Just another example of Microsoft’s insecurity & jealousy of all things tech related. Any tech company who experiences success, makes Microsoft feel threatened. They are constantly entering markets they have no business entering, just because they have the money to do it.

If they would spend those resources on improving their OS, browser, Productivity software, we would be using them because we want to, not because we have no other choice.

I’m Guessing

following the expiration of a U.S. antitrust ruling in November 2007,

I predict the Vista release will be delayed until this date passes.

...just a hunch.

/removes Karnak hat/

since ms never abided by ALL the stipulations of the original anti-trust settlement who cares, and we already know vista isnt coming out until 2008 :)

Interesting that this was announced by a Lawyer & not a techinal person.

Is there any doubt that this "New" Microsoft is a result of all the competitve pressure thay are feeling? There is no way this would've happened 3 years ago, when MS was still king

http://imguessingblog.blogspot.com/

Lol...

I thought "Honor" was the name of a program. I thought they were giving people source code. Silly me.

lol, yah thats what i was thinking it was to.

Press statements mean nothing. Actions mean everything.

What about pressing against users to force them to abandon their present Windows version and compelling a forced adquisition of a new experiment? I'd rather go back to Windows 98 SE.

Is it their fault you dont want to upgrade? No one holds a gun to your head and says "UPGRADE OR DIE". They do give you a choice, and you make it by sticking with an old os. The computer industry presses onward, just because you cant keep up doesnt mean microsoft shouldnt either.

Windows is not a joke. Microsoft opened a new world. Today Windows is a MUST all over the world, and they may be proud of it. That's why in my opinion they must keep helping,doesn't matter the version, without a close calendar, not closing the door to XP and all precedent versions. If they want to get everything, they may loose all they have now.

Pssss... Do you want to buy a bridge?

OK...
So does this mean I will have the choice of which components of Vista I want to install?

Not an option to remove them later, which inevitably leaves junk and unused files and registry entries taking up space.

Or is this more "pie in the sky" from Microsoft?

Great!

6. APIs
Does it mean, in plain English, that Microsoft will provide the documentation as the Europeam Union requests?

9. No exclusivity.
I am glad that I will be not forced to buy Windows ("because there are no free lunches...") with every laptop, as it was in the past. I prefer some other OSes. Thank you Microsoft!

12. Standards.
I am glad that Microsoft will finally change Win 1250 and Win 1252 page codes to ISO 8859-2 (or maybe Unicode)! It also applies to many other "Microsoft standards".

6. APIs
Of course Microsoft will, or else heavier fines will come their way.
Licensing is another problem though, because even if Microsoft is guilty of antiturst violations, EU can't force Microsft to make the documentation available for free. Unless of course, EU wants to have their a** hauled to the WTO.

9. No exclusivity
Acer and Dell, for example, already sells non-Windows PC and laptops. And don't get me started on server, where Windows is almost non-existant.

6. APIs
The thing is that Ms does not want to release the documentation or APIs at all. Independently if for free or not.

9. No exclusivity
But it decision of Dell and Acer, not Microsoft. Microsoft wanted to push regulations that every computer without OS would be illegal (at least in China and the UK). And it was in 2006!

Microsoft makes me laugh sometimes."1. Installation of any software. Computer manufacturers and customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows." Thank you, great Microsoft that you allow me for such an extravagance! LOL

6. APIs.
They will release the documentation, or else even Microsoft will be hit hard by the new 3 miilion euro per day fine. The sticking point is licensing.

9. No exclusivity.
Of course it is Dell/Acer decisions. They are not a Microsoft subsidiary. And at least here in Asia, selling PC without an OS is not a crime and Microsoft has not even tried to make such thing illegal, even in the US.

Small Business Server is doing pretty good on the server, especially the 2003 version. I use it at work and I like it, though I would like to take a hammer and a few hours at ISA.

yes, but what about the Death Squads?

When you're as wealthy as Microsoft and all but practiced these principles in order to attain that wealth, you can release this list and be a super-duper hypocrite too.

LMAO.....

Who told you about the Death Squads? When did you hear about the Death Squads? We were not aware of these Death Squads? Tell us or we'll sic the Death Squads on you...wait, I mean we inflict more sleep deprivation on you.

Actions speak louder than words.

I'll believe it when (and if) I see it.

With the risk of sounding too anal, but should it not be principles, instead of principals? I was expecting a list of world famous people called to be the conscience of Microsoft.

...

It all depends whether this is a sincere change
of heart at Microsoft ...or another Public Relations
initiative.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

how insightful.

I am trying to remember a single instance of sincerity from Microsoft ... no sorry nothing comes to mind.

I would be slightly more inclined to give them a little credit if the network protocols were going to be licensed under terms that would allow the only competition they have left to implement them. But they still will not work with samba or any other GPL project.

Wow, could this be true? Microsoft could be in the last stage of a company's life. First there is the courting and lying, then the denial and finally waking up to the bare truth. Could this be the begining of a healthy Microsoft or is it because it is beaten across the face from so many fronts? Any which way, the company that embodies no innovations but buy-outs, stealing and blatant disregard for client service, this would be great if they are sincere about it.

The damage is done and their image is one of the very worse in IT and rhymes with distrust. It's a good start.

"The damage is done and their image is one of the very worse in IT and rhymes with distrust."

You apparently didn't read the comment below...I'm in IT and I trust Microsoft with my network. If you didn't trust Microsoft, you wouldn't be using them.

Microsoft is far from perfect, but for me, they are more perfect than the competition in most instances. Please take that for what it is--Linux is good in specific instances, heck even the old Novell servers do some things better than Windows, but Windows is the only jack-of-all-trades OS: proficeint for every application, yet the master of none.

... I ride to work each day not 'trusting' other drivers - but I still ride to work. I also don't 'trust' that the council workers will cleanup after roadworks properly, but I still ride to work.

Lack of choice does not imply trust - and if the choice is made, doesn't mean you therefore completely trust that choice.

I use Microsoft because I am forced to, not because I trust them. If my company would let me my iMac would be on my desk even if I had to take it back and forth to work. I think the majority of the people in the World who use Microsoft products are forced to by their monopolistic policies, not because they want to.

Good comment!

IMHO, Any change that makes it more interoperative is likely to be good. However, customizable by vendors could ultimately be bad for everyone. For Instance, if Dell makes some stupid desktop UI and keeps it to themselves, I'd hate to here how someone likes Dell's UI better than the default and buys a Dell just for that (I'd remind them of how a Dell PSU isn't standard :-) ).

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true :-)

Do you have the numbers to back that up?

You ride to work on that road because it's either the only road to wherever or the shortest/safest/best most logical route, so that argument is moot.
Noone forces a company to use Microsoft. Microsoft is not the only OS out there. If a company found it economically productive, safer, etc, they'd use Apple computers with OsX or Linux - obviously they didn't/don't.
So while lack of choice does not imply trust, trust does no imply lack of choice. The companies who use MS trust them not because they don't have options, but because MS is the OS that satisfies their wide array of business needs - be it a stable, safe network, an economical win vs. the competition or whatever the reason.....as long as the reason is not, lack of other options :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/...icrosoft_antitrust_case
http://news.com.com/Euro...009-1016_3-5178068.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5985332.html
"3" looks like a pretty good "number" to me.

None of the links shows that monopolist Microsoft forced people to use Windows.

Now show me that majority of Windows users are forced to use that operating system.

its a matter of being a standard, most networks at work use it and will not change things from the status quo for fear of security risks (irony) and cost (yeah) this is fairly common knowledge. its a amtter of policy, not being forced, but once you are in it, getting out is tough despite the irony

How many retail stores have non-windows PC's on the shelf?

ZERO

How's that for a number?

Ever try to buy a non Mac computer that doesnt have Windows installed? Ever try to remove IE or Outlook from Windows? In the 90s Microspud forced out of business or bought up every competitor that they could find (can you say Netscape?) to quash competition. This latest round of crap is being forced on them by the fines the EU is making them pay to do business fairly, unlike our Govt which caved in to the MS lobbyists and watered down any real reform.

Here I can go to an Acer dealer and get me a nice and shiny new PC preinstalled with some lame Linux distro (could have been better if they use Fedora or Ubuntu).

If I want to, I can buy a retail (not a DIY computer) PC or laptop using Linux, from Acer.

And I can remove IE or OE or WMP etc if I were to install Windows XP with nLite. Vista should also allow custom instal, just like the happy days of WIndows 95/98.

Walmart, Fry's and many others have non windows PC's "on the shelf"

Gee Wiz, you're right. There they are right under the sign that says
"We recommend Windows XP cause we get a kick-back for saying so."

Even if you manage to buy a machine with the dreaded OS on it, what, then, is the problem with either 1- walking over to the handy dandy software counter and purchacing a little Red Hat disk, or 2- Enduring the pain and downloading a nice free os in whatever flavor you like from the net, and Launch yourself off into a world a bash and config till your hearts content?

As far as the price being jacked up because of the licence for the os.. well it isn't that much to begin with.

Your going to be hard pressed to find a solution for everyone here.

To make everyone happy, you will need a machine sitting on the retail shelf with no os on it, then when it is selected for purchase, a choice of OS's is made..

Now, what about compatability.... hmm Well there isn't a lot of driver support for the Happy cool OS's.. but there seems to be plenty for the evil one that (because of it's huge volume) gives mfg's a reason to support them.

I guess one coluld just get busy and develop their own drivers... Oh.. then it wouldn't matter what OS I used.. I'd be a super skilled engeneer of some sort and have piles of money and a life and wouldn't care......

Then you didn't read them.

Try again.

I read them, and no reference where Microsoft FORCED people to use Windows anywhere in the links you provided.

Acer did has recommendation for XP (without the kickback info of course), but unlike Dell, Linux PCs/laptops are cheaper than Windows PCs/laptops in the same configuration. If Acer gets kickbacks, surely Linux PCs/laptops will be more expensive than Windows PC/laptops.

First link I clicked off of the wikipedia entry.

"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. "

"F.

1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV because of that ISV's or IHV's:

1. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or

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

2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.

3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any agreement with any ISV or IHV, or any intellectual property right, that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment. "

"Microsoft has presented no evidence that the contractual (or the technological) restrictions it placed on OEMs' ability to alter Windows derive from any of the enumerated rights explicitly granted to a copyright holder under the Copyright Act. Instead, Microsoft argues that the restrictions "simply restate" an expansive right to preserve the "integrity"of its copyrighted software against any "distortion," "truncation," or "alteration," a right nowhere mentioned among the Copyright Act's list of exclusive rights, 17 U.S.C. §106, thus raising some doubt as to its existence. See Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 155 (1973) (not all uses of a work are within copyright holder's control; rights limited to specifically granted "exclusive rights"); cf. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (infringement means violating specifically enumerated rights).(2)"

Those snips should lead you to your answer.

Follow the article links, and actually read.

Thanks.

Even if you copy and paste the wiki entry here, you still don't point out where Microsoft FORCED people to use Windows.

Bold the necessary statement where it shows Microsft FORCED people to use Windows.

Or else, stop pasting wiki entries that I have read already.

Why don't you go find it, I'm not your keeper.

Until you have evidence that they didn't, everything I've posted implies it you can find the rest on your own.

It is because I have never seen any news saying that Microsoft points a gun to people's head and tells them to use Windows and nothing else, or something like that. The antitrust suit has nothing to do with Microsoft FORCING people to use Windows only.

Now give me evidence that Microsoft FORCED people to use Windows. The burden of evidence is on you. You agree with parent poster that Microsoft FORCED people to use Windows, but failed to provide proof. I disagree with parent post, thus I demand proof that his claim are true.

"The Court already concluded in § I.A.2.a.i, supra, that Microsoft's decision to bundle its browser and impose first-boot and start-up screen restrictions constitute independent violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act. It follows as a matter of course that the same actions merit liability under the plaintiff states' antitrust and unfair competition laws."

"In short, the proof of Microsoft's dominant, persistent market share protected by a substantial barrier to entry, together with Microsoft's failure to rebut that prima facie showing effectively and the additional indicia of monopoly power, have compelled the Court to find as fact that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. Id. ¶ 33."

"This barrier ensures that no Intel-compatible PC operating system other than Windows can attract significant consumer demand, and the barrier would operate to the same effect even if Microsoft held its prices substantially above the competitive level for a protracted period of time."

http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.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 -

http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-final2.html

As I expected, you will higlight phrases that shows that Microsoft is a monopolist with their operating system Windows. Which is not illegal. What's illegal is that Microsoft abused their monopoly power for Windows.

Have you ever wondered, despite Microsoft monopoly with Microsoft Office, they have never being sued for antitrust violations for that? This is because Microsoft did not abuse their power in that sector. That's proof that monopoly is legal.

The bolded phrases you listed here does not prove that people has been FORCED to use Microsoft Windows whatsoever as claimed by the parent poster, and not allowed to install and use any other OSes for x86 platform like Linux or BSD.

Come on, the parent poster claims that people are FORCED to use Windows, and your proof is merely an excerpt from a court ruling saying that Microsoft is a monopoly for operating system, which has nothing to do with parent poster's claim. Show me proof that Microsoft FORCED people to use Windows only, which actually can easily result in a criminal investigation, or you can keep the irrelevant US antitrust cour ruling outside this discussion.

You obviously either can't read, or you are too arrogant to admit that you may be wrong. Either way, I'm done with you.

BTW, a maintaining a monopoly is a felony.

Look it up.

Monopoly is a felony? You sure need to take up some law class man.

If monopoly is a felony, why Microsoft has never been charged for having a monopoly in Microsoft Office suite? Go check all the antitrust lawsuits Microsoft has faced. None of them ever applies to Microsoft's monopoly in office application suites.

I think you have just misinterpreting the wiki article you has quoted. Having a monopoly is legal, misusing them is not. The antitrust suit was filed because Microsoft misuse their monopoly power, not because Microsoft has the power in the first place. Please read the court ruling that you quoted.

"Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr...visionmanual/two.htm#a1

There you go, moron.

OMG, you are confusing between exclusive economic trade monopoly (which is common in the 14th-19th century - done by nations like Portugal and the Netherlands) with operating system monopoly that Microsoft has.

Come on, you certainly can make a difference between those two. Even the DoJ has never accused Microsoft of breaking that law you mentioned, mainly because that law DOES NOT APPLY to Microsoft. DoJ will be laughed out of court if they tried to do so. That law applies to a lock-on monopoly, which even the all-powerful Microsoft does not have.

Surely even you can tell the difference right?

And please answer me again, why Microsoft has never been hauled to court for their near-absolute monopoly in office application suite?

You said:
"OMG, you are confusing between exclusive economic trade monopoly (which is common in the 14th-19th century - done by nations like Portugal and the Netherlands) with operating system monopoly that Microsoft has.

Come on, you certainly can make a difference between those two. Even the DoJ has never accused Microsoft of breaking that law you mentioned, mainly because that law DOES NOT APPLY to Microsoft. DoJ will be laughed out of court if they tried to do so. That law applies to a lock-on monopoly, which even the all-powerful Microsoft does not have.

Surely even you can tell the difference right?

And please answer me again, why Microsoft has never been hauled to court for their near-absolute monopoly in office application suite?"

Response:

I'm not confusing anything.

"The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiffs") bring these consolidated civil enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. The plaintiffs charge, in essence, that Microsoft has waged an unlawful campaign in defense of its monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. They also assert that Microsoft attempted, albeit unsuccessfully to date, to monopolize the Web browser market, likewise in violation of §2. Finally, they contend that certain steps taken by Microsoft as part of its campaign to protect its monopoly power, namely tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, violated § 1 of the Act."

- http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html

Your office comment is stupid, wrong, and not worth the wasted time typing about. It is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to shift the argument to make you look less wrong.

Have a nice day.

For many users there's no option. They have the freedom, but for one circumstance or another they must use Microsoft. I am free to buy the newest Mercedes Benz model...but only the freedom. Nobody puts a gun against my head forcing me to buy it, of course. That's the case with the change to Vista for many users, both at home or at work.

You certainly need to consult a real lawyer in this. Monopoly laws you quoted 2 posts above applies to companies such as Dutch East India Company, who exclusively controls the spice trade back then. EXCLUSIVELY. If Dutch East India Company still exists today, the law you quoted above will be applied to them, not the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Also, the monopoly law that you quoted above is not part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. An antitrust act are filed not necessarily does not necessarily applies to a monopoly. No provision in Sherman Antitrust Law prevents people/corporations from having a monopoly. Antitrust law is not to prevent any people/company to have a monopoly. The Intel/AMD antitrust suit is a fine example, where Intel has majority of the x86 market, but not a near-abosulte monopoly like what Microsoft has.

Read the second paragraph you mentioned. It says that Microsoft is guilty of ILLEGALLY trying to MAINTAIN their monopoly, NOT BY HAVING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Having a monopoly IS LEGAL, Misusing them is ILLEGAL. Read the part you bolded yourself. This part is stressed too in the wiki link you posted way above there.

Also read the wiki entry you posted above. Never in that antitrust suit has Microsoft is found guilty for having a monopoly. They never being fined or punished for having a monopoly. They are punished for misusing them.

Stop misunderstanding the laws you yourself quoted. It makes you looks stupid.

"Also, the monopoly law that you quoted above
"the monopoly law that you quoted above is not part of the Sherman Antitrust Act"

You are an f-ing idiot. I QUOTED THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.

Section 2, re-read it *AND* read my comments fool.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr...visionmanual/two.htm#a1

Who gives a rats a** about a wiki entry? I used the DOJ as my source, it doesn't get any better.

Have a nice day.

Hello, the wiki entry is provided by you, not me. And suddenly you want to ditch your own source. Now that's sweet.

And you can't even prove that Microsoft has ever being fined for having a monopoly. You don't even want to accept the fact that having a monopoly is legal as long as it wasn't misused. Sherman Antitrust Law doesn't ban monopolies, it regulates it.

Monopoly is legal, and that's a fact.

And BTW, please show proof that Microsoft point a gun to people's head and FORCED them to use Windows and nothing else. As asked many post ago.

Troll.

Please stop wasting our time.

The post-Gates Microsoft may be interesting. It would really be something if they were sincere about this.

as long as Microsoft succeeds and excels, it will always be the target of those it leads, no matter who or when.

I am glad to have Microsoft as a great American company and proud that it practices the basic principles of capitalism. But succeed and outshadow your competition and the ugly face of communism rears it's ugly head.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Why all the litigation against MS of course. Denial hurts huh? Freedom and Microsoft! :)

While I agree its great to have some American company left that produces something good. Please don't forget how many Amercican companies were destroyed, or nearly destroyed, by their business practices.

Do tell.

What company was destroyed *solely* by MS business practices and not their own ineptitude, crap products, or inability to market?

...just askin'...

Stac electronics and Digital Research come immediately to mind.

Stac died due to obscurity and lack of usefullness. Hard Drive sizes increased more than enough to make it unneccessary.

DR died due to lack of need, poor marketing (make that *no* marketing), and general uselessness. Everyone blames MS for this one just as they blame them for Netscape. Both were on their way out *long* before MS crushed them.

Actually Stac was never usefull. At least, not to the masses. CPUs weren't powerful and hard drives weren't fast enough among the desktop users to make it useable. The only place it came in handy was on file-servers, and only then as a band-aid for not having enough storage.

I did like DR-DOS, but they could not make it useful once the GUI (Widnows 95) became popular. It was a product that simply was past it's prime.

MS killed niether of these companies single handedly. Advancements in HD speed/space, and simple lack of usefulness to the masses had a *really* big hand in their demise. Basic inability to compete on merit or create a useful product.

Agreed that MS didn't kill them single handedly, however it's hard to argue that they weren't helpful along the way.

heh

Well, I have to admit, MSFT is finally growing up... and I thought they were going to act like teenagers forever! ;-)

LOL

Let's all hope this sets a new standard for MSFT to follow and live up to...

They weren't given a choice really. With all the lawsuits out there, they had to eventually realize that they may really have a problem with being a monopoly, and being anti-competitive.

I'm glad to see this sort of effort.

Good News!