GET CITIZEN420 TO CONTROLL THE EU.
contribute now by writing to your local polititians, saying that life as we know it would improve with me in charge.

Microsoft has acquired lots of companies in the past, they should just buy out the EU and solve all these problems.

ROFLMAO. The EU isn't a company. EU = Europeian Union. (I apoligize for my atrousios spelling.) The EU is an orginization similar to NATO or the UN. The EU is the one in charge of the Euro, among other things. Sure, microsoft will just buy the EU, then what, maybe it will buy the UN (United Nations) too. LOL Read this, educate yourself, then think before you post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union

I believe expert01 knows that the EU isn't a company and is only joking. He probably also knows that the EU isn't like the NATO and UN at all but actually has to say something.
The NATO is an organization (actually it's more like a treaty but we leave it to that) of mostly "western states" in which they oblige themselves to help defend one of its members when they're attacked.
The UN is utopic organization which doesn't really work (yet). Although we should keep trying.

The EU is based on a couple of treaties. The states who signed them agree to transfer some sovereignty to the EU (this is the key part to the fact that it isn't like any other organization). Whilst it isn't their official goal, it is to believe that it has to lead to birth of "the United States of Europe". The road to it is a very long one and different countries have yet too much discrepancies between one and another, we also can't just start a civil war anymore and declare the US of E.

And if MS is trying to buy itself out of their problems, i believe it would be far easier to buy the USA (or at least all of it depts) and force them to nuke us over here in Europe.

rolf, sad but true...

And if MS is trying to buy itself out of their problems, i believe it would be far easier to buy the USA (or at least all of it depts) and force them to nuke us over here in Europe.

as for the US of E, that is just happening too slowly, they should put me in charge:-)))) id get it to work within 2-3 years.

Yeah we had a guy like that once, although he didn't care much for Jews, gipsies and gay people.

Luckily we've got some big help from overseas... thank you for that by the way.

Im not national-sotialist! Just a Liberal Extremist.

appart from that, if you great people elect me to head of the eu, i promiss to fight againgt dmr, copyright and id legalize marijuana as well, and make europe grow stronger with a hemp industry. free 10/10Mbit broadband and healthcare to all citizens(costs would be included in the taxes). and many other improvements.

I'm Dutch so we already have that over here ;) except for the FREE 10/10Mbit.

I'll suggest your job-application to my belgian and german friends. They need some help with a couple of your well chosen political subjects.
I just need to know one thing: Are you likely to freak out when people place cartoons about you in the papers? If so I don't give you much chance to be elected by the Danes (and the rest of the EU).

I only think we've gotten a tat bit off-topic

"Are you likely to freak out when people place cartoons about you in the papers?"

no, not realy. i practically dont freak out at anything, unless im expected to and dont want to be considered cold or ignorant.

I'll suggest your job-application to my belgian and german friends. They need some help with a couple of your well chosen political subjects

please do get me a job like that, sounds like fun, and appart from that..... i am in need of a job:-(

if that job is possible, just send any necessary info to citizen420 at gmail.com

im serious, seee> B-| my serious face.

even if you need a CV, just email me.

I can't be serious about this anymore so here is my suggestion to pull it off (I hope you're or were a southpark fan):

Step 1: Collect underpanties
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Get elected as the sole chief dictator of the US of E

Or you could just write the European Comission about it.

Simple, heres what the EU should do.
1, Demand a customisable instalation of xp, like linux. to give the users freedom to choose system components they want or not.
2, Demand ms to release their win media codecs.
3, Demand ms to release any information that might help developers of 3rd party software to integrate better with the os.

This would make life easier for the consumers and developers. Part from that Microsoft would still be making money on their products.

1, Demand a customisable instalation of xp, like linux. to give the users freedom to choose system components they want or not.

--Honestly, how many users are going to know how to do that? Maybe expert users, but they just won't use the programs anyways. Most home users would have no idea what to do, and most OEM's would leave it intact.

2, Demand ms to release their win media codecs.

--Who cares about their codecs? There's plenty of alternatives.

3, Demand ms to release any information that might help developers of 3rd party software to integrate better with the os.

--Everyone's fighting for MS to de-integrate, why would we want to provide a way for other companies to re-integrate?

Honestly, how many users are going to know how to do that? Maybe expert users, but they just won't use the programs anyways. Most home users would have no idea what to do, and most OEM's would leave it intact.

so, who cares about oems and ignorant users, they should still have the option for those who know what theyre doing.

--Who cares about their codecs? There's plenty of alternatives.

i kno, but when one downloads something its just sutch a bother to have to convert it, my box aint got wmp and i cant have the codecs without wmp. so gay!

--Everyone's fighting for MS to de-integrate, why would we want to provide a way for other companies to re-integrate?

let me quote myself:
"3rd party software to integrate better with the os."
that kind of information would make programs run faster and use less resources, it helps if the developers know everything.

Yes the EU is probably using OpenOffice which in fact is pretty compatible with Word - and a lot cheaper

I wish they did but i don't think so.

http://wiki.ffii.org/Msep0412En

So I dont care

< humor>EU withholding docs? Nah, they're just using an incompatible format.

I think it's kind of dumb of thinking this --> "Microsoft only wants money"

Ehm duh? It would be kind of weird if you're aiming for bankruptcy don't you think?

Belgium complains too much ... they don't care about Microsoft, they just found something to sue Microsoft over to get money, kind of lame.

they don't care about Microsoft, they just found something to sue Microsoft over to get money, kind of lame.

If that's true we've truly become American here over in Europe.

If that's truly the way you feel (and many more in this topic) I believe you've now totally lost any respect to other people in the world.

I just cannot believe that the people elected in the EU parliament sat down and were planning great schemes to get money from big multinationals.

The usual EU stupidity.

Software patents work out great!? Let's hand them out for every stupid thing people come up with!

Edit: Two can play that game... placing unsubstantiated remarks.

[off topic]
I know that the EU isn't all that but you'll have to understand that it is quite young and it has a huge diversity of countries, which makes it totally uncomparable to the situation in the US. And besides that, you don't have to deal with the French in your parliament. It will be a slow learning proces...

stoopid EU government, thank you for wasting microsoft's money instead of them offering School grants and other aid .....

( look at the coke company, nobody sues them and look how much money they give away in grants )

Personally I think both the EU and Microsoft are acting like children. The EU just want money, they don't care about what Microsoft does, they want money and they know Microsoft can pay.

However I wish Microsoft would release better documentation regarding their network protocols (most of their documentation is good but not all of it). I don't really care for source code except for some example code, well written doc is better than source code as it is easier to reference and understand.

I think the whole media player process was pathetic and showed just how idiotic the EU really is. Do they honestly think releasing a WMP free version of Windows will make any difference? Look at all the OEMs who have turned it down as nobody wanted it.

They should demand that Microsoft release good documentation freely on MSDN so that third parties can work better with Windows. I don't care about them bundling WMP or whatever in Windows, I can remove it if I want, I disabled it on day one and it has never bothered me since. I don't see how that is not doing what everyone wants, it is a part of the OS but once it is disabled you never see it again (much like IE, apart from WU but that is a different story).

This case just bores the hell out of me now.

Personally I don't think the EU is after the money. If they really wanted it they wouldn't have postponed the deadline before. They just have to set a fine at a specific date because otherwise companies will just stall the proces, as microsoft's lawyers are currently doing.

The WMP process maybe sounds pathetic but in fact really isn't. The reason why nobody wants it is because that everybody is used to WMP because it's always been there. So maybe the EU (and other governing bodies around the world) are too late with the media players but they have to make sure that the monopoly doesn't stretch over to a wider area. In that case the WMP is a good warning to MS that the EU isn't afraid to act.

At last, not only MS has to deal with monopoly regulations in the EU. For example: telco's and energy companies have a whole bunch off regulations to attend to.

"...they have to make sure that the monopoly doesn't stretch over to a wider area."

Why? Is the world going to explode?

well..WMP was always there, but it's not a really bad player at all. RealPlayer and Quicktime are way worse than WMP. If WMP was really that bad, there is no saying you can't install something else. If it fits people's needs, and is there by default, why not? It's the same as buying a car. Should the manufacturer leave off the steering wheel because people might want other designs? If you dont like the default one that it comes with you're free to get one that fits your needs.

WMP isn't really that bad no. I never said that and I'm surely very satisfied with it. It's just the fact that they have a monopoly in operating systems and you can see how that's working out. If there is more competition the products should get better and cheaper (i know, i know WMP, IE and all that is free but you're paying for it when you buy windows).
The competition that IE gets from FF (and others) finally pays off and the new IE7 gets better and will address more of the W3 standards.

This reply applies also to bourgeoisdude beneath. The answer is yes!

I also don't believe they are after money either. I think it is the very "American Ideas" they are after.

In order to do business in the world today, you need products that allow communication between people, companies, and countries. It so happens to be that MS has provided the most effective means in which to do this.

The EU wants to give out the code as an attempt to level the playing field in the world. They will not stop, but continue to want more and more from MS until they are knocked off their post. They want every Tom-d***-and-Harry to have access to the code so everyone can make similar products for this market.

In my opinion, MS has been complying and continues to do what they feel is necessary "for business" in the EU nations. I don't see a problem with them selling the code. If you want it, you will have to pay. If you cannot, then you may have to find investors that believe in your product to do so. This idea, I feel the EU is really having issue with - bringing the American ways into their countries.

Already, you can install other software onto your Windows System and it will work fine. You just need to know how to do it. That is not to say that, possibly, issues related to poor design on the fault of the 3rd party, may be a problem.

Some tactics used in the past have hurt MS relations, and them offering certain aspects of the code would help their image at this time, but a full disclosure of code is unreasonalble.

The code is theirs, they own it and should do with it as they wish. Just because the EU doesn't like it, is not good enough for them to demand it be free or given to everyone. In the long run, I feel it will cause more problems with security.

it isn't the monopoly that they are concerned about, but the American ways.

Sooner or later, the ideas of capitalism and democracy will infect everyone and the little guy will be no more. The big bad governments will not have anyone in which to protect.

Microsoft has been given a lits of demands by the EU. whetjer the list is right or wrong isnt the issue here, it is whether ms intends to meet those list of demands. what are the list of demands inspired by? mostly free market, fair competition, and interoperability. MS and ms advocates say the list is unreasonable and would compromise trade secrets. well DUH! the source code they want (the EU) released is the networking protocols source code... it has been a long standing battle for other operating systems and non-ms applications to figure out how to properly handshake and communicate with miscrosoft's implementation of TCP/IP since microsoft never EVER used a standard TCP/IP stack, but instead used emulators and hacks to emulate certain aspects of that stack, and how to cooperate with those emulators and hacks to properly allow for multiple operating system networking has always been a hard fought battle that has often failed and stifled the use of the best application and/or operating system for aeach specific desired task.
so ms says we will sell licences to this and that and the other ythinking that by doing so they are complying with the order. they are not - nowhere does it say that ms must make available for sale the source code... instead it says, ms must make available the source code. and for open source software developers to be expected to pay thousands of dollars maybe millions to be allowed to make software that will properly communicate with ms's proprietary interfaces is totally idiotic - the open source movement makes software and releases it free of charge for all to use, and by doing so - does its part in keeping proprietary software from stifling competition - ensuring standards are met and kept.
so here we are.. EU says do this or pay the price
ms says we cant complu, we need more time or whatever. they have had one month short of TWO YEARS to comply, but they have delayed and delayed and now it's down to the wire. IF I was the EU I would say no to extending the deadline, comply or pay.. if MS doesnt like it they can pull support for their products and sales of current and future software out of the EU. soimple as that. they both want to do business and the EU has been more then kind in the timeline... ms has been the uncooperative and petulant child in all this, using their obvioous monopoly position in the market to bully others into submission - it has always done this in the past for the most part successfully, and so continutes to work on that premise, they WILL bow to us, we are the great and mighty MS!
Bla

No, but it may bluescreen.

(joke)

I thank you for your informative reply. I can see that you are passionate about this issue.

But I feel the EU should not be the ones deciding up whether something should be given away for free or not. That is not how business should be done.

I thought I read somewhere that MS was asking $50K for the code, but I am not 100% sure. I hardly feel that this is asking too much or too little of anyone. The cost of such code can, and should, be determined by a separate panel and compared to other companies with similar situations. Not by the parties involved. Since MS has a bigger share of the market now, those that do get the code have potential of greater profits themselves. Therefore, the price can and should reflect this as you are most likely going to be taking business away from them if it is a good product.

If the EU ask for it(the code) to be revealed and they do so, then they should not be allowed to come back and put addtional stipulations on it because they didn't offer it free. Also for MS to come in so late in the game and claim they need more time can be considered a lack in them trying to solve the issue.

I admit, that I do not know the full details of this case as put forth by MS and the EU, but from what I have been reading, they asked that the code be disclosed and MS has done that. For them to come back and now say that the manner in which they are doing it is unacceptable is "unreasonalbe" and not a place for them to force this change.

Businesses survive on the grounds of the selling of their goods, whether it be products or code. For the EU to say that in this case they must give it free, violates even the very business competition environment they are trying to stir. What will they(who will they)go after next when they feel something else should help level the playing field.

I agree that something can be done to promote a better situation, but the manner in which they are going about it doesn't seem just. Their goal is to only prevent MS from maintaining its position and helping out the smaller vendors. They are excluding one while promoting the other. The selling of the code, is fair.

Glad you posted that instead of me :)

Right on.

"out how to properly handshake and communicate with miscrosoft's implementation of TCP/IP since microsoft never EVER used a standard TCP/IP stack, but instead used emulators and hacks to emulate certain aspects of that stack, and how to cooperate with those emulators and hacks to properly allow for multiple operating system networking has always been a hard fought battle that has often failed and stifled the use of the best application and/or operating system for aeach specific desired task."

Uhhh...I stopped reading your post right after that huge sentence (thank god I stopped I woulda hung myself if I had to read your one long paragraph of a post).

I mean...you're basically informed to the extent where you know just enough to look dumb when you post...like you just finished one course in school so far about networking with an anti-ms prof...(your writing class is probably a few semester away I'm guessing).

Anyway...aside from you being almost completely wrong, I'm yet to find an OS that can't communicate with windows using tcp/ip...if you know of any specifically please, let me know...I'm real curious to find an OS that just won't communicate with windows over tcp/ip, it'd be kind of strange...I'd be pretty curious to see out how (or more curiously, why) they managed to stop tcp/ip communication with just windows.

" It's just the fact that they have a monopoly in operating systems and you can see how that's working out."

Really? My company has 40% *nix servers and 60% Windows servers...I know a few trading companies that use linux exclusively on their desktops...doesn't sound like a monopoly to me, I know I have plenty of options (although somehow, the courts found them to be a monopoly...gotta love the legal system here in the US).

"If there is more competition the products should get better and cheaper (i know, i know WMP, IE and all that is free but you're paying for it when you buy windows)"

Windows 98 was better then 95, 2000 was better then 98, and XP is better then 2000 (same for server versions)...sounds like the product is getting better to me. The new WMP got much better, IE7 is getting better (tabs finaly, and still a small footprint).

Also...if MS is forced to remove WMP from windows, don't count on windows being any cheaper, DO count on having to suddenly shell out more mo ney for a media player....but hey, the government is only looking out for our best interest right?:)

"The competition that IE gets from FF (and others) finally pays off and the new IE7 gets better and will address more of the W3 standards."

IE to this day has less compatibility issues then FF...

Hey Nate - If you have to use a language filter, at least use a good one, one that understands that there are people in this world named D_I_C_K. It's starting to look like you think you are running a nursery school (then again, based on some posts...) Seriously, it looks stupid, is stupid, and really ought to be fixed.

Yeah...and your non-producing, resource using a_s_s will be outta here the minute you are breathing a little too much air. Sorry, you take up too much space, don't work cheap enough, want to retire someday and went to the doctor one too many times last year. You are now being laid off from life. Please sign your house over to your mortgage company and enter the gas chamber down the hall.

You're right, let's all do everything individually. Let's go back to churning our own butter, lets pay ten times what we pay now for a car because it was hand made (and doesn't have spare parts you can buy anywhere), let's all build our own computers from scratch and then program our own operating systems, let's make your own clothes...

We need big businesses to stay at the level of civilization we have now.

The biggest markets for computers are Schools, OEM, and Business. Schools and OEM almost exclusively use Windows, and most Businesses follow as well.

Microsoft IS responding to the competition of Firefox by making their product better, though why they do I have no idea. It's a browser, there's no source of income from it.

As for IE compatibility, IE is incompatible in the biggest way: With standards. A poorly designed website is not a standard for measuring a browser's compatibility.

"As for IE compatibility, IE is incompatible in the biggest way: With standards. A poorly designed website is not a standard for measuring a browser's compatibility."

Really? Then 99.9% of the websites on the internet are poorly designed because they work with IE? And those sites that work with IE yet somehow look messed up with firefox are especially poorly designed...yet...I don't see any sites that work with firefox and DON'T work with IE. Hm...well I'll tell you what, I'll take the crappy "incompatible" IE that works with 99.9999% of websites over firefox that works with 90% of websites anyday, thanks (when dealing strictly with compatibility!).

Also...just because "most" businesses use windows doesn't mean they can't use something else, and the fact that they CAN use something else makes it hard to convince me that MS is a monopoly. Like I said, I know of a few companies that use linux almost exclusively on their desktops .

"Really? My company has 40% *nix servers and 60% Windows servers...I know a few trading companies that use linux exclusively on their desktops...doesn't sound like a monopoly to me, I know I have plenty of options (although somehow, the courts found them to be a monopoly...gotta love the legal system here in the US)."

That sounds about right (average marketshare of windows servers in Europe is about 55%) but you can't compare the server-market with the desktop-market. The server-market is "run" by professionals who usually have more computing knowledge than the average Joe behind his home PC. They're happy when they can e-mail, surf the internet, use MS-office and play a game. They don't know how flawed it is (i'm not a MS hater but Windows has some big security issues from which Joe doesn't know they excist, how to protect himself and of which MS doesn't think it's all that serious or issue a patch far too late) and how expensive it is because windows is almost always pre-installed on every PC they buy and is included in the overall price.
They also never learn to use an alternative because from his child years Joe has always used a Windows based computer at school and at home. He doesn't know any better. Those reasons are why the marketshare of OS's in Europe looked the last month like this (between brackets is Januari 2005):

1. Windows XP: 81.65% (66,02%)
2. Windows 2000: 6,58% ( 11,40%)
3. Windows 98: 4,78% (10,89%)
4. Mac OS X: 2,05% (n/a)
5. Windows Millennium: 1,46% (3,04%)
6. Andere: 1,32% (1,76%)
7. Mac OS PPC: 0,62% (2,74%)
8. Linux: 0,62 % (0,53%)
9. Windows NT: 0,53% (n/a)
10. Windows 2003: 0,26% (0,19%)
11. Windows 95: 0,09% (0,33%)
12. Unix: 0,02% (0,03%)
13. PSP: 0,01% (n/a)
14. OS/2: 0,01% (0,03%)

I don't know about you but this looks like a monopoly to me.

"Windows 98 was better then 95, 2000 was better then 98, and XP is better then 2000 (same for server versions)...sounds like the product is getting better to me. The new WMP got much better, IE7 is getting better (tabs finaly, and still a small footprint)."

That succeeding products get better does even Joe from last example know. He doesn't know that OS X and previous versions are and were ahead of windows in their time. Also the upcoming linux versions are good and getting better rapidly and have far less security risks than windows. I also realize that some of the security risks are related to being a monopolist in the desktop market but that's all the more reason to think of switching to an other OS.
WMP got much better yes, i also like it and use as my standard media player. But the main reason why it still gets better is that there is a lot of money to b earned with stricter DRM implementation.
IE7 is an improvement (tried the Beta last week and it needs some work but looks promising) but you have to realize that this hasn't anything to do with MS caring about their IE users but of them being afraid to lose their market share of around 90%. They weren't planning of developing a new IE (surely not for XP, maybe for Vista - and by saying that not all security improvements won't work for XP says enough about their current OS) but were "forced" by FF. So GO COMPETITION!!

"Also...if MS is forced to remove WMP from windows, don't count on windows being any cheaper, DO count on having to suddenly shell out more mo ney for a media player....but hey, the government is only looking out for our best interest right?:)"

This maybe one of those things where doing the right thing just works out wrong. But letting them go their ways would be ignoring their duties as regulators.
On the other hand it shows us how big MS has become to force us to buy the "no WMP" vesion for the same price. I call this yet again a monopoly.

"IE to this day has less compatibility issues then FF..."

No you're wrong there. IE doesn't comply as much to the W3C standards as FF does. Some say Opera does even a better job but that's a whole other discussion. The fact that IE displays most pages better is that website developers (which i do as a hobby) have to use tricks to workaround the fawlty interpreting of IE. The fact that developers do this because IE is used by most Joe's is yet another point which I call monopoly.

Keep in mind that i'm not a microsoft hater, i'm just calling things the way i see it. Also somebody needed to do something against the: EU sucks - MS hooray sentiment which was (is) going on here while not using any (plausible) arguements.
And for last this is a great way to keep up my English...

First of all you've done more resarch than most other people in this forum. For that I applaud you. Second, I do not dispute that MS is a monopoly in the US or EU for that matter. There are many points in your post, I haven't the time right now to reply to them all, but I do have one major "bone to pick", if you will:

"This maybe one of those things where doing the right thing just works out wrong[refering to WMP-less Windows]. But letting them go their ways would be ignoring their duties as regulators. On the other hand it shows us how big MS has become to force us to buy the "no WMP" vesion for the same price. I call this yet again a monopoly."

I call it a monopoly too, no dispute there. My big question about EU is just what is their duty? While searching for an answer I found this to be a suitable explanation:
"The European Union (EU) is a union of twenty-five independent states based on the European Communities and founded to enhance political, economic[,] and social co-operation. [It was]Formerly known as European Community (EC) or European Economic Community (EEC)."

Though the grammar leaves much to be desired I believe the definition is the most fitting. First and foremost political...no shocker there. Of course that's just a bird's eye view, I find that I better narrow my search. So I went to EU's own home page, and went to competition:
"Effective competition is crucial to an open market economy. It cuts prices, raises quality and expands customer choice. Competition allows technological innovation to flourish."
True enough. Then I found much more disturbing information: the 'Chairwomen' of "Internal Market and Consumer Protection" division of the EU is a socialist. Therefore big=evil, and evil must be destroyed. Socialism is almost completely opposite of capitalism and for that reason they hate that our nation's system works. I no longer will listen to anything the EU has to say. I am finding more and more "socialists" in the EU leadership upon examining farther. I believe my time in this forum is at an end.

I have encountered few websites that do not work with firefox, yet work with IE, and I have encountered more that DO work with firefox and NOT IE. I'd rather take the NOT crappy Firefox that works with 95% of websites than the CRAPPY IE that works with 95% of websites.

"Also...just because "most" businesses use windows doesn't mean they can't use something else, and the fact that they CAN use something else makes it hard to convince me that MS is a monopoly"

THey always have that option, and they have the option of not using computers at all. The fact that most of the computers they can buy come pre-loaded with Windows is going to play a pretty big factor in whether or not they use it, and the fact that most of their employees likely use Windows will also be a big consideration.

Thank you for your applaus. I just can't hardly call it research. The table with percentages of OS's was just something i've read last week.

I congratualate you on digging deeper in the subject of the EU. The topic will only benefit off it. I only feel sorry for you that because you've read that: "the 'Chairwomen' of "Internal Market and Consumer Protection" division is a socialist" you won't be part of the discussion anymore. Maybe still left from the time everybody was affraid for the Big Red Evil.
But I do have to ask you where you've gotten your info from. Did it say on the EU internetsite that "the 'Chairwomen' of "Internal Market and Consumer Protection" division is a socialist"?
Maybe for Americans it seems that we're all a bunch of commi's or socialists over here but the "chairwoman" (Neelie Kroes who is Dutch like i am but that hasn't anything to do with it) has always been a right-wing politician over here in The Netherlands. She served two terms as a minister for the VVD party (which is the biggest right-wing party over here). She also oversaw the process of privatising of the former state contolled PTT (postal services and telephone company). There even was a big "riot" by the real socialist party who found her to be too right-wing.

Maybe you've regained some trust in the EU leadership? The fact that there are other people in the EU leadership who truly are socialists is just something you've got to deal with. Not everyone's alike (thank god or somebody else) and you can't force your opinion upon everyone (which i'm trying to do here :) )

Well this should be fun....:)

"They're happy when they can e-mail, surf the internet, use MS-office and play a game"

So...when one OS does what joe wants well enough for joe...what does joe care if there's an alternative? ESPECIALLY if the alternative is harder to use? Like you said...linux is run by professionals...well linux devs, bring linux up to windows ease of use standards and maybe things will start changing.

"They don't know how flawed it is (i'm not a MS hater but Windows has some big security issues from which Joe doesn't know they excist, how to protect himself and of which MS doesn't think it's all that serious or issue a patch far too late)"

Linux has just as many flaws if not more...actually there was an article not too long ago about total flaws found in 2005...it was something like almost 4 times as many for linux...although admittedly removing some of the duplicate flaws (from the different versions) made it a closer match...although linux still had more.

"They also never learn to use an alternative because from his child years Joe has always used a Windows based computer at school and at home."

Is MS to blame for that?? My school had linux classes.

"I don't know about you but this looks like a monopoly to me."

You listed about 5 products there that were not from MS...options monopoly. Windows is the easiest for joe to use, does what he needs...why would he care if he can use linux or not? 70% of users just want to browse the web, read emails and type some stuff up in word...windows does that better then any of those and is MUCH easier for joe to use. Windows wins.

"That succeeding products get better does even Joe from last example know."

Uhm...who cares if he knows...does he like it? All the "joe's" I know love windows...I actually tried showing a joe linux one time and he could care less....harder to use? Why bother...that's what he said.

"Also the upcoming linux versions are good and getting better rapidly and have far less security risks than windows"

So do the upcoming windows versions, and they're still far easier to use. Less security risks? Wrong. Although you'd be targeted less often because nobody wants to target a user base of 1,000 when you can target a user base of 1,000,000 (fake #'s, obviously!).

"They weren't planning of developing a new IE "

How do you know that...someone at MS told you? Until you prove that then it's pretty much a useless comment.

"On the other hand it shows us how big MS has become to force us to buy the "no WMP" vesion for the same price. I call this yet again a monopoly."

If your government forces MS to remove WMP from windows...why should MS charge less? That's not a monopoly...that's your government doing you a "favor".

"EU sucks - MS hooray sentiment which was (is) going on here while not using any (plausible) arguements."

Well...the EU is making some rediculous demands...we're not allowed to disagree with them suddenly?

"THey always have that option, and they have the option of not using computers at all. The fact that most of the computers they can buy come pre-loaded with Windows is going to play a pretty big factor in whether or not they use it, and the fact that most of their employees likely use Windows will also be a big consideration."

I don't have to purchase servers or workstations that are preloaded with windows. We get a license and just set it up with our corporate image...no reason why I can't purchae machines with linux on them. Nothing is "pre-loaded" without an option...definetly not in the business world.

Maybe I got a bit too enthusiastic about it and widened the subject too much and it all got cluttered up.
The reason why i tried to make a point of MS having a monopoly is also the reason why they shouldn't be allowed to deliver certain programs standard with windows. This way they'll soon achieve the same not only in the OS market but also in a wider area. While they're the sole company that have access to the source-code (and are able to understand it) they are able to build better programs than competitors. Like the security program vendors are now going bezerk over the new line of security products that MS announced or already delivered.

A little story ;)

If governements hadn't put up certain rules "Joe" would still get his gas, water, electricity and telephone connection delivered to him by one company. That company would have always just been there. Joe just put up with the fact that sometimes the gas supply stopped, the water ran a bit slow out of the tap, some people were able to steal his electricity and his telephone connection wasn't all that clear. It just always had been that way. All since his parents were serviced by the same company, the same for his school. workplace, his girlfriend and all of his friends. Okay, there was one friend who was serviced by an other company which products were better but a bit more expensive. Also he could't ring up his friends anymore because the lines were incompatible and he had to buy new gas/water pipes if he wanted to be serviced by this company. He also once heard of a third company but the billing system was a bit more difficult.
Luckily for Joe his governement saw what was going on and told the one company which almost serviced everyone that they had to allow more competitors on their infrastructure. And not only the smaller and older piping and lines but the same as the one big company used. Offcourse they could ask for a reasonable price for letting others on their infrastrucure.
At first Joe and his likes were a bit weary. Okay, there were a couple of people who wanted better running water so they switched to an other company. The prices stayed the same because there were too little people who dared to switch because some electrical appliances only worked with the big company's current. This was clearly a negative heritage from the past. Luckily the governement understood this problem and favoured the little companies for a while so there could be real competition between them. Over the years prices of the services declined, water got clearer and it was more difficult to steal somebody else's electricity. Joe was so happy that his governement opened his eyes and let him see that there were more services around than he really knew off. Looking back nobody understood how they ever could have let one company running it all.(fake services, obviously!)

While reading back the above I realize that it got fairly long already so just one more thing.

I've also read the article you refer to (if you mean http://www.us-cert.gov/c...s/SB2005.html#UnixLinux that is) a month ago. I find the article a bit biased in favour for windows (not only because of the articles name: sb2005.html#UnixLinux). For both windows as linux there are indeed duplicate flaws. The problem (for me in this topic) is that it doesn't stick to only MS and Linux but to all software vendors for the specific platform. You should narrow down the specific security risks. When doing so MS risks are numerable and of higher risk. Also the speed in which security problems are resolved is far greater than windows'. Welcome to patch tuesday.

BTW Linux classes sound like a great idea.

it's funny to see that apple is a much more "monopoly" than MS in terms of bundling stuff ( like you can't run their OS on hardware other than the ones they blessed), but EU still goes after MS since it can get more money out of them.
if the people dont like the way MS isn't opening up their protocols, just program for another OS, since MS is just shooting itself in the foot. It's not like you HAVE TO program for Windows. If they dont like WMP, go install another one. MS is not saying you cant use another one. What's wrong with more out of box experience?

What market does Apple have a monopoly in? The desktop market?

HAHAHAHA

I think you need to look up the meaning of a "monopoly"

i know perfectly well what monopoly is.
i think it's you that need to understand that you can still have a monopoly in a niche market.
if Apple isn't a monopoly in the mac operating system world, then I don't know which company is.

they have a monopoly in the macintosh market.
from dictionary.com, monopoly is "A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products."
which means Apple is a monopoly in the sense that if you want to run macOS, you will HAVE TO buy their hardware (which does cost way more than their PC counterparts)
sometimes you MS haters need to look further than just MS

Actually I had never though of it like this but menting is making some sense.

No you've got it wrong. In this case it matters that Apple only makes its OS available for Macs. They can't be forced to make it available for PC's.

Besides this, the Mac-market is a niche market and therefore other "rules" apply. There aren't as many software makers for this market and there are only a few programs that really matter for the buyers. If Apple continues to grow and market percentages rise, they'll also run into the same rules that now apply for MS.

MS is a master at finding excuses and ways to drag it's legs, this is why even the case where they WERE convicted of monopolistic tactics, the case still hasn't been solved.
They have used this to force some competitors of the market when they have done some IP infringments. The best one being Lindows, now Linspire, where they forced a name change.

...

"Lindows, now Linspire, where they forced a name change"

...

Typical Microsoft-hater's stuff !

What corporation ~would~ permit a competitor to use a similar name ?

Microsoft was able to force Lindows to change names because it's ILLEGAL to use the same, or a similar, trademark for a competing product.

The anti-Microsoft Taliban won't give MS a break even when MS is clearly within the law !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Microsoft only got them to change names because they paid them to change names.

In the process Microsoft lost the Windows trademark and every ruling along the way was against Microsoft.

The only ruling they won happened to be in the EU, but they settled before it went any further.

Educate yourself:

http://news.com.com/Micr...100-1016_3-5274944.html
http://www.linspire.com/...ives.php?id=4&all=1
http://www.google.com/se...ademark&btnG=Search

Deleted. Nevermind i'ts not worth arguing...

*OR* because you couldn't find facts to dispute it. LOL

...

First you say:

Microsoft "forced them to change names".

Now it's:

"Microsoft only got them to change names because they paid them to change name"

Which is it ?

Lindows took a big hit changing names. They wouldn't have taken the money and settled if they could've won in court.

Sounds like big bad Microsoft was just being nice.

But ...by your estimation as the anti-Microsoft Taliban... MS is wrong regardless whether "forced" the name change, or paid for it !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

"
First you say:

Microsoft "forced them to change names"."

Where did I say this?

Clever edit fewt, clever edit...

It was azimov who used the term "forced" not fewt, so what are you talking about??

LOL, whatever.

...

"I have a question. If they are fined by the EU and MS refuses to pay, what happens? What CAN the EU do to MS, worst case scenario? Can they ban them? HOW would they ban them?"

...

Microsoft has very large sales in the EU, as well as physical property.

If they [MS] refused to pay a fine, there'd be the normal means of collection in such cases: Confiscate bank accounts, seize physical assests.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

MS has had enough time, and this is perhaps a loophole to stall the fines. However, I also believe the EU is commiting injustice. If it were me I'd fight them to the death. What they are asking of MS is ridiculous, and it has been since March 2004. This whole thing is stupid, and based on comments from Microsoft I can tell they think the same way (which might be part of the reason EU is so anti-Microsoft).

If EU wants to regulate companies why not just call it socialism? They are restricting the free market. They are hurting consumers. They care nothing for consumers--they are just so 'mad' at MS they want to prove how big they are. It's all a power trip. The 2 million Euros a day will fill give EU a boost as well. Selfish pigs. I wouldn't give them another dime. What are they gonna do? Ruin Microsoft? Do they know what will happen if they ruin Microsoft?

I can answer that last question with two words: Global Recession.

Oh, one more thing:

"EU spokesperson Jonathan Todd characterized Microsoft's assertions as "premature" in a statement."

Premature? You mean MS can only ask that AFTER you fine them? How many weeks at 14 million euros a week does it require?

How in the world is demanding that Microsoft provide for free documentation for competition to interface with their protocols wrong?

"The EU fined Microsoft 497 million euros in March 2004, and attached stipulations for compliance. One demand was a version of Windows without the company's media player software, which it released last year, and the other was to open the source code of Windows Server networking protocols to third party developers."

"Opening source code to third party developers" is != providing "free documentation for competition to interface..." The 2 million dollar a day fine is what I was refering to anyway. Not that you care as you will argue on another aspect of this subject in retaliation as you always do. I'm not Microsoft's lawyer nor am I even defending them. I am fet up with the EU, that's all.

The EU wanted documentation, not source code. Surely you realize that.

It was MICROSOFT that provided source code. Can't blame the EU for that.

I don't think the media player thing was the right action, but you know what something needed to happen.

The EU did not just want documentation.

From article:
"The EU fined Microsoft 497 million euros in March 2004, and attached stipulations for compliance. One demand was a version of Windows without the company's media player software, which it released last year, and the other was to open the source code of Windows Server networking protocols to third party developers"

"open the source code" does mean source code. It howevery doesn't necessarity mean free, and that is where I am confused. MS is offering it for a price, but they don't like that - are they asking it to be free, because that is the way in which it sounds.

"Under the EU antitrust ruling, Microsoft is required to document and license key protocols used by Windows to provide various functions, such as workgroup printing, file sharing, and inter-computer communication. The European Commission found, by way of an third-party trustee appointed in part by Microsoft, that Microsoft's documentation was inadequate and incomplete. Microsoft, for its part, claims that the EU's current demands are moving the goalposts after the game has started, and complying with the current version of the requirements would open the door to products cloning portions of the Windows operating system. The European Commission granted the extension so they had more time to study Microsoft's response."

- http://news.designtechnica.com/article9373.html

The way I see it, if the EU makes Microsoft (clearly not an open source company) give their source code away for free. They are no better than the software pirates. It's blatant thievery.

Que the rest of the Microsoft haters.

"It would be appropriate to grant Microsoft a further extension of time in which to prepare its defense since Microsoft should have access to the missing documents in due time to formulate its response," the letter added.

WAAAAH!!!

They had enough time, fine them.

I have a question. If they are fined by the EU and MS refuses to pay, what happens? What CAN the EU do to MS, worst case scenario? Can they ban them? HOW would they ban them?

Idiot.

I guess you didn't read the part where it says personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Funny, you called *ME* an idiot.

The EU can take a copy of Windows and make an ISO legally available to anyone that wants to download it eliminating Microsoft's Windows product line worldwide.

They could demand the US extradite the board of directors to stand criminal trial. Our relationship with the EU far outweighs our relationship with one company.

Just a couple of examples, not that it would ever happen but it *could*.

Very touchy topic I see, please don't flare unless you are a lawyer.

I say MS just give the corrupt EU members some $$$ and move on. Buy out the competition or opposition you are good at it now. :)

The EU wouldn't know when to stop.

i think eu keep on fining them and if they dont pay the fine. They will ban microsoft from the EU market and they will fund an EU funded OS like now they are trying to compete with google in search engine but this can be the worst scenario. What fewt says never gonna happen becoz this is not just one company and us blue chip companies dont let this happen if they let this happen for ms next will be apple or oracle.Ang U.S gov also dont allow this till they get the funding from this companies for election campaign.

I just feel EU dont like the whole market share in OS which MS have and they r tryin to make money. And they r sad they cant sell the own product for there people

Isn't it nice when the infants take their thumbs out of their mouths long enough to learn a new word?

"The EU can take a copy of Windows and make an ISO legally available to anyone that wants to download it eliminating Microsoft's Windows product line worldwide."

No, that could not happen. MS is not a European company, the EU has no jurisdiction to take possession of Microsoft assets.

http://www.microsoft.com...act.aspx?country=Europe

See that, they are a european company too. ;-)