 et seq.; Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 367.170, 367.175; La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:122, 51:123, 51:1405; Md. Com. Law II Code Ann. § 11-204; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.772, 445.773; Minn. Stat. § 325D.52; N.M. Stat. §§ 57-1-1, 57-1-2; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1, 75-2.1; Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1331.01, 1331.02; Utah Code § 76-10-914; W.Va. Code §§ 47-18-3, 47-18-4; Wis. Stat. § 133.03(1)-(2); and

Upon the record at trial and all prior and subsequent proceedings herein, it is this _____ day of June, 2000, hereby:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:"

No my friend, that is a JUDGEMENT.

fewt says "Excuse me? Come again? What's this part then? "The Court having jurisdiction of the parties hereto and of the subject matter hereof and having conducted a trial thereon and entered Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999, and Conclusions of Law on April 3, 2000"

Exactly what it says...that there were findings of fact and conclusions of law...NEITHER of which are included in this document.

fewt then says "Upon the record at trial and all prior and subsequent proceedings herein, it is this _____ day of June, 2000, hereby:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:"
No my friend, that is a JUDGEMENT."

No. It is not until it is signed and sealed and recorded. Which it has not currently been. (A previous version was, and was then ordered withdrawn pending review)

Face it fewt. You know nothing about the law except what you have gleaned from TV shows. You proved that in the AOL -vs- Triallian posts and you are continuing to prove it here.

I'm tired of trying to teach you. Go live in your TV based dream world and PRAY that you never have to go to court for anything, since your blatant misunderstanding of basic legal procedures will most certainly result in a quick judgement against you (unless you hire a lawyer who is smart enough to get you to shut up and not make a fool of yourself in front of the judge)

Future lies and/or ignorance on your part when it comes to legal matters will be laughed at and ignored.

What's there to teach, it's not like you know your a** from your elbow anyway. It's pointless because you can not teach that which you do not understand.

LOL

After the number of times you have publicly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of even basic legal concepts and terms, your attempts to claim a position of understanding and superiority are ridiculous.

But hey, keep running with that theory of "When someone proves you wrong/ignorant....call them names and insult them to try and change the topic and hide your ignorance" It hasn't made you look any less the fool yet, but you can keep trying.

ok guy, you continue to know everything, and we'll all keep laughing at you. ;-)

"With one stroke, Jobs killed the clone makers and turned off the "info spigot" that let Be keep BeOS harmoniously running on PowerPC hardware. These days, BeOS on PowerPC is pretty much a dead concern."

Not knowing a great deal of history surrounding Be and Apple, I was curious if a suit was was filed and if so what resulted?

http://www.byte.com/docu...%3D465/byt20001031s0001/

"As it became clear that Apple didn't want anything (BeOS, mkLinux, Windows, etc.) but the Mac OS running on their hardware, Be created a version of BeOS for "Wintel" hardware."

And then some..

http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/02/0102.html

First of all, which computer manufacturers had an interest in bundling Beos with their pcs? Can they prove any of the Oems wanted to offer Beos? Don't they have to prove beyond their concept theory. The hardware support for Beos was extremely bad. Just imagine the Tech Support chaos. " My Windows doesn't power on"--"What's the problem?" "Is giving me an error message....it says BeOS"

I have to admit BeOS was a good potential OS, but they never delivered. They changed their focus to embedded devices anyways. They killed BeOS. A lot of people downloaded their free version (myself included) and realized that only limited hardware worked and no decent applications were available.

In a time when we have high quality operating systems like Win XP, L'nux, and OSX why would anyone in their right mind use Beos for their primary OS?

Well, I know for a fact that Compaq was trying to break a deal with Be, but MS intervened, as I remember hearing it on NPR.

Are you a dumba**? Be didn't switch to embedded devices because they wanted to, Be switched to embedded devices because Microsoft forced them to. Go read the brief before posting this s***.

No, they didn't.

Be was ACTUALLY just starting to get somewhere, heck, they even made it to having boxed copies on the shelves at BestBuy, bundled with Gobe Productive's Office Suite, and gaining large amounts of support from hardware manufacturers and developers.... JLG in his inifinite wisdom pulled out right when business for Be was starting to take off, they completely cut off the desktop OS development and went soley to BeIA. This was a DUMB move, as it is obviously seen from what has happened to Be Inc. now.

I guess JLG doesn't understand the importance of marketing, and expecting business to take off right out of the gate, it takes a LONG time to build a successful and stable company, and you have to wait out the bad to get to that good.

Androo posted "switched to embedded devices because Microsoft forced them to"

Androo, the complaint is just that- a Complaint. Nothing is "fact" in the complaint until PROVEN fact. So please remember, as otherwise you could be proven very wrong if Be looses this case.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

dumba**??? BeOS stopped trying to find their place in the industry. Just look at Linux and how it has matured over the years. OSX is getting better over time. This has nothing to do with what Microsoft does or doesn't do. The problem with this companies is that they try to become what they are not. They are not Microsoft and companies like Apple understand that perfectly. Face it, Microsoft isn't going anywhere. They might lose market share share in the future, but they would be part of this industry regardless. Reality Check..

And by the way I did read the brief written by Be Inc. before I posted. It basically goes on and on saying in their words how Beos is this amazingly technically superior OS, but that we dont have any applications to compete with Microsoft. Hey, maybe I'll release a video game system without any games and see how it sells... They claim their ideal setup for users would be to boot on Windows to use Microsoft Office/ Internet and then reboot to use BeOS to do "multimedia". Microsoft/Apple have Adobe, Avid, Discreet Logic, Digidesign, Macromedia, Alias / Wavefront and the list goes on and on. If BEos was so "superior" they should have invested in creating the applications to prove it and then try to compete.

Jee, I think I'll make some crappy operating system, then I can go sue Microsoft when it doesn't sell.

It truely amazes me how many stupid people there are in this world.

Most of them make comments just like that. :-P haha

money says he never even tried BeOS. money says he's never even seen a screen shot of it.

agreed

I've seen BeOS and while I wouldn't say its a "crappy" OS I would say that its limited hardware support and lack of applications did contribute to it not becoming a mainstream operating system.

That's not the fault of the O/S.

I didn't say it was the fault of the OS. I also didn't say it was Microsofts fault.

Lack of drivers *could* be directly attributed to Microsoft's illegal marketshare gains. IMHO. ;-)

LOL!!! Everything is MS fault, eh Fewt? LOL!!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

No, not everything. Just everything desktop centric for the last 10-15 years. :-P

oh, that's better then >:-P

LOL
James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I would have bought BeOS if it weren't for the fact (at least at the time) that it didn't have 3D video support from Nvidia. Had standard driver support, but no 3D hardware support. :(

It took me around 3 weeks to come up with a "decent system" that would run all hardware, dual-booting BeOS and Win98. I even had one running for a few weeks up here to show off. No one was interested, especially since not much of the hardware could be upgraded because of BeOS.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Microsoft preaches "Interoperability" Lets see them open up their source code so competitors can make software for one interoperable OS.. Open DirectX?.... Open Windows?.... LINUX flavors with a windows "compatibility mode?"
Currently DirectX is not interoperable with other OSes.. maybe it should be... sure would be nice to be able to develop games, drivers, and hardware for one interoperable platform only... maybe MS should nix directX and support the already-open OpenGL (http://www.opengl.org/)standard... maybe they should join and help develop the OpenAL(open Audio- http://www.openal.org/) standard.. it would be nice to have an interoperable console... Cheaper games with reduced licensing requirements Interoperable components... interoperable Multiplayer Video games between consoles..

BeOS, Inc. was hurt my MS's Monopolistic practices.. you cannot deny that MS has cornered or Monopolized the OS Market on desktop machines.... In some cases they make more money per sale of computer than a retailer or manufacturer does... I used to work at a retail chain where computer prices were so competitive that their markup was about $50... not to mention that giving Huge OEMs huge discounts really hurts the small businesses... say a local computer shop that sales prebuilt computers... they cannot compete with the prices of larger manufactures when they have to pay a different OEM price for the same software... as long as the huge OEMs have Huge Discounts on Windows, they have an advantage over the smaller Businesses.. and if they retain that advantage why would they ever consider going to an alternative OS like BeOS or LINUX?...

I have a theory...MS is going to continue doing what it does... all the while LINUX gains popularity... other countries like China already plan massive LINUX support and usage.. it will gain in popularity in domestic schools it will gain popularity in quickly advancing third world countries that continue to develop despite what we view as a slumping world economy Linux is the interoperable OS of today and the interoperable OS of the future... one day we will see a headline in Betanews and slashdot that says "Dell..Gateway, Compaq, HP, or offers Alternative OS on a Mainstream PC" a computer for Joe Bob User who works for his money and wants to save a buck but still have the productivity of using powerful software...

It will happen because of the Open LINUX community.. The individual contributors and the contributing companies... Sun... AOL... RealPlayer... NullSoft.. any company or individual that makes an alternative standard or piece of software code to the Monopoly's software... this includes hardware makers that Actively support LINUX(make drivers and/or utilities).....
-MikeGroovy

Well, that was a load of totally biased crap, and a waste of time to read.

Do you even know what interoperable means?

Yeah, let us see the source code so every little Linux Script Kiddie has access to write even more viruses and hacks for Windows like they do for Linux........

Closed source is safer thank you. I don't care about blue screens as much as knowing some little pimple faced 300 Lb. lard a** with 3 inch thick glasses is trying to hack my system with full access to the source.

OMG! How many viruses are there for Linux? It's kinda funny too because well, the source code is RIGHT THERE!

Why would the "little pimple faced 300 Lb. lard a** with 3 inch thick glasses" want to create viruses for their favourite OS? =) They stick to hacks instead =)

You are right.. However, using your logic, no windows users would ever write viruses for microsoft products either. When's the last time you met a linux user with the type of knowledge it took to write a Windows virus? Do you know how backwards that post was? Why aren't all the Microsoft kiddies writing them for Linux? LOL!

Virii is one GOOD reason for .NET, it's a new platform that has new ideas and concepts along with learning for past mistakes.

SUN, AOL, Real hmm, maybe you should look at a monoploy replaced by an oligopoly. Yeah we still lose!

Get the picture, now get a clue if M$ goes away tomorrow, you will really be paying next year. Its easy to steal software. Not easy to steal services from those three.

"Since its introduction in 1992, OpenGL has become the industry's most widely used and supported 2D and 3D graphics application programming interface (API), bringing thousands of applications to a wide variety of computer platforms" (quoted from OpenGL.org.

So if opengl has existed since 1992 and is so wonderful, why didnt any games developers make use of it? Most games usually come the latest version of DX on the cd, so someone could have easily created a opengl layer for Win95 etc and included it on game cd's. OpenGL had years to become popular for gaming on PCs and it just didnt happen. Why would anyone dump DX which is apparently far easier to develop for in favour of opengl which had its chance and failed?

oh and as for the big oems offering PCs with linux... hmm seem to remember Dell used to, but gave up. Cant see them going back down that road in the close future.

Microsoft created their own "standard" and left OpenGL on the sidelines.

Who will be paying? You? That's your problem.

Not to mention that the security toolkit that ships with VS .NET has a hole in it? ;-)

One thing that pisses me off about "OpenGL" is it does NOT support NT based systems. I tried getting OpenGL to work since my NT4 Workstation days. Wouldn't even support Win2K, and I doubt it works with XP either.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

It is supported on NT systems, OpenGL support is built into most video cards these days.

Actually my problem is the snippy little *NIX geeks. Always arguing how much better *NIX is than M$. Big deal, if it is or isn't M$ makes money. IBM puts money into *NIX to sell its software and systems. IBM would use M$ if it could do what it wanted with ut and *NIX would be hiding in the closet like most of the *NIX freaks on prom night.

"Actually my problem is the snippy little *NIX geeks. Always arguing how much better *NIX is than M$. Big deal, if it is or isn't M$ makes money. IBM puts money into *NIX to sell its software and systems. IBM would use M$ if it could do what it wanted with ut and *NIX would be hiding in the closet like most of the *NIX freaks on prom night. "

Oh? I'm one of those *nix geeks guy, I'm sorry if I've cut into your profits, but well again, that's your problem not mine. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's true. Windows is not a server O/S, it never has been, and it never will be. It's a toy made for home users, it's insecure, unstable, and proprietary. It has no place in any mission critical environment. IBM would use Microsoft's products if they worked as advertised, but well they just don't. As for hiding in the closet like "*nix freaks on prom night", What's your problem? Is it that unix people make more money than you do? I'm sorry, again, it sucks to be you. On prom night, this *nix geek was busy getting laid, as I have EVERY DAY SINCE. Again, it sucks to be you. ;-)

Fewt, when you posted "It's a toy made for home users, it's insecure, unstable, and proprietary", I had to smile.
Of course, I disagree with you, but then you knew that :-)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I suppose it's ok for corporate desktops too now that it's reached 5.0. heh heh

Oh? I'm one of those *nix geeks guy,
gLad TO pLEaSE YUo.

I'm sorry if I've cut into your profits, but well again, that's your problem not mine.
Not my profits. But then again Windows AND Linux are getting rid of UNIX in concert. Red Hat is getting rid of everyone else in the Linux world. Did you know that Apple is going to be the largest UNIX distributor and its mostly desktops. Does that weaken UNIX's position more or less? SCO tried and died, now they are owned by Dr. DOS, thank M$ for that without a windfall settlement would Caldera still be around?

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's true. Windows is not a server O/S, it never has been, and it never will be.
It sure is and put Novell (pronounced 'novel' as in novel attempt) in its place and endless swirling hole as analysts have put it.

It's a toy made for home users,
Funny that is what an iMac with UNIX is. Open up and say Aqua.

it's insecure,
Nobody has gotten to me yet. There is always a hack and a counter hack and a lack of interest and a lack of budget and a lack of oversight and a lack of caring. I run into these alot with people who want Windows. It always seems to be more of the ones who are using it that is the real problem. IIS out of the box to the web is stoopid and all to common. But so is the amount of Apache errors I see when I am on the web, nothing against Apache, it is the implementers sometimes and the desire to do things other than the wise way or the best way.

unstable,
Been running 12 months strong or was that 10848:53:42. No that isn't from a Cisco router either (I'm sorry I am shining on the Juniper crowd).

and proprietary.
Read as profits.

It has no place in any mission critical environment.
Naval Destroyers, anything other than proprietary SPARC, Alpha, PPC, Texas Insturments, Xillinx (oh there is a market mover). There is that proprietary word again...

IBM would use Microsoft's products if they worked as advertised, but well they just don't.
I haven't seen why not unless not used as advertised. Isn't that why OS2 (M$ product in disguise and sucked too, oops there I go again another group of loyalists are angry in Zimbabwe)isn't here, we support that along with 80+ UNIX sites and two Windows NT sites. Why when I call IBM they always want WIN2K to be on the server for warranty inquiries??? Because its better maybe, not *NIX.

I know where I stand on this issue. I don't banter because I feel like it.

As for hiding in the closet like "*nix freaks on prom night", What's your problem?
The endless *NIX is better crap always being spoken. Where is the profit margin on a software sale of zero dollars? It doesn't exist except for more expensive than WIN32 solutions; customized Linux programming. How is this better? Support, yeah right only for the stoopid people, we don't but it we don't need to. Maybe this is why Red Hat seems to be so close to always seeing red.

Is it that unix people make more money than you do?
NO. Maybe I am a UNIX person.

I'm sorry, again, it sucks to be you.
No but I do get sucked alot.

On prom night, this *nix geek was busy getting laid, as I have EVERY DAY SINCE.
Go get em kid.

Again, it sucks to be you. ;-)
NO. Not really. ;@

I get to emotional maybe I'll go eat a penguin for lunch.

Are you implying that if something is already available, why try to better it? (Whether or not YOU think it is better is moot) Ask Linus this question Fewty...

LOL What a troll.

btw..

"NO. Maybe I am a UNIX person. " - No.. You aren't.

He's a Microsoft troll, you are a *nix troll...

And on top of that, you think you are some supreme being because of it.

Wow, you can bring up an issue which has already been proven to be tremendously overhyped, and just something that was brought about in order to hurt the VS.NET launch....

But I would expect nothing less from a *nix troll such as yourself.

LOL a *nix troll, that's good. :-P Supreme being huh? Hmm, what an interesting concept. :-P

Overhyped? A buffer overflow in a tool that was designed to stop them? Come on, it doesn't get much worse than that.. Gotta resort to that name calling as always I see. Nice to see you too CPUGuy.

Once again you contradict yourself, ALL you ever do is call people trolls because they do not have the same opinion as you (and you generally tend to have a VERY VERY VERY close-minded opinion).

No, I have a very open minded opinion. You need to take the blinders off guy. It's folks like you that swear Bill Gates is your daddy that really have the problem. ;-)

If you think that I am 100% pro-MS, MS-for-ALL, then you have absolutely no idea WHO I am.

But then again, what I guess I shouldn't expect you to know something like that.

To quote Pitr, from "User Friendly":

"Root, God, what is difference?"

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I hate to burst YOUR buble, but Linux isn't a desktop OS.

There, we're both happy. *nix = server and Windows is the computer you phyisically USE

Fewt, about that .NET "buffer overflow" problem, read here: http://techupdate.zdnet....0,14179,2849190,00.html
It actually lists what may well be "the truth" behind the problem, vs the media hype.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Not to be picky or anything but there's no such thing as 'virii', the plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'.

"When's the last time you met a linux user with the type of knowledge it took to write a Windows virus?"
Every single one of them that can program (to at least some degree). Writing something that works through Outlook is as easy as going to Microsoft's site and having a look at the vba api that you can use. If you want a more intelligent virus (one that takes more then 5 minutes to write) then knowing the in's and out's of the PE format is as easy as finding the spec on the web.

It's not a desktop O/S? I had better put my notebook in the server rack then!

Please, there are more "Linux haters" than there are "Windows haters". There are hundreds of millions of people out there using Windows, why aren't they creating Linux viruses? Tell me why there have only been a handful of them. If it's only Linux people creating viruses then why did my PC contract Yankee Doodle back in 1989 or 1990 before Linux was even a thought? I think it's pretty ironic that with the ratios the way they are there would be more Linux viruses. Maybe there is a REAL reason there are over 50,000 viruses for Microsoft products, and nearly none for any other O/S. ;-)

"Please, there are more "Linux haters" than there are "Windows haters". "
I disagree. In fact it would be reasonably safe to say that there are more windows haters on 'slashdot' alone then there are linux haters in the whole world. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that so many people 'hate' Linux. There is much more hatred towards Microsoft.

"There are hundreds of millions of people out there using Windows, why aren't they creating Linux viruses?"
Majority of those users would have trouble writing a program in VB let alone anything else for a start. Secondly, it's fairly simple - number of potential targets. Which do you think is more appealing to some 12yr script kiddy:
a) Write something in vba and email it out via Outlook knowing full well that there are millions of 'dummy' users out there with their fingers ready to click; or
b) Write something that will take them a lot longer to do, require more knowledge which may then only hit a few people (wether that's a dozen or a few hundred or even a few thousand it's nothing in comparision to the number of potential Outlook dummies).
Which of those two earns them more bragging rights?

Why is it that you no longer see any trully ingenious viruses like those in the late 80's and early 90's? The ones that were written by great programmers that could do just about anything. Because of the point I made in the previous paragraph. It's all to do with popularity of a platform. Why waste your time writing something that may or may not impact several people when in 5 minutes you can write something that can potentially hit several million people?

"Maybe there is a REAL reason there are over 50,000 viruses for Microsoft products, and nearly none for any other O/S. ;-)"
You'd think that someone who claims to be so intelligent could have worked that one out on their own!

Most people outside the elitest geek comunnity have never even heard of Linux. And, if you are going to write a worm virus to get your rocks off you want to have it spread to the most computers possible. As you have said many times fewt Linux is just not one enough computers (or comments to that effect).

I'm sure there's some twisted "I'll show you, bill gates is my god L1n0X suxors" type out there beating his head against the wall because he can't get a virus to infect anything other than his home directory. :-P

Ever heard of the Quake series of games?

Most modern game engines, like the Quake engine, Unreal engine etc support besides Direct3d and OpenGL other APIs. OpenGL support is built into the hardware of the graphics card. I am sure many of use OpenGL without even knowing about in many cases.

Myom

I suppose you must feel somehow justified in making similar assumptions about me. :-P

It really doesn't matter. Microsoft is in the business of making money. There's no point in argueing if it's right or not, because there is no answer to that. Laws are based on unfounded beliefs and opinions of legislative bodies that are, for all intent and purposes, currupt. Thusly laws are currupt.If you were to take a completely analytical standpoint on this(which is what governing bodies and judges should do) you'd realize that they're doing something that this country was founded on and has fought hard to protect...Capitolism, survival of the best companies. Yes, it's suppose to build monopolies, that's what capitolism does. That's a fact you can't argue. What you can try to argue is that your belief is something else, your beliefs tell you this is wrong. This nonsense that other companies should be given a chance to succeed is completely against a capitolistic society. You crush your potential competition before they can hurt your business. That's why pattents and copyright exist. If MS can be sued for this, then i'd really like to see back to the future the ride in disneyland. Same premis, just a cercumstance that brings it closer to home and gives it a better light for average consumers hearing that MS is a money hungry evil company. MS=capitolism in it's purest form.

Correction: "MS=anticapitolism in it's purest form"

umm, yeah. I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that. MS wants to make as much money as it possibly can, if it has no competition them it can make conceivably more money.Monopolistic tactics are completely capitalist, thusly MS is capitalism

Go read the definition of capitalism.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

My point exactly. "and the development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." That pretty much spells it out for me. Microsoft is Anti-Capitolist. They do not allow anyone else to compete with them in the free market. (There's no use arguing with me here, you can't prove me wrong.)

The whole point of business in a free market is to try to gain money by selling more of your product/service, you do this by trying to beat out your competition.

How is this any different than what MS does?

There's no such thing as a free market. Every market in any form has rules.

Well then please explain this... "They do not allow anyone else to compete with them in the free market."

Are you contradicting yourself?

Lemme correct myself. There's no such thing as a "truly free market" as *you* believe America is built on. "Free" entails freedom, yet as with any freedom there are rules that must be obeyed.

Who ever said I believed that the market in America is a true free market?

I certainly don't recall EVER saying that, and have actually made posts quite contradictory to that.

You say these things consistantly. If you honestly believe that Microsoft has not commited any crime (Though they have been found guilty, with the ruling upheld on appeal) and should go on with business as usual despite American law (as they are doing today), then you have a very poor understanding of how capitalism works. It's kind of funny, because it seems they have a pretty sad understanding of how it works too. (Compete by any means necessary, no law will get in our way) ;-)

There is no doubt in my mind that they broke the law, it's just that a) the law is not quite fair in this case, and 2) The anti-trust case (and all the hundreds of millions, slight exageration, of cases that have come about since then) are run soley by MS's competitors, rather than trying to beat the fairly (or unfairly, however you look at it, you say unfairly), in the market place.

Now, you with the MS settlement, they said MS could only charge one uniform fee to the top 20 OEMs, so those top of the top 20 (2 or 3 in particular) are complaining because their licensing costs went up by a wopping $4, saying that MS is just trying to proffit from this, however, they brought the price for the OEM's on the lower part of the list down in order to level it out.

The case is nothing but a circus, and nothing but the states being payed off by MS's competitors in order to force harsher rules on MS.

Yes, I want a piece of the action. I failed grade 4, been arrested for drunk driving, lost my job and my wife divorced me and it's all Bill Gates fault!*

Gimme money.(that's, what I want)

BE, Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner and all the other money grubbers get in line. If you build it(a better product), they will come (people will buy your stuff).

*May or may not be true.

Uhh.. AIM is top notch, and so is BEOS. ;-)

well at least BeOS is

You can build the best product in the world, but if you have a non-existant marketing department, you aren't going to sell a damn thing.

Man kid, you got problems. Name one problem with the AIM client and the AIM protocol that makes it any less than the others. (Don't go off on company decisions, I'm talking technical)

Tacky name?

Bad AIM
Take AIM
Ready, AIM, Fire
etc.

;-)

And the implication is that this is Microsoft's fault? I'm confused... Company X can't build a better product. Must be Microsoft's fault. No wait... they could build a better product so, um... okay, they can't market it. *That* must be Microsoft's fault. No wait... they could build a better product and they could market it... hrm... well, they can't support it! That's it! That's Microsoft's fault! Wait... this is ridiculous.

Maybe not technical reasons per se, but really that's not the issue:

-> They refuse to interoperate with other clients. This is inevitble. It should work like e-mail where the client application is largely unimportant. In fact, they are not integrating other features (video, for example), because due to stipulations on the merger, when they do that, they have to interoperate.

-> Away messages - why does it *still* have that stupid window showing all the time.

-> Why does it install no less than 7 icons for their stupid online service every time I upgrade it. That's absolutely infuriating.

-> Let's get some UPnP support in there, please.

Sure it is, he claimed that AIM was not top notch. I want to know why he made that claim. ;-) I like the "stupid away window". As for icons, it's par for the course. Why would you want UPNP in a messaging client?

HAHAHAHA!

Why UPnP? So features like voice/video/file-transfers work through firewalls that support it (XP's firewall, Linksys firewalls and other manufacturers as they add support) without having to do port mapping and restricting these features to one client behind the router.

Uhh, upnp is not a requirement to pass data across a firewall. ;-)

"UPnP defines common protocols and procedures to guarantee interoperability among network-enabled PCs, appliances, and wireless devices."

Didn't you know that everything bad that has ever happened to a company in the software industry was Microsoft's fault?

Jeez, get with the program!

... it took out my sarcasm HTML tag type things.

AIM protocol is fine. AIM client has ads. AOL blocks AIM clones. That work for you?

No.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-840529.html

Really funny!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

What's next, though? Some programmer working on an independent OS suing Microsoft because his using IE to surf Britney Spears fansites made him neglect the work he intended to do?

No, but if Microsoft kept his new O/S off the market, maybe he would have a valid reason to. Read that PDF that's linked below.

Actually Microsoft did nothing to keep the OS off the market. All they did was tell the OEMs that they would have to pay more if they used unsupported dual-boot configurations.

Read the rest of the complaint....some of the arguments get pretty bizarre. I think they really ended up grasping at straws.

It won't take much to win, Microsoft has already been found guilty of the same crimes in the past. ;-)

Actually what MS was caught on (and told to stop doing) was having OEM agreements that prevented OEMs from having the option of installing anything other than Windows, or that charged OEMs for Windows even if they installed something else in place of Windows.

The restriction on dual-boot and having different price tiers were both ruled as valid business practices.

"Actually what MS was caught on (and told to stop doing) was having OEM agreements that prevented OEMs from having the option of installing anything other than Windows, or that charged OEMs for Windows even if they installed something else in place of Windows. "

Even still, that would have effectively kept BEOS off of OEM boxes.

"The restriction on dual-boot and having different price tiers were both ruled as valid business practices. "

I don't recall reading that anywhere, I was under the impression that was not the case.

Here's part of the proposed final judgement that created that impression.

"III. Prohibited Conduct

A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by altering Microsoft’s commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of existing forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:

1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;

2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or

3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment."

http://www.microsoft.com...v01/11-02settlement.asp

In reality, Apple hurt Be Inc. more than anybody (other than themselves).

Oh? Tell me how. :-)

Please note that Section III A does not apply in this case at all since Microsoft was not "...altering Microsoft’s commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration..." but was instead simply continuing the terms of the agreement (which the OEM had already accepted) that said that there is one price for Windows OEM licenses if they are installed standalone, and a different price for Windows licenses if they are installed dual-boot.

According to the filing, the OEM was threatened.

Fewt, you said "According to the filing, the OEM was threatened. "

Yes, that is the Accusation; it is not proven as Fact, though. I can accuse you of being a disgruntled, Ex-Microsoft employee all day long, but that doesn't make it TRUE. I do believe that would really irk you, though LOL!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

ACK!

I keep wondering this myself.

So far now at least two people have claimed that Apple "hurt" Be and BeOS.

The only information I can reacll regarding Apple and Be was when Apple offered $125 MILLION dollars to purchase Be. (Which Be refused)

After that they have very little dealings with each other at all that I can tell.

Agreed.

Sure, Be hurt themselves (notice, if you read my post, you will see I stated that Be hurt themselves more than anyone else).

How did Apple hurt Be? Oh, how about not giving out the documentation for the G3 and G4 systems so Be could write the OS for the two chips, effectivley forcing them to use the x86 platform in order to stay with current hardware.

They had the ability to move forward with the BEBox, they also had Intel. It's not Apple's fault, they had every right to keep their hardware designed closed.

No, the BeBox was a PowerPC system, also known as an Apple clone, which Apple put a stop to.

So, once again, you are wrong.

Oh, and by the way... why does Apple have every right to keep their hardware design closed (not even really their hardware design, it was made by Motorolla), but MS does not?

They halted BEBox production because they wanted to in favor of Apple hardware. Go read your history again. As for the PPC architecture, it's not apples call to stop them from using it. Apple however owns the rights to the chipset used by MacOS (It's just a romset mind you) and they had every right to tell people they couldn't use it.

Apple only has 4% of the market. If someone wanted to whiteroom clone Apples chipset, well then it's all good. Compaq did that very same thing and the "Clone" was born. As for Microsoft, you take away that which was used to commit a crime.

I think you should read yours.

By looking at these threads i've noticed that some people are pretty pissed about this whole BeOS deal. Personally, I am running Win2k Pro on 2 computers at home. I have never spent a penny on a Microsoft product in my entire life, and i am certain that most of you are no different.
Most home users do not pay for their OS. And be honest, do you know anyone who WANTS to give money to Microsoft? Now, if u already have an OS that lets u do pretty much EVERYTHING, would you SPEND MONEY(not get for free) on BeOS that can't do nearly as much? NO-ONE wants to spend money on an ANYTHING, especially when they can get it for free, the only time purchase is NECESSARY is when the OS is installed at a business. Now, taking that into consideration... The only way for BeOS to make any REAL money is by selling to BUSINESS. And Business is a whole different deal, if BeOS is supposed to be a multimedia only os, there aren't many businesses that are interested, especially when it is incompatible with hardware that they already spent money on. Even with home users, not many people want to purchase or refrain from purchasing certain hardware just to support development of an OS.

Microsoft isn't taking my money. I get to play my Quake3 Urban Terror mod (got the Q3key from a friend who doesn't play anymore), download a bunch of movies from Morpheus, burn a cd with Nero, have FTP+Web server running in the background... all at the same time without any problems. All for free. All with hardware of my choice (NOT the OS developer's choice.)

--------------------------------------------------------
Life is good.
-rate

So instead of being one of the anti-Microsoft sycophants, you'd rather just brag about your policy of piracy. You're killing the entire argument with that kind of behavior.

I might not know the 'typical' home user, but something tells me that the home users you are talking about are not the typical ones. The typical users DO, in fact, pay for their operating system when they purchase a new PC. Anyone who goes into and retailer or internet vender like Dell or Gateway, pays money for their OS. Sadly, they out number the 'savy' users by a large margin and don't get a chance to commit a crime to get around the cost MS charges for their property.

Oh, like Microsoft is such a little angel. You think that Microsoft is any better than me? I'm doing to them what they're doing to so many others (BeOS). If anyone thinks that MS is losing money to me and others who do the same as me, then you should check what this article is all about. How much more profit did Microsoft prevent other companies from making? Let's make a ratio of their "Loss" of profit to other companies loss of profit and chance for profit starting from 1985 +- 2 years.
I am not the bad guy.

If i actually made real money i wouldn't care about paying Microsoft or anyone else, but i can barely afford to pay for hardware even though it's dirt cheap these days.
Maybe if Bill Gates ever created an organization to feed the hungry funded by his billions, then i would eat less every day so i could save up to buy a copy of windows.

But now the only thing i would be doing by paying for an MS product is giving money to a multi-billionare.

"But now the only thing i would be doing by paying for an MS product is giving money to a multi-billionare"

Don't forget that it would also make you a responsible member of society instead of a lowlife, scumbag thief.

"I am not the bad guy. "

Oh yes you are. There is no provision in the law that allows you to commit crimes just because you don't like Microsoft.

Be honest, for all your attempts at justification, you still boil down to just another lowlife scumbag thief and criminal.

I know, being poor sux.

But you obviously don't know how that feels cuz you can afford to be a responsible member of society. $250 a week doesn't exactly allow u to be so generous.

Wow, how many times can you be wrong in one post?

>Personally, I am running Win2k Pro on 2 computers
>at home. I have never spent a penny on a Microsoft
>product in my entire life,

This makes you a criminal and a thif and below contempt. It does nothing to help any of your arguments.

>and i am certain that
>most of you are no different.

Glad to say that you are VERY wrong. Just because you're a lowlife doesn't automatically mean that everyone else is.

>Most home users do not pay for their OS.

100% wrong. Go look up the statistics.

>the only time purchase is NECESSARY is when the
>OS is installed at a business.

Wrong. Try as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you are a thief.

>Microsoft isn't taking my money. I get to play my Quake3...

Ok, so much for you're attempt to justify your lowlife behavior by saying that you are justified because Microsoft is "bad". Looks like you have no morals and will steal from everyone.

Can you even see the idicy of the argument "Here's what I have to say and you should take me seriously because I'm a loser and a criminal"

And how does being poor make it OK for you to break the law?

Scum is scum. Give up trying to justify yourself.

And being a lowlife scumbag thief sucks even more.

It's not stealing if noone cares. Microsoft doesn't care about my lowlife thief ways. They just want to make money, and they know they won't get any money from scum like me, so they don't even try to. BTW, i would never steal anything from anyone. Microsoft doesn't lose any money to me. It doesn't matter to them if i have it or if i don't have it cuz either way i can't pay them for it.

It's not stealing if noone cares. Microsoft doesn't care about my lowlife thief ways. They just want to make money, and they know they won't get any money from scum like me, so they don't even try to. BTW, i would never steal anything from anyone. Microsoft doesn't lose any money to me. It doesn't matter to them if i have it or if i don't have it cuz either way i can't pay them for it.

Actually you mean that he is a pirate and not a thief. Theft involves taking something such that nobody else can have it. Piracy is when you merely replicate something. Yes, piracy is against the law, but it isn't theft.

By the way, your capitalist infused morals may tell you not to be cheap and to pay for everything you need, but my lowlife morals tell me that a copy of windows 2000 is not worth 25 hours of overtime when i can borrow a copy from a friend. If i could easily pay for it, i would. But for now i'll leave the purchasing to people like you.
I know i know, regardless of what i say i am a lowlife theif scumbag, but i want to thank u for contributing to society, and i honestly hope that i will soon be able to do the same.

-rate

"It's not stealing if noone cares."

LOL, Please, please let me be present in the courtroom when you try that logic on a judge someday.

"BTW, i would never steal anything from anyone."

Wrong. You just finished telling us all about all of the stuff you steal.

Semantics.

He's breaking the law and doing a pathetic job of trying to somehow justify his criminal acts.

My preference would be for you to be contributing to society through forced labor in jail.

Being poor and not being able to afford the software means that you should not be using the computer.

You want to have things that you can't afford. Well, welcome to the real world. You don't get to have everything for free.

"It's not stealing if noone cares."
It's not murder if noone cares? Let me guess, you're of the belief that you can only commit a crime if you get caught?

"BTW, i would never steal anything from anyone."
But you *ARE* stealing. So you're admiting to being a liar now?

"Being poor and not being able to afford the software means that you should not be using the computer. "

I disagree. No one should steal software (or anything else for that matter) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be using a computer. There's plenty of software out there at NO COST that performs the same function as Windows. If he wanted to be a functional member of society, you should have chosen that path instead of theft(err piracy). ;-)

ummm... ever hear of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Yup.

Correct.

What I meant to say was "If you can't afford the software, you shouldn't be using the SOFTWARE"

Brain was running faster than fingers (or vice versa)

When you buy a PC with preinstalled OS wuch as Windows, you have just given Microsoft a large sum of money in the purchase price of your PC, or didn't you kow that?

If you buy a PC without windows, or build your own, then install a cheeper OS that does what you need, all the better. However if you then steal a copy of windows you are as the other reply says, a thief.

Capitalism allowed the development of the very software you are stealing...and if you can't (or won't) strive to achieve more for yourself than $250.00 a week in this, the most opportunity-laden country on earth, then you destined for piracy for the remainder of your life. Funnel some of that pirated software know-how into a trade school or Vo-Tech and start making $35.00+ an hour as an IT guy.

Ok, if you can't afford the software, save up for it. It isn't like it is going to be the "end of life" if you don't get it RIGHT NOW. Spend your money on the important things (bills, food, family), then save what's left for "others" like software and hardware.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

He has, did you know most innoculations in the worls are paid for by him? where that Red Hat dork or that Love guy spending their "billions", lol. Microsft deserves money if you use it.

If you speed and you get caight you still get a ticket if the copisn't a loser. You steal money from a cash register you get caught, you're f***ed. You steal software you should get he same.

The Gates foundation helped a copuple of hundred people in the time it took me to write this stoopid message to you. What have you done lately...bang a Penguin in its *NIX? Kernal dump that strange flightless bird.

Quokka, you posted "When you buy a PC with preinstalled OS wuch as Windows, you have just given Microsoft a large sum of money in the purchase price of your PC, or didn't you kow that?"

I believe you are wrong on that part. The OEM buys the WindowsOS at one price, and most jack the price by 100% or more to be included in the cost of the system. So, that "large sum of money" goes to the OEM, *NOT* Microsoft.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

"They should change their name to WAS"

BeOS was great. But what are they trying to achieve now? It's dead, Jim!

The whole 2 people who are Be, Inc now and... whos army? (I don't think Palm care) against Microsoft? Forget it :)

I've read through several of the threads so far and have noticed a common denominator of people who have never used the operating system or know little about BeOS and how things went to be able to say "oohh attack the evil microsoft because poor microsoft is a monopoply..."

First off, I run BeOS 5 Pro, WinXP, Solaris, MacOS 8, Win2K, NEXTSTEP, and Linux Mandrake 7.2 on my computers at home.

On the BeBox (700MHZ Athlon 512MB RAM 40GB) I do everything I possibly can without circuming to the limitations posed by BeOS's limmited entrance into the market. It works great as an operating system. Extremely smooth. I can start and stop services on demand and daemon's on demand if they crash or whatnot. The machine itself hasn't been reset for nearly 4 months and that was only because I moved. Its a stable clean operating system that had great possibility in the market as a multimedia desktop OS. And btw, just because its a 'multimedia' desktop OS doesn't mean its not nearly a better just desktop OS. Look at ms windows, isn't it a Multimedia OS? And a poor one at that. I hate XP with a passion purely because of the fact that its getting way to populated with extra junk you don't need and in general just getting bulky. My *nix boxes are just dumb servers so we won't get into that, but I must admit for usability and easy plus clean design Microsoft isn't the best product.

Windows 2000 was getting better, and then they put out XP. Now XP is a hellavalot more stable than 2K but the interface alone takes up nearly 20 percent more of the screen. When I use my machine I don't want extra space taken up by color and flash. If your gonna do something fancy keep it streamlined and small. I don't need a 34 pixel close mimize and maximize button on the top nor do I need a 10 pixel border around my windows? And why make a conventional 2D OS look 3D by adding more stuff to take up space.

On the BeOS Side, it lacks driver suppport in nearly any catagory you want. I am now writing my own drivers for non-standard equiptment. With BeOSr6 driver support was supposed to be a lot more nominal and at the same time provide a nicer IP stack. With Mozilla being ported to Be there was a very strong prospect to be able to do anything in Be you could in windows, plus do it faster and smoother.

v6 Never appeared on the market though because of a stratagy Microsoft used to mantain marketshare instead of allowing the possibility for "the better product." When BeOS tried to populate the market by contacting PC Makers like DELL, IBM, Compaq and so on, they ran into a problem. Microsoft states in thier user agreement that "no other Operating System not supported by Windows shall be able to dual booted or distributed with Microsoft Windows on an end user machine." And manufacturues had signed liscense agreements already saying they would sell Micosoft Windows on thier machines. This automatically elimintated BeOS's ability to have users still game in Windows and do arbituary tasks that they couldn't yet do in Be while still getting used to the "better" OS.

And you know, you can't seriously tell me if you couldn't get your product that you had been building for over three years and you were "so" sure that it would eventually be the better contender, that you wouldn't be pissed if you were pushed off the market by a liscense agreement that someone who already owns 96% of the market had written solely to keep people out of thier already claimed territory? I mean thats not keeping to MS's own words with "The industry is at its best when its developing new products and focusing on innovation." I'd say thats suppressing innovation if I had any say in it at all.

-xk

I can agree with that. I think BEOS was a great O/S (I have personal edition). However, I don't recall seeing a single commercial on TV, nor did I see a boxed product in CompUSA. They had many cash infusions, they could have gotten their name out there. Sure, the OEM agreements held between Microsoft and OEMs kept the O/S off of off the shelf PC's, but I think they could have lived longer had they attempted to market their O/S. Look at RedHat, they don't have any OEM marketshare, yet they turned a profit last year.

Thats a good point, but RedHat is widely known as one of the better flavours of Linux, and it is a solid fact that *NIX OS' are the best serving system available. How much of that profit was derived by desktop use? Thats the real question. Its a whole lot more difficult to compete in the desktop world because you have in general, idiots picking the product. They know nothing about the software or what its abilities are. They do know Microsoft will "take you where you want to go today" because of thier mass advertising campaign and they know DELL, Compaq, HP because they advertise so widely.

Its pretty difficult to convince 13 billion idiots your product should replace the product already housed on your brand new HP. "I mean if it was the better product it would have been on there when I bought it right?" Thats what the general user knows and lives by. And since they don't know why or how the MS OS that was preinstalled on thier machine got there they won't understand that the OS just happens to be the most USED OS and not necissarily the best or even a contender to be the best.

Its like my Father used to say, "I don't drive a Chevy Truck because its the best, I drive it because its what I've always driven before, and why buy a foreign vehicle when I'm content with my Chevrolet."

-xk

"Its pretty difficult to convince 13 billion idiots your product should replace the product already housed on your brand new HP."

Ain't that the truth.

:)

http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf

Some reading material. This is the actual copy of the lawsuit filed by Be Incorporated.

-xk

BeOS was, and still is, a wonderful OS, however, Be Inc. had both bad managment AND a bad marketing department (pretty much non-existant).

To continue the BeOS movement, join the OpenBeOS project at www.openbeos.org (just for those of you who wish to help out).

Second, do NOT complain about the XP UI..... more you should complain about your ignorance (or stupidity, whichever the case may be).... you CAN use the SAME exact interface that Win2k had, AND you can even create your own skin that doesn't take up as much space like you say.... btw, how small is your monitor? Perhaps if it was bigger, you wouldn't be complaining so much, nor is 20% a factual number, unless you are running at a small resolution.

Sorry CPUguy, I think the XP interface sucks. I also though think the Win9x/2k interface sucks too. Example, I hate the fact that I can't *turn off* just the startbar.

Don't take it so personal. Microsoft is not your mother. I wasn't calling her names. In my opinion, the Windows Desktop Operating System is bulky, cunsumes too much resources for what it actually does, is so user friendly it takes 20 steps to do the same thing you could have in one and is UGLY (unless you want to take the time, as i have on my laptop to change every possible setting to look and act exactly like 2K.)

Interface design my friend. Clean simple small. Its an operating system not an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink-tool.

Call me stupid if you want, it won't change anything. I think an Operating System should only do that. Operate. It should allow the rest of the programs that were designed for it to run. And if there are a load of extra things you think you might need at least give me a couple choices in the initial setup as to wether I want to install those options. (accessibility, wordpad?, charmap, paint, and all the other useless junk) If I want to type a document I'll get MS Office, I have never nor never will use wordpad. If I want to do anything with graphic design I'll get photoshop not MS Paint. If I want to surf the net using MS Internet Explorer, I'll go install it or I'll put on Mozilla. I like Mozilla better anways.

-xk

"more you should complain about your ignorance (or stupidity, whichever the case may be).... " -CPUGuy
~~Maybe its the inability to think on a level as isolated as yours~~

WOW! Reading that leads me to believe that BE actually has a leg to stand on.

Not sure I agree with you on that, Fewt. Reading from page 5 on, it seems the main reason Be wasn't included on a dual-boot OEM system, was the "Big OEMs" wanted to keep all the discounts and Windows Logo program crap, PLUS put BeOS on, but couldn't do it.
I would just *love* to know what the "Big OEMs" pay per copy of any Windows OS, vs what I pay on just single user license buying. I would think that if the "Big OEMs" wanted to do it, they could absorb that bit of difference with no problem, thus allowing them to dual-boot. But, that is only my opinion.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Actually, you CAN turn off the start menu. I think if you replace the explorer w/ Program Manager, you can get rid of the start bar. Plus, there are registry tweaks you can use to remove the start/task bar from the system. Don't ask me how exactly, I'd have to look it up but I know its there.

Sure, but I don't want progman. ;-)

Since this link was already included by Nate in the article.....why bother posting it AGAIN here?

Just curious.

For Windows 2000 it would have made the difference between approx $20 per copy and about $24.

For Windows 98 it would have raised the OEM price per copy from around $8 to about $14.

For OEMs smaller than Dell/Compaq/HP the prices stated above are, of course, much higher.

Actually the OEMs were free at any time to sell PCs with BeOS on them. They chose not to. (without any pressure from MS) Heck, even Be didn't pursue that option.

OEMs were also not prevented from selling dual-boot BeOS/Windows systems like Be wanted them to. They chose not to because it would have made a difference in what they paid per OEM copy of Windows.

Sure they were, read that PDF. ;-)

Ya know, you sure do seem to get around. (haha)

Actually through the use of policies you can turn off just about whatever you want. The only practical reason I can see for doing that though is so you can keep your end-user from wreaking havoc on their system and causing more headaches for the IT department.

It's a wopping TWO settings, wow! That's a lot.

Second, as I said before, you can build your own skin if you are not happy with what is available.

Those apps come with the OS in order to give basic productivity tools to the OS. If you don't like them, fine, uninstall them.

And no, good user interface design is offering a simplistic, logical, and seamless means of performing tasks.

BTW, tell one thing that takes 20 steps to do in the explorer shell that would take 1 step in another UI.

Uhh.... Which is more productive to the average user, a word processor, or a movie maker? (WordPad is far from a word processor)

I don't like it (the start bar) It's intrusive on my desktop. I like the minimalist approach. I want the memory it uses back, yet retain all of the functionality the rest of the explorer interface provides. (Icons on the desktop, right mouse button, etc)

Wordpad offers basic word processing features that are not available in notepad. AND if it were anything more than that, people like yourself would be saying that MS is illegally leveragin it's monopoly.

A movie maker is something that needs to come with the OS now, simply because digital camcorders are become a hot item... and don't even start to say that Windows is bloated because of it, Apple ships a fully featured video editor with OSX.

I did read it.

It says specifically that the BeOS only option was not explored because Be chose not to. (Not because Microsoft intervened) (Page 4 Lines 18-20)

It says specifically that Mirosoft did not "prevent" OEMs from installing BeOS in a dual-boot configuration, Microsoft was just going to charge more for dual-boot Windows licenses than for standalone (Page 8 Lines 1-10)
Actually, on Page 6 they claim that Microsoft forbids it, then they correct themselves on Page 8 to say that it just changes the OEM pricing for Windows. (I've seen the LAr OEM agreement...the latter is correct, not the former)

Also, please remember that the document in the PDF is "Claims and Allegations agains Microsoft" and therefore should not be taken blindly as factual. A plaintiff can make ANY allegations they want in a complaint, no matter how outrageous (or even if all evidence is to the contrary)

LOL

Those numbers aren't actually difficult to find.

DAMN!! And here I pay approx $100 for WinME, Win98SE, and XP Home single license OEM, and $150 for XP Pro OEM!! The "Big OEMs" want to b**** about payine only $24 freeking bucks?!?!?! Screw them! They bundle all that crap you don't need on a system, put junk hardware in that I wouldn't touch, don't even bother to make sure anything works before it ships, and they want to b**** about a piddling amount of money for an OS?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

The fact that it's also bundled with OS/X does not make it any less bloated. ;-)

I'm sure that they would have to pay the same price you would if they violated their volume EULA. $75.00-$125 savings per computer is significant. I can definately see where it would be in a companies best interest to comply.

Ever tried minimizing the taskbar and then setting it on auto-hide? Or perhaps just putting it on auto-hide so it is still useful, but does not take up screen space?

Nope, I want it gone. ;-) It's not just a Microsoft thing, I dislike the taskbars in KDE and GNOME too. The only difference is that I *CAN* make them go away (If I chose to use them as my DE) haha

Make it go away... ok, go to stardock.com and download DesktopX, it takes away the taskbar.

You must not have read all of my other posts.

Well, I have, but why do you say that?

Hey, check out Talisman 2. I installed it on my XP system, and it looks like you can do stuff like you want.
I am kind of the opposite from you, Fewt- I like a *really small* taskbar, with nothing else on my desktop but wallpaper. People see the way I have my system set up, and swear they could never use it that way! Myself, I don't want to use a system that has "wall to wall" icons on the desktop.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I almost wish they *would* have to pay that $100 per copy for Win98SE, ME, or XP Home!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputewizard.com

Ahh, but you've seen my desktop. Not a single icon on it. ;-)

I want to do it without losing explorer. (I don't want explorer as just a file manager.)

So Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet! So f'n what!! Are we jealous, hmmmmmm???? More power to him and his monopoly. I've never paid a dime for their products anyways,and let's face it, it's the best OS around...ya gettin' blue screens...then get 2k or XP and take care of your system and quit b****in' already. I've never seen such a collection of whining crybabies...pitiful to say the least, lol.

Its the most used OS. Not the Best by far. There are much nicer more versatile Operating systems out there. A very perfect example is IRIX for the SGI Machines. Its more powerful a hellofalot more stable and its clean small and compact design makes it just as easy to use as Windows. Ok, so since you pirate your copy of Windows, that makes it ok for him to kick the competition out of the market? right... You know the bully in school was always the one who felt left out so he bullied everyone to make them feel less than him. Reminds me of a software firm I know... hmm.. who could it be?

-xk

How can you sue a company for losing business when you have a FREE product?

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

BEOS wasn't free. There was a free "personal edition" but it wasn't nearly as feature rich as it's commercial counterpart. BEOS didn't release their "personal edition" until they discovered that they couldn't get their O/S bundled on OEM systems due to Microsoft's OEM contracts.

As an OEM, I tried getting info from BeOS about offering it on systems I build. Price seemed a *bit* under what 98SE was going for, plus I had a heck of a time getting the hardware right for it. I showed off BeOS 4.0 (which I bought personally), and NO ONE was interested. I tried keeping in touch with Be (which repeatedly claimed on its website it was NOT in competition with MS- it was a "multimedia OS only!") and they didn't want to deal with me since I am not "one of the big guys". I fault BeOS entirely for their downfall, not MS. ESPECIALLY when BeOS claimed it was NOT in competition in the desktop OS market!!
Besides- with that claim, HOW can they now claim MS drove them out of business, by being "anti-competitive"???

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that their demise wasn't their own fault. ;-)

No problem :-)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Give Microsoft a break already!

They are not a bank you can just threaten everytime a company needs abit of cash!

That's just insane :)

Oh wait, my toilet didn't flush because it's broke, must be Microsoft's fault! I need money now!

Gimmie a break.

Homer: Welcome to the internet! How can i help you?

Bill: who is this guy? Is he selling something?

Homer: Can i get some money now?

Bill: O.K guys. "Buy" him!

"I want money... hmmm ... pick a target... any target.... ooo microsoft is a proven monopoly! thats a nice easy target! off ya go lawyers! go get em!"

I tried BeOS, and it's an ok OS, but it lacked in the features and ease of use that Windows has, I'm not even sure it was as configurable as windows, but I was sure that BeOS had potential. The idea that Microsoft is the root of all that is evil in the computer industry is insane, when I first installed BeOS, it complained about my video card, and gave me black and white screens mostly. the reason why all these other OS's aren't beating MS is they are mimicing or trying to go their own way, but if they want to beat MS in an area, they must first understand why MS's products are so popular, get a feel for the OS, the people that do Linux, and all these other ALT OS's have to ask themselves what can I offer in my OS that MS can't, or doesn't. and if this feature/idea is good enough, it might get popular, but you all have you remember, it's like moving from the apple 2 to the 8086 computer, it's breaking away from the standard, and it going to be hard at first, let people learn at thier own rate, and let them enjoy it, I hate seeing everyone trying to say since thier OS isn't more popular them Windows that it must be because MS is using it's monopoly, it could be that they just have a better product for the public.

if the disenfranchasied frog really wanted to sue the guilty party , why didn't he sue Steve Jobs? God J, is the one that shot his boat out of the water, MS probably wasn't even aware of this pimple on the butt of existence.
dch111

Maybe I'm missing part of your argument here.

Apple offered Be $125 million dollars, which Be turned down (they wanted $200 million).

So how did Jobs hurt Be?

Unbelievable...

BeOS, they have been out of the picture for about a year now, I didn't even know they still existed, that is great!! I hope they get a lot of money an start back up with the production of their OS, It would blow MS Windows out of the water, I think if they can get back together, they should focus on security so they can make into the market

Why ?

Start what up? They sold it to Palm.

Didn't you READ the entire column?

BeOS no longer EXISTS.

Read the complaint. It's a joke.

Be makes a ton of allegations that they will never be able to prove. For example they try to claim that Microsoft's diversion from the license agreement with Sun regarding Java was primarily meant as a direct attack on BeOS. (yeah, try to convince a jury of that)

But the REAL funny part is that the core of their argument is not that Microsoft prevented OEM's from installing BeOS (they didn't) but that Microsoft's agreement with OEMs discourages (not prevents, just discourages) installing Windows along with another OS in a dual-boot configuration....and that SOMEHOW that alone was enough to destroy BeOS in the market.

I will consider it a miracle if Be can even convince a jude to send it to trial. I'm betting that the complaint gets thrown out as a nuisance suit.

Be now has case law to support it's lawsuit...M$ has been declared as an illegal monopoly not once but 2x...if Be wins, it will get about 1 Billion dollar$...plus in anit-trust lawsuits all rewards are tripled...M$ should settle soon...I wonder Linux is next to sue...lol

P.S. M$ deserves everything its geeting noe lol

now...it's late...and I'm feeding my daughter because Mommies can be witches at times...I can speell...oops spell

Actually Be still employs 1 person from what I have heard... so really its just this one person final moment of truth. Someone probably told him he would be losing his job soon, consider this job security.

Begging your pardon, but Microsoft has not been declared an "illegal monopoly", but "A monopoly that has abused its' power". In reality, there is now such thing as an "illegal monopoly". (I have been told that a few times in other forums, that's how I learned, hehe).
I don't believe MS should have to go through this "lawsuite", as BeOS' web site has always had "we are not competing with Microsoft" spread all around. They described themselves as a niche multimedia OS. I wish I still had the papers they sent me (as an OEM) about their product, making those claims.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

They aren't competing with Microsoft. They are providing an operating system that sits on the machine WITH Windows. The clause in the contract from Microsoft read,

" ...dual-booting any non-Microsoft Operating System with Microsoft Windows is not allowed under the General End User Liscense Agreement. Any manufacturer who refuses to adhere to this OEM Liscensing contract voids the End-User Liscense agreements for the Microsoft Windows Operating System they deploy on thier End Systems."

I would say that constitutes blocking the competition from thier claimed territory, would you?

Windows 98 OEM Liscensing Agreement:

" ...dual-booting any non-Microsoft Operating System with Microsoft Windows is not allowed under the General End User Liscense Agreement. Any manufacturer who refuses to adhere to this OEM Liscensing contract voids the End-User Liscense agreements for the Microsoft Windows Operating System they deploy on thier End Systems."

Ok? Is that suggesting or pressuring?

Thing to remember- that is only a problem with the greedy idiots that SIGNED that agreement to begin with. All any of the "big OEMs" had to do in the beginning was say NO to the exclusionary licensing, and guess what? THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY EXCLUSIONARY LICENSING. Why can't people remember that? There were no guns to the head, no death threats, just "we will sell to you for less if you do this", and the Big OEMs said "Less? SURE!".
Don't always assume everything is Microsoft's fault- they cannot force anyone to sign anything. I still blame the big OEMs for those contracts. I am a small store, sure; but I have been offered a siimilar contract, and I just said "No, Thank you". Nothing bad happened to me, just I don't get as big of a volumn discount.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

xer0_kelvin

Which OEM License are you getting that partial information from? Is that the multi-volumn lisence? The single user license? Is that one from the contracted, "Big OEM" like HP or Compaq? There are different licenses with different EULAs you know.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Actually, the OEM can sign a different agreement that does allow dual-boot installation. The OEM's in question chose not to.

You will also find that the restriction on dual-boot installation has been challenged before.....and Microsoft was found to be well within their rights.

Since installing in a dual-boot configuration changes the environment that Windows is running under and and can cause additional instability (problems in the Be boot loader for example) and therefore additional support costs, the court found that Microsoft was well within their rights to charge more per copy for OEM licenses that allow dual-boot than for OEM licenses that do not.

Please take special note that the OEM was free to install and sell as many systems as they wanted to with Be as the ONLY OS. But the OEMs chose to not offer Be as an OS option. Even Be admitted that they would be a complete failure as an OS option and that the only way they could sell any copies was to piggyback on another product (specifically Windows). OEMs were free at any time to sell BeOS only systems, dual-boot BeOS/Linux systems, etc.

"I would say that constitutes blocking the competition from thier claimed territory, would you? "

No. I would not.

OEMs were free at any time to sell BeOS only systems. They were free to sell dual-boot BeOS/Linux systems etc.

They were even free to sell dual-boot BeOS/Windows systems, they would just have to pay more per OEM copy of Windows to make up for the additional support costs related to installing/shipping Windows in a configuration totally unsupported by Microsoft.

So no, Microsoft never abused their monopoly power to prevent Be from competing in the OS market.

No, they weren't.

Continue down to page 8 where Be "corrects" their claims they made on page 6 to reflect the actual facts.

The Microsoft LAR (Large Account Reseller) OEM agreement is pretty standard. The language of the agreement matches the claims made on page 8, not the ones on page 6.

Remeber that the document in question is simplay claims and allegations and shoudl not be taken as factual or truthful. Be could have claimed in that complaint that Microsoft reversed gravity and make Be's office fly off into space. (just because it's in the complaint doesn't make it true)

Well i'll start a new subject if anyone reply's to this. Has anyone ever gone to Dell's,compaq's,micron's,ibm, or Hp's website or gone to bestbuy lately? Microsoft does have a great deal of affect on what os is put on each system because of all the contracts that are involved, but i think people should look more at the pc manufactures. Shouldn't the pc manufactures give a different choice of os on a box besides xp or 2000. Dell doesn't in any of thier online ordering. I think microsoft has a monopoly but the pc manufactures aren't even giving the consumer a chance to decide something different.