I think that when pc's are sold, the customer should have the option to select what operating system they want on it - sort of like buying a car and being asked if you want a manual or automatic transmission.

The only way to defeat the giant is for the little guys to team up. So Linux, firefox, Star OFfice, etc should team up and enduce pc's sellers to provide the option of having non micorosft operating system that would include all the extras, most of which are free off the net.

At least this would be an option. Microsoft was successful because it wasn't an option back then.

I suppose to be fair, Windows can be installed as trial ware on PC's sold with Linux or other O.S.'s on them.

I think that when pc's are sold, the customer should have the option to select what operating system they want on it

So now were going to force business to sell products they may not actually *want* to sell?

Sorry, we're allowed to sell what we want. We just don't want to sell Linux. :)

If there was actually any *real* market demand for such a service, it would have been met.

It's me again, PC_Tool, and I'm here to say that I'm a big gaylord. Yep, that's right, I love the balogna poney! I'm a knob gobbler whoohoo. I also know that all the problems will continue until I, the gay tool, leaves the forums and that as long as I stay there'll just be more and more problems. lol hahahahahha

Oh my. So brave, posting this crap on a 5-day old topic.

...and you still got modded to oblivion.

Keep it up, man. I'm never one to get in the way of someone nurturing their insanity.

So in summary, M$ is an illegal monopoly and continues to abuse its position to thwart competition and "buy" standards bodies.

In other news, the sky is blue and the earth in fact revolves around the sun.

Keep repeating it. You sound more and more idiotic each time.

MS was an illegal Monopoly in 1998, according to the Feds. You can shout it all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Welcome to 2007.

continues to abuse its position to thwart competition

Do you actually have any proof of this, or are you going to keep parroting the same line over and over again?

and "buy" standards bodies.

Unproven.

In other news, the sky is blue and the earth in fact revolves around the sun.

Just learn that today, did you? You might actually get out of Elementary School yet.

OK, I'm done posting on this one... I'm going to go back to life whilst singing, "I'm right, you're wrong, so let's just sing this happy song!"

For those of you who fail to understand how business and economics work, perhaps you should have paid more attention in school.

For those of you who fail to find choices and options beyond Microsoft, try opening your eyes next time you're at Best Buy, CompUSA, or other computer shops. You might be surprised.

You can complain all you want about the market situation, but it still doesn't make you right. The market is more competitive than ever against Microsoft, and more importantly, more innovative as well. So please, bury your doom and gloom and go hug an iMac. :)

Well said...

What they dont understand M$ is not the issue, it the content creators, if they dont make content for other OS,s no matter how good they are, there not worth anything if you cant do anythng with them! Force EA Games to make there content for all Operating Systems, any you'll start seeing a difference, or make them put a mini os on the dvd to the game and make it totaly run off the DVD (yes i know how impossible that is) but gezz there so much more to the issue than just Microsoft.

Of course there's more to computing than Microsoft.

And incidentally, your idea isn't that impossible. They could use a virtualized environment using VMWare, which is cross-platform compatible.

But even outside of that, they develop for Windows, not just because that's where users are but also because DirectX is incredibly efficient and good for game development. There is no viable equivalent in the Mac or Linux worlds.

OpenGL runs on all platforms. DirectX is getting better but it is still not all that good.

Except that OpenGL is kinda like BetaMax or BlueRay... sure it's technically superior, but try getting any of the major players to pick it over alternatives.

Yeah, it is hard with M$ throwing dollars at them to use Direct X. And the fact you can easily port to XBox 360 from the PC to make more money.

If Sony or Nintendo we smart, they would have made OGL the default in their systems.

I'd love for you to backup your claim that Microsoft is paying people to use DirectX.

As for Sony and Nintendo being smart... you just summed up why most companies fail against Microsoft. They don't play it smart.

Thanks for proving my point.

Yeah, it is hard with M$ throwing dollars at them to use Direct X.

...and they call me a tool.

"Thanks for proving my point."

huh? You make no point.

Americans are always so stupid. It's too bad terrorists didn't use nuclear weapons against america on 9/11. Maybe next time terrorists will nuke the west, east and central states and get rid of the majority of the american population, including microsoft. It's no wonder every country in the world hates the states.

or stick a nuclear bomb up your azz

Please don't feed the trolls.

The we find out that your country was responsible and which will equal you will not have a country because it will be gone.

Just the fact that you even suggest such a thing is disgusting.

Everyone hates the States that is funny. Why are so many people trying to come here to live if we are so bad? People are lining up to live here I bet it's not the same where you live.

Can someone actually point out a problem with the current market situation? I mean seriously, in what specific ways are consumers being "hurt" by Microsoft's behavior?

Don't give me this hypothetical B.S. about how much more "innovative" the market would be with sanctions in place, either. Not once in the history of this country have anti-trust lawsuits produced these theoretical results. Hell, it wasn't until the sanctions on telephone companies were being lifted that all the competition and mergers between companies happened. Until then it was just a bunch of baby-bells controlling the market instead of one big Ma-bell. The same applies to cable and other utilities. Regulation doesn't create competition, it creates a bunch of mini-monopolies controlled by the government.

Oh, and don't give me the usual, but prices are through the roof argument either. Computers are cheaper and cheaper than they've ever been, and continue to be year after year. You can custom build a top of the line workstation for $600 on NewEgg. I just did so in the past month, and it included a Windows OS!

We have more products by more companies competing directly with Microsoft than we've ever had. Consider:

In the world of OS platforms:
Mac OS X
Linux
Unix
Free/Open BSD

In the browser war:
Safari
Mozilla Firefox
Opera

In the security vendors:
Symantec
McAfee
Grisoft (AVG)
Kaspersky
etc etc etc.

In the multimedia world:
Adobe
Apple
Real
WinAmp
MusicMatch
etc etc etc.

In the communications environment:
AOL
Cisco
Google
Yahoo
etc etc etc.

So stop crying about how unfair Microsoft plays. Any one of the above mentioned companies has got the resources to successfully challenge Microsoft in any number of areas, and in many cases they beat Microsoft hands down.

I think it's amazing the number of morons who spout off about how much better Mac OS or Linux are and yet they continue to run Windows because of the excuse "I can't get anything done on those platforms."

No crap, really? It's because those platforms, for all their claims of being open source and compatible, refuse to really come together and understand consumers.

**Let me break this down for you folks:**

Microsoft has faults, absolutely. So does every product made by every company in the world. But here's why they're successful. Even for all the faults, they make products that people can use and get work done with.

They don't just claim, "we're the cool, hip operating system with all these cool iLife applications." They put the products out there and they prove it.

They don't just claim, "we're the sophisticated, secure, open-source platform" and then deliver something that only geeks and rocket scientists can figure out how to operate.

I've given this a lot of thought lately, but ultimately, Apple's biggest problem is that they make these grandiose claims about how cool they are and then they completely under-deliver. They have a great phone idea, but they released a super-buggy software package on a AT&T-only service agreement.

Every damn year, we hear this complaint. Every damn year, the debate rages on, and which side is right? Any way you slice it, the tech market is flourishing with the current environment. And Microsoft? They're still one company behaving the way they've always behaved.

So enough is enough, already!

Great post...thank you!

Not that it's going to make any of these anti MS (or just plain ignorant) betaposters understand any better...

*sigh* I know, but it made me feel better. :)

I think you can bend and twist this all day long but fact is that Microsoft has a monopoly. As far as i know, i cant recall single instance where monopoly has been a good thing (for consumers) and im quite sure that Microsoft's case with Windows OS isnt any different. Im not going to go into speculation on specifics, but the word "monopoly" has as much appeal to me as the words "dictator" or "genocide".

Dont get me wrong, im quite happy with XP. Still i cant but wonder how much better things would be if there really was a competition. I think Vista is quite obvious example. Would have though that five years they would have done something more but all we got was new paint job. All those billions of dollars and nothing.

IF MS was NOT dominant, we would all have been on workstations / supercomputers since over a dozen years ago. It started by reneging on porting windows to Risc processors at the juncture of 486's & P1's... and continuing all the way thru today-- notice how late and slow they've been with 64bit?

MS was too busy trying to screw over Sun/Ibm/Motorola/Toshiba/Apple/etc.etc.... and we mainstrem consumers paid the price: getting stuck with inferior hardware from Intel instead.

MS has almost singlehandedly set back computing technology by about 1½ decades.

See, this is your problem... you assume that that Microsoft screwed over the other companies. Second, you obviously can't read, because I said don't waste your time with the hypothetical "but we'd be so much better off without Microsoft." It's absolute nonsense. The world doesn't stop because of one company.

Let's take Apple as an example. In 1984, they released the first Macintosh PC with one of the most spectacular ad campaigns in the history of advertising. The product itself was amazing compared to anything else released then.

Microsoft didn't have a smash hit with Windows until 3.0's release around 1990 or so.

So why doesn't Apple dominate the market with Macintosh? Several reasons:

1. IBM. Yes, that's right, International Business Machines. IBM had control over the corporate world at the time, and Apple computers weren't compatible with any IBM software. On top of that, Apple didn't even have any comparable software packages developed for it.

2. Apple. Yes, that's right, Apple shot itself in the foot, because they were actually content with the consumer and education sector. The problem is, computers were still ridiculously expensive and your average consumer couldn't afford them, and school districts were torn between Apple and IBM.

3. Apple, again. Yes, their troubles don't stop there. Once Steve Jobs stepped down as CEO, the company took some serious nose dives. Leadership of the company suffered, and the company damn near went belly up until... MICROSOFT... saved their asses with a commitment of cash and an Apple version of Microsoft Office.

So perhaps if you actually paid attention to history, you'd see that while "savior" is a bit of a stretch for them, they aren't exactly out to "kill" the competition, despite their locker room antics and conversations in the office.

Let's look at IBM, since they were the other big factor:

IBM shot themselves in the foot too. They were close partners with Microsoft using DOS. However, Microsoft realized early on that their joint OS/2 project was doomed to fail, and Microsoft wanted to compete with Apple's Mac OS, so they released Windows.

Unfortunately, IBM wanted nothing to do with Windows, they were still dead set on OS/2. The two companies ended their partnership, and the rest, as they say, is history. IBM never really recovered from OS/2, although they're still around in the server and mainframe markets. Heck, they even sold off their Thinkpad lineup to Lenovo.

I could talk about Sun and all their proprietary systems and software too, but this post is getting long, and I don't want to overwhelm you with too much reality in one sitting.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't bend or twist anything. I just state reality.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the competition that exists is your own fault.

EDIT: Moreover, the fact that Vista is practically a flop is just a proof that Microsoft isn't the end-all be-all existence of computing.

your trollsauce is weaksauce.

** yawn **. Another M$ drone posting like they have any understanding of computers. Let me order that Dell with BSD...wait can't do it. Ok, let me order that HP with BSD....nope.

Ok, how about a Dell with Unix. Nope. Wait, how about a cheapo Dell with Ubuntu. Yeah, finally i can have a choice. How long have i been able to buy one of these?

Let me go to their website. Well, i see Windows logos all over the place. Where is Ubuntu? Hmmmm, still looking...still looking....

Let's see, i select a computer, i see Windows all over the place but no Ubuntu. Hmmm. Where are the machines? Let me search Dell's site for "Ubuntu"...THERRE WE GO!

So if i just do the normal buy, i see no "Ubuntu". I only see it if a explicitly search for it.

Microsoft has a monopoly.

Monopolies exist to control the market.

Seeing as how Microsoft is *loosing* marketshare and damn near every other modern OS in existence is *gaining*, I utterly fail to see how MS is *controlling* the market.

Unless, of course, you think they are *trying* to lose market share...

You would know....

It's not sold or heavily advertised because there is next to no market for it. While I am sure you will blame this on MS and claim, once again, that I am "missing the point", the simple fact is that Dell is a business and is not going to waste money on developing, marketing, and making you (one of the ~3% that might actually be interested) happy.

That's the simple truth. Market and economics.

MS doesn't need to force companies like Dell not to sell Linux. For one thing, it's free, and it still limps along at the bottom. Companies like Dell just don't want to sell it. There's no return.

What's your point? Everyone on here has made it clear that using Ubuntu is kinda pointless since it's not compatible with anything, so why would Dell start promoting it?

Moreover, what does that have to do with Microsoft? Your complaint is with Dell and firms that don't waste their time marketing products that don't sell.

Does your typical consumer even know what Ubuntu is? No, of course not. They barely know how to use what they have. But you'd give them the choice of a product that sounds like a foot disease that would no doubt frustrate the hell out of them when nothing they want to do works.

Now you, on the other hand, do know what it is. So if you want it, go get it.

Don't start with the trash talking unless you want to have zero credibility.

Now, here's a free lesson in economics for you:

When consumers demand a product or service in large volumes, a company supplies the product or service in large volumes. If they don't, the customers usually go where the product or service is provided. UNLESS, of course, you're a troll that just likes to rant and rave for the sake of pissing everyone off.

"Ubuntu is kinda pointless since it's not compatible with anything..."

ummm, wrong. I can open Word docs. Excel docs, Power Point all in Open Office. I can save them too.

M$ drone, perhaps if you had any reading comprehension, you would have understood my point. They don't sell because:

#1 they just started selling and actually Dell from recent reports is selling Ubuntu based computers at a fair clip
#2 M$ throws tons of money at the PC makers...did you ever read anything on the M$ monopoly? That is why you see Windows everywhere.

"But you'd give them the choice of a product that sounds like a foot disease that would no doubt frustrate the hell out of them when nothing they want to do works."

Only a M$ drone would make a statement like that. It is funny as that is what i hear from a lot of people about Windows....buggy, bloated, over priced, insecure crap software.

"Don't start with the trash talking unless you want to have zero credibility."

You should take your own advice M$ drone. I laugh at your ignorance of the world in which you live.

"MS doesn't need to force companies like Dell not to sell Linux. "

LOL. guess you missed that whole monopoly thingy.

I love your selective memory...not a single mention of things M$ did which got them convicted of being a monopoly.

LOL.

And I laugh at your delusions. I just wish you could make a valid argument instead of name calling.

Nothing selective about it... their tactics were and are the same as any competitive business.

guess you missed that whole monopoly thingy.

Nope. Just got over it. That was back in the late 90's. Check your calendar. It's 2007 now.

Someone needs to post a running tally of how often you say this in the wikipedia entry for "broken record".

I guess you missed the story of how California says M$ is still abusing things?

Pwned again PC_Tool.

Spoken like a true M$ drone. how much does M$ pay you to troll web forums?

Ubuntu is free. We get Dells all the time at our shop for customers and for our own needs that come pre-loaded with FreeDOS. Installing any one of the numerous freely-obtainable operating systems of your choice after that is fairly painless... unless you don't know how (and if that's the case, you need Windows pre-installed apparently).

The simple fact is most people prefer Windows on the desktop, regarding of what Microsoft haters choose to believe, and their past and current market share shows that. Perhaps other OS designers need to be more innovative and willing to get their act together to push for them to be accepted in the mainstream.

California's whining doesn't mean squat unless the feds agree with them.

Durr...

You have an interesting definition of "pwned", genius.

You can always reformat an install what you want. Your hate campaign never ends. I bet your computer that use to type your hate is based on the platform that you detest so much.

I use Windows and is running great. In fact there are a bunch of great games for it. What games do you have for your OS that is none Microsoft. Just what I thought just about nothing because there is no interest in the free ones out there.

California is so left of center on just about everything I am not surprised they would think that. I thought the country has 50 states not one. Why don't you play you games and surf the net with your Wii since you like it so much.

MS makes good products and that just hurts your feelings. What part of the fed said they are fine are you missing? I guess you are the academic that knows everything about the law, I think not.

You also need to go back to school so they can teach a thing or two since you clearly do not understand the law.

You will find that is not his way. When he is losing his best weapon is name calling.

The only way the monopoly will be broken is if either another company gets compatible with the code base, or the government splits microsoft in two.

I have no doubt thanks to our government officials getting paid by companies, aka campaign donations keeps them in the clear. Why else do you think microsoft got off of their monopoly abuse with nothing, they should have been broken into 2 os companies and 1 application company. Look at what happened with At&t when they were broken up, think we would be using cell phone technology or high speed internet or anything else right now if they hadn't?

Microsoft no longer needs to make a competitive product as who would dare to take on the OS overlords. If you look up the word Solipsist in the dictionary it's a great way to describe what's happening. Microsoft only knows it's own reality thus can not see anything it does as being wrong. While I have Vista on my new computer I find it ok because I have no familiarity with any other OS. There is no way for me to know if I am missing out on anything. I am stuck with the Microsolipsist hegemony.

You can take a look at (I'll only name a few):

Apple OSX
Dozens and dozens of flavors of Linux
Unix
FreeBSD
OpenBSD

So check those out...then you can't say you don't know what you're "missing".

I would be happy to check them out but I am not some Master computer wiz. I would need to sit down with someone to hold my hand as it where. I think people would switch if they could sit down and use the different systems for some time first.

So what you're saying is that you're incapable of using a product that isn't designed for the average techno-idiot (pardon the term, I am sure you have your own strong points outside of technology)?

Are you therefore acknowledging that Microsoft is the only company that makes products usable by techno-idiots?

Strange, I thought Apple had the "monopoly" on idiot users. :) *joke*

I would be happy to check them out but I am not some Master computer wiz.

Since when does one need to be a computer wiz to use a Mac? I thought they were gaining market share because they were so easy to use...

If Bill Gates throws in the towel for it all, then we all know what is going to happen with Windows Vista...Having dealing with Window's Vista problems, and now XP Support going to be canceled in 2009...Who knows what the Heck is going to happen with him and his company....

Does anyone know what would happen if Billy Gates threw up his arms and said, "Screw it all, I'm going home." I don't know if I myself would be able to endure all this government "cleansing" of a company that I owned. I really do not know what would happen if Gates shut down, liquefied, and went on permanent vacation. What would we do?

Who cares? It'll never happen.

Duh! I think everyone you reads and posts here knows that would never happen. I was asking a question to a hypothetical situation to hear other opinions, which I think would be pretty interesting. Your response of "who cares" is um,..um,.....Gee, I don't know what to say!

Ah. You wanted more totally unrealistic opinions?

My bad...

quote: "...The filing also notes that, as Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully..."
_______________________________________________

The haze of medicinal marijuana in the air must've been very thick as that was being redacted.

On the contrary, given the fact that Microsoft's "market share" has, in fact, decreased since this case began a decade ago is a testament to that claim.

The original complaint was about illegally tying IE to the OS. However, despite IE's success and the suicide of Netscape, other browsers have thrived. Firefox and Opera come to mind, as does Safari on the Mac OS platform.

from another Beta News article:

"As a basic example, Foote demonstrated that Microsoft's share of the operating system market in 1991, back when the whole antitrust process began, was 93% according to IDC's numbers. Today, it's receded all the way down to 92%. "

So yeah, it did decrease....a whopping 1%! LOL. M$ drones...you gotta love them.

From a practical standpoint it doesn't matter what a law states. What matters is how it's applied or enforced. There are thousands of laws in place that have little or no meaning, because they have never been enforced. This is true at the federal, state, and local level. Your city or town probably has a law against spitting on the sidewalk, but unless it's enforced it is not a law.

I'm not aware of any power that Microsoft has over me unless I give it power. I'm not aware of any law that forces me to use either its operating system or its products. That I do so is my decision. Power is as great as it's perceived to be and no greater. We have often seen this in the area of politics.

Perhaps there is not a law that says "Thou shalt us MS Windows or else" but there are laws that deal with competition and monopolies. Competition means choice. Choice to use/buy something else, must people don't really have a choice because the software that they use is not written or doesn't work well with another OS. If I were an IT admin or owner of a company I wouldn't want to spend money training people on something they don't understand (linux, ect.) when they could use Windows, which is what they have at home.

"...I'm not aware of any power that Microsoft has over me unless I give it power. I'm not aware of any law that forces me to use either its operating system or its products. That I do so is my decision. Power is as great as it's perceived to be and no greater. We have often seen this in the area of politics. ..."
________________________________________________

Don't know about you, but there's a lot of software(& websites) i utilize, for work purposes, only functional w/ windows and/or IE.
Heck, i can't even use one same windows and browser version for all the software / sites i work with.
And that's not even broaching personal use...

..and somehow that's Microsoft's fault, and not the fault of your business to use software that isn't purchased from Microsoft?

I was pointing out that yes-- 'in theory' one does not have to use MS OS...
but 'in practice' one HAS TO.

The M$ drones on here, can not understand such logic.

Exactly right.

But if people let the government regulate the tech industry, the day will come that such a law exists to tell us what software we can use. It happened with the utilities and telco's, it'll happen again, because people don't seem to learn.

That's only because the alternatives are always too busy spouting off how different they are, only to under-deliver and under-perform.

That's because there's no logic there to be found. It's nothing but emotion-- "Boohoo! I don't like them, but my IT department chose to standardize on them, so that means I have to use them!"

90% or more of computer users are, frankly, incapable of making decisions about what technology products to use. They pick a product that works for them and them alone, but infuriates everyone else, or they simply can't pick at all. That's why companies have IT departments pick and choose the standards for them.

Microsoft does the opposite approach. They make products that can be used multiple ways by multiple people. You can accomplish the same tasks in 20 different ways, practically.

But Apple, for example, forces you to use their one single method and that's it. Sure, that way seems cool and innovative to some, but it's back-a**wards for others, and where's the flexibility?

Yes, many web sites still require IE.

But that's the fault of lazy web developers who just don't feel like fixing their code and companies who don't want to be flexible.

That said, there is still nothing stopping you from using other software. You can either deal with it and use IE on an as-needed basis only, or you can take your business elsewhere.

You know what? You're absolutely right when you said:

"the software that they use is not written or doesn't work well with another OS."

That's exactly where the problem is. Now you tell me: why is that Microsoft's fault that companies operate this way?

Is it because it's too expensive for them to diversify? Is it because diversification isn't actually asked for by a large population of users? Or is it "Boohoo! Microsoft says we can't do this or they'll crush us and throw a chair at us!"

There's only two right answers there, and I'll give you a hint-- it's not the third one.

I should also mention that most businesses are willing to give users a non-standard setup *IF* the need and benefits of that non-standard platform can be properly leveraged and justified.

For example, at my company we have standardized on Dell systems with specific models and configurations. When I joined the company, I requested a Tablet PC from Toshiba, and I got it. I justified why I needed it, and the advantages it would give me in doing my job.

Wow. We can't understand flawed logic?

Bummer. I'll try harder next time.

That would be a good thing to you...as long as it was M$ software.

Spoken like a true M$ drone

"But Apple, for example, forces you to use their one single method and that's it. Sure, that way seems cool and innovative to some, but it's back-a**wards for others, and where's the flexibility?"

What are you babbling about?

had me my tinfoil cap.....

Microsoft is very close to controlling and thus owning the world... and tomorrow the universe!
soon they will control our thoughts and our actions.... we will all become slaves to Microsoft!

Don't you mean google?

Exactly. I can actually picture Google acquiring MS eventually.

Well that just shoots down you're theory that Microsoft is an abusive monopoly then that controls everything.

If the claim were true, Microsoft would acquire Google.

Atty. Gen. Foote writes, "Whether or not one agrees with these stark conclusions, the Final Judgment clearly has had little or no discernible impact in the marketplace as measured by the most commonly used metric - market shares. In the market at the heart of the case - Intel-compatible PC operating systems - Microsoft's share has remained persistently high at supra-monopoly levels."

Antitrust settlements are not about market share, so her position is fundamentally irrelevant. Their purpose is to ensure that competitors CAN compete, not that they SUCCEED in competing or that anyone SHOULD compete.

You'd think that an attorney general would understand that.

"Antitrust settlements are not about market share, so her position is fundamentally irrelevant. Their purpose is to ensure that competitors CAN compete, not that they SUCCEED in competing or that anyone SHOULD compete."

If they SUCCEED in competing it means they CAN compete. The latter is the natural progression of the former.

So everyone who competes should succeed?

Please tell me I read that wrong. I really don't want to be under the impression that you have no concept of capitalism.

I agree. The purpose was to allow competition. It is not Microsoft's fault if consumers still choose to use Windows or Internet Explorer, or that its competitors have not done well.

Or that there really is no choice.

Exactly.

No. That's all, just no. You are incorrect. I recommend taking an economics class.

If you can't find other choices, it's only because you're spending too much time ranting about Microsoft and not enough looking at the options in front of you.

Dude, put down the pipe....

Keep telling yourself to do that. Eventually, you may be able to...

Interesting conclusions by Microsoft and the DoJ. As I recall, Microsoft was indeed guilty of breaking the law. Specifically, in abusing their monopoly. The judge who made that finding was kicked off the case just after Cheney got a visit from Microsoft's Steve B. A "neutral" judge came in and basically told MS their punishment was to not continue to do it. Oddly, paying people to vote in various countries to get Microsoft's new Office document format added as a second standard isn't considered an attempt to lock in MS Office users, nor to abuse their monopoly.

If you let someone who has become a monopoly use the monopoly to their advantage, to exclude others, can you call that a "success?" How can this be called a success in a case called "to re-invigorate competitive conditions that Microsoft had suppressed?"

Microsoft is as corrupt as they have always been.

http://www.groklaw.net/a...story=20070829070630660

They lie, they try anythign they can to destroy any form of competition, they don't give a toss about their customers, as long as those dollars keep rolling in.

Did MS murder your family?
Do you wear tinfoil caps?

Never have I heard someone ramble on and on about how corrupt MS is, get a day job, start a company, meet a girl, adopt a highway, or move back to /. as you clearly hate MS yet you cannot stfu about them. They'll welcome you with open arms and you can cry in each others basements.

The truth hurts. I understand you are in a state of denial. A M$ drone can't function without its M$ master.

the truth hurts? LOL

No, I just don't understand why YOU and Minutemaid troll every forum that mentions MS and consistently says something negative. Why waste energy on something you hate, it just makes absolutely no sense.

terminalx, please read more sources on anything/Microsoft before blindly defending them. Unless you were born about five minutes ago, Microsoft has been corrupt since the mid-80s. d*** Cheney might as well be CEO anymore with all the lies they tell and laws they break.

Good Morning. Microsoft is operating in a capatalistic country, and I do not see any difference between the way they do business or Apple or IBM. Capitalism can sometimes go wild. Get used to it.

^This^

His hate is controlling his life. In his little mind MS is the worst company and needs to be gone. If that were to happen hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. He is overcome by hate. Not to mention that he works for Sony and it hurts his feelings that his company is still in last place.

So Sony is the same since they force blu-ray on you. Why don't you take windows off you PC install linux and then complain about the fact that there are no games to play. I swear you are not happy unless you can complain about something. If you hate MS so much stay out of the MS threads. I guess you enjoy your life of anger and desperation. You really are a joke.

I guess you should keep posting your nonsense since your lack of understanding of just about everything is humorous.

Yeah...and how is that any different from the US government?

Why is it that every forum post SGD, Hollywood__, Hocuspokus, etc.... bring Sony up on every thread?

I do complain there are no games to play on other platforms...M$ has a monopoly on the desktop.

M$ should not be gone, it just should have been split up like AT&T was.

"If that were to happen hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost." Typical M$ drone comment. Where did you come up with those numbers?

You fail to mention the millions of jobs which would be created because there would actually be competition in the market place.

History Quiz:

1. Name ONE thing that the government does really, really well.

........ If you can answer that with "government regulation of business" and not die from laughing at how preposterous that answer is, then we'll try it your way.

How, exactly, did breaking up Ma-Bell into a bunch of Baby-Bells create competition? Answer: It didn't. Each Baby-Bell was allowed to CONTROL one region and one region only. There was no competition at all, just a bunch of mini-monopolies.

When the anti-trust regulations expired, only then did the bells started competing and re-merging and producing cool new technologies like cell phones for consumers and IP Telephony, and this that and the other from umpteen different companies.

Are you sure you know what 'monopoly' means? Microsoft has never had a monopoly in the OS market and they never will.

Why is it that every forum post SGD, Hollywood__, Hocuspokus, etc.... bring Sony up on every thread?

Probably for the same reason you constantly troll Microsoft in every thread you can.

M$ has a monopoly on the desktop.

I have a Mac and 2 PCs.

You're lying again...

replying to your own posts without changing user names again? oops...

apples to oranges. M$ being broken up would not grant monopolies to each piece like the break-up of AT&T did.

Again, typical M$ drone, trying to change the subject because they look like a fool.

Never change usernames. Posted under the wrong comment. Happens on BN occasionally, twit.

If you'd actually look at the quote in my comment I am replying to, oh guru of Reading Comprehension, you would have noticed, Observant One, that I was, in fact, replying to a comment *you* made.

In case this is too hard for you to comprehend, I have reposted the reply under the comment the reply was intended for.

Happy Hunting!

M$ has a monopoly on the desktop.

I have a Mac and 2 PCs.

You're lying again...

getting a bit pissy now, aren't we?

Gee, can't imagine why...

"Microsoft reportedly agreed, and also agreed to an extension requested by the DOJ and states that are a party to the agreement, enabling them two years from now to extend their monitoring right for another three years to 2012. So the State of California's principal fear that, as Ass. Atty. Gen. Foote put it, "the principal constraint on Microsoft's ability to abuse its market power will be gone" will not come to pass after all."

Erm if they are still being monitored until 2012 and MS has no problems with this, what is the problem?

PLus the only company that can really complain is Linux as Apple refuses to allow their software to work on a everyday pc.

Until Linux behaves more like OSX or Windows the average user is not going to touch it. They are getting closer but still its not there yet.

Anyone who can call Linux a "Company" obviously has absolutely zero idea as to the concept of open source and should steer clear of commenting on anything relevant to this subject. There is no need to inflict your ignorance on others.

OMG I called them a company GOD FORBID!

I am sorry, Linux an Open Source operating system coming in hundreds of flavors that many of the flavors look like Windows.

You just had to find something in my post to validate your existence huh?

The article has nothing to do with Open Source it was my point that both of these Operating Systems have existed for a long time but have barely made a dent, you don't see Linux advertisements on TV, you don't see anyone promote it, the community itself believes its better then everyone and as you have proven shows.

No, you are absolutely correct. Except for the fact that Linux is produced by multiple companies in rarely compatible flavors. This is ultimately why they don't succeed. Well, that and the fact that they're still stuck in the command line world to be productive and the GUI is just a rip-off of the two successful OS vendors.

No, I don't entirely mean that. I do like RedHat a lot, as well as Fedora. But that doesn't mean I'd shoot myself in the foot and use them 24/7 to get work done. They make great server platforms, but to get real work done, Linux of any flavor has a long way to go.

"but to get real work done, Linux of any flavor has a long way to go."

Wow. i almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Dude, you really need to get a clue.

What?? California disagrees with the Justice Department?!? Man, that just scares the sh!t out of me!!!

Seriously, California disagrees with almost everybody when it comes to state vs. federal issues, why should we be surprised?

You should be suprised because this time, they have a real beef.

"But the DOJ, perhaps anticipating that argument from the states, said that its objective with the agreement was not to tip the scales in favor of Microsoft's competitors, but to enable competitors to have a shot at Microsoft...whether they took that shot or not."

That's how I look at it. Think about it this way--do you think the GOVERNMENT understands business as well as Microsoft does? Or Adobe, Apple, or any large business for that matter?

I trust businesses very little, but I trust the GOVERNMENT in business regulation even less. They spend our tax dollars like it's their own most of the time. Most of them wouldn't last three years in the real world.

Government needs to stick with the basics--and there isn't any amendment that says government should regulate business--only the 10th Amendment says specifically: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Feds should leave Microsoft alone.

So glad I finally said that...

You are incorrect. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, reads as follows: "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Feds should have broken M$ up like they did to AT&T. OS, Productivity, Tools, etc... would have been the way to do it. But, of course the corrupt government did not do it and instead bent over for M$. I believe there was an election somewhere in that timeframe...

You surprise me, pitdingo. I guess you could say that the "commerce clause" is by far the most controversial clause in the constitution, and interpretation is everything.

Let's quote the whole thing first of all: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..."

This begs the question: Why did they use the word "among" referring to the states, but "with" in regards to foreign commerce and Indian tribes?

As former Cheif Justice John Marshall put it, "Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse ... the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines."

Books have been written on this matter, so I will not continue to bore you or other readers with the details, but both sides of the argument agree at least partially that the regulation of commerce "among" the states is interpreted as being "between them"; that is, Dell cannot sell PCs to a company of 100 employees in Texas for a lower price than they would to a company of 100 employees in Arizona; Windows cannot be overpriced in one state compared to another one. If Texas decided it would tax Microsoft products only to those who purchase them that are citizens of other states, for example, then congress must step in.

Again this is the subject of many political debates, but I can say that it is clear to me that "commerce" as was phrased in the original constitution does not mean "business" as we use the phrase today. Think of foreign trade--government regulates what state a sells to state b, and so forth, but if Microsoft is being uniform among all 50 states, there is nothing to regulate.

I can see this argument could go on for centuries--let's just accept the fact that I do not interpret the commerce clause as you do. One thing you cannot win here is the argument that the commerce clause is clearly on your side--if it were so clearly on your side, why was it always interpreted differently before 1931? If it was clearly on my side, why would there be so many court rulings that completely disagree with each other on this issue? No--the commerce clause argument is one that neither of us will ever win.

"there isn't any amendment that says government should regulate business"

Article I ..

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
- http://www.archives.gov/...itution_transcript.html

'nuff said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

...that's one of the cases I would have mentioned, but then didn't wish to bore us with matters that really cannot be "proven" one way or the other. Yes, that was specifically ruled because New York was SPECIFICALLY using state commerce regulations to indirectly regulate New Jersey competition. Interstate commerce is exactly what that article in the constitution is about.

A while back I recall that MS was sued for supposedly charging those in California more money for Windows than in other states, and that being true MS deserved the suit. They can't give some states favor and others unfavor, but the issue here isn't with interstate commerce, so why the link, fewt?

*sigh* Article 1 wasn't an Amendment, so technically I was correct. 'Tis why I worded it as such.

I replied to this below though. Again I suppose I should just let you guys get the last word on this, because we've been trying to determine the exact intent of that clause for centuries and neither you or I should have the nerve to tell people that we of all people have finally solved the intent problem.

I believe it meant one thing and you may see it differently, but technically since I wasn't monitoring Thomas Jefferson's brainwaves back in the 1770's I can't tell you for sure what he was thinking. This is another one of those "I'll ask God when I get to heaven" issues :)

That's interesting...I did not stop to consider this. Thanks for the lesson. :-)

I think it goes without saying that when the Constitution was drafted, the founding fathers did not anticipate where society would be, or evolve into 2 centuries later. You gotta remember, we were all happy and high on winning the American revolution at the time, and everything put into place back then worked well for the time. Not so today. Yes, it does to some extent keep our civil liberties intact, but too many loopholes and compromises (and misinterpretations) have sprung up...and socity has changed to the point where ideally the Constitution needs to be updated and/or clarified further. For example, the "right to bear arms" I believe was intended for self defense...but there were no automatic weapons back then, and I don't believe the founding fathers would have approved of such a thing. One does not need an AK-47 for home defense or for sport...it's overkill. Whether you agree or not isn't the point, the point is that we require updates to clarify these things. How do we know in 100 year we won't have "phaser" type weapons that will literally vaporize a person? Will that be covered under the 2nd amendment?

The worse part is that there isn't anyone qualified to make such updates to the Constitution. Government and politicians are too corrupted to be trusted to make such decisions without all those "special interests" in mind. It's literally going to take an apocalyptic event in which mankind has either almost or has destroyed itself before we can sit down and start the whole thing over without such influences.

Anyways, sorry about the OT post. You're an intelligent guy, bourgeoisdude. I would enjoy debating you some time.

Yeah, just look at San Francisco... there's more beef there than brains.

EDIT: OK, that was mean. I apologize for criticizing the less intellectual.

Don't you mean beefcake? I think there are plenty of "intellectuals" out there, it's just that their "intellect" is stuck up their a**.

Dude, the Beefeaters are in England. Geez...

My bad...