WinXP SP2 delayed; anti-trust issues to arise?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but this monopoly is not naturally occuring

Yes, that it is.

Bill went out and acquired this thing himself.

So, simply because he went out and grabbed the position as the #1 OS, that proves it isn't a natural monopoly? Are you on drugs or something?

If you have 4 incompatible OSs, eventually businesses will start to favor one. This one OS will eventually become the 80% market share (or whatever). Businesses like to have one standard between themselves.

there is no reason they have to be incompatible. basic levels of compatibility easily lead to a competitive atmosphere. infact EVEN TODAY marginal OS's are able to survive(linux, apple). how can u possibly say that this is a naturally occuring monopoly if u can't get rid of the tiniest portion of supposedly incompatible operating system?

ur position is absurd. and ur insinuation that the reason I claimed the monopoly isnt natural is cuz bill is #1 is laffable. re read my posts. the monopoly isnt natural cuz there's a very easy and productive capitalistic way to allow for competition. it just so happens bill kicked the **** outta everyone else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there is no reason they have to be incompatible.

Why would they be compatible?

Today I cannot buy a Mac and then put in my GTAIII Windows CD and expect it to work.

how can u possibly say that this is a naturally occuring monopoly if u can't get rid of the tiniest portion of supposedly incompatible operating system?

Simply because there is miniscule competition does not mean that there is not a natural monopoly. I don't know how you define it but monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share.

the monopoly isnt natural cuz there's a very easy and productive capitalistic way to allow for competition. it just so happens bill kicked the **** outta everyone else.

Bill kicked the **** outta everyone to reach the natural monopoly state. Of course you had many people fighting for the prize. In the end Microsoft won out. And a large part of it was that businesses wanted a standard OS. Once MS started to get rolling it started a wave, because of the desire for a standard.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

there is no reason they have to be incompatible.

Why would they be compatible?

Today I cannot buy a Mac and then put in my GTAIII Windows CD and expect it to work.

how can u possibly say that this is a naturally occuring monopoly if u can't get rid of the tiniest portion of supposedly incompatible operating system?

Simply because there is miniscule competition does not mean that there is not a natural monopoly. I don't know how you define it but monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share.

the monopoly isnt natural cuz there's a very easy and productive capitalistic way to allow for competition. it just so happens bill kicked the **** outta everyone else.

Bill kicked the **** outta everyone to reach the natural monopoly state. Of course you had many people fighting for the prize. In the end Microsoft won out. And a large part of it was that businesses wanted a standard OS. Once MS started to get rolling it started a wave, because of the desire for a standard.

well I guess in the end we simply disagree. I dont wna just fling verbal mud at each other. I feel there is no fundamental need for a monopoly in the OS market and that simple basic communication guidelines would keep it competitive. and that fruitful competitive capitalistic industries are superior to monopolies that manipulate their code and leverage their product in order to attain their position.

u think that there simply has to be one OS, like highlander.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
However, inclusion of IE in its OS for the purpose of driving Netscape out of business was critical to the finding of "illegal" monopolization.

No, it wasn't -- what got MS the "guilty" verdict was the internal memos, the OEM licensing restrictions, and the bullying of Netscape -- which is why all three were addressed in the settlement while IE, WMP, etc. are allowed to be bundled legally.

So you WERE correct when you said the courts already dealt with this and made a decision, so why is it that people continue to whine about it? It's even better when people such as yourself use the case as part of your argument, since it goes against it.

Asher:

Did you know you can download an Internet Browser from the command prompt? It's called:

C:\>FTP ftp.microsoft.com

Change to the IE directory and type:

FTP>Get ie5setup.exe
FTP>Bye

Run that file and VOILA! I downloaded a browser without having one in the first place.

Thank you for teaching me how to use the commandline FTP.

I already posted about using FTP to download it, but even then again: Why can MS bundle an FTP client but not an HTTP client?

And you don't honestly expect consumers to have to use a command-line FTP client to download a basic internet browser, do you? Talk about out to lunch...

[Asher]

yavoon: Why don't you look up .NET, and what it does and how it works.

All of your complaints have been addressed years ago by MS, either you're not up to speed with the current state of the industry (if so, what the hell are you doing debating here?), or you're intentionally ignoring it (if so, what the hell are you doing debating here?)

[Asher]

I feel there is no fundamental need for a monopoly in the OS market

Okay. I want you to think real hard on this one.

Programs need to interface with hardware. To do this, some kind of operating system (or at the very least, virtual machine) needs to handle this.

In order for this to happen, programs need a consistent interface that behaves the same across all platforms.

Even in the very unlikely event of someone making a cross-platform specification for system calls, windowing systems, etc -- every system will have its own quirks, and will require enormous resources for any program to be QA tested on tons of various OSes. Not to mention how glacial the development pace of operating systems would become, somewhat like what killed OpenGL for gaming in favor of DirectX.

Another option is to have a standardized virtual machine. But in this case, you're just trading a monopoly of an OS with a monopoly of a VM. The .NET runtime, BTW, runs on Windows, MacOS, BSD, and Linux. So you can run Windows .NET programs on many platforms...

So anyway, as you can see, the operating system industry is absolutely a natural monopoly. It's the only way to:
1) Keep technology advanced
2) Keep development costs down
3) Ease confusion at the end-user level with consistent-behaving computers

Of course, it's technically possible to force 100 different OSes into the market, but it'd just make everything chaotically terrible...

[Dale]

Originally posted by Asher
Thank you for teaching me how to use the commandline FTP.

I already posted about using FTP to download it, but even then again: Why can MS bundle an FTP client but not an HTTP client?

And you don't honestly expect consumers to have to use a command-line FTP client to download a basic internet browser, do you? Talk about out to lunch...

Just responding to your comment that you need a web browser to download one. A generality that can be shot down with one exception.

Further to your comment about bundling, why not go all the way and take all windows elements that MS gives free that other companies charge for?

- Take out the Windows kernal. It's UNIX btw.
- Take out the GUI. That came from OS/2.
- Oh, and take out NetBuei and NetBios. Those would be Novel's right?
- Can't forget Windows Pinball. That's not Microsoft's either.
- Don't forget messaging.
- Oops, is that UNIX's command-line interpretor under there? That's gotta go.
- And lastly, don't forget to burn all the design documents, documentation, code and everything else like that. Xerox started Windows, not Microsoft.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Very good point Dale. I wonder if Apple will be smacked down for 'bundling' as well .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dale
Just responding to your comment that you need a web browser to download one. A generality that can be shot down with one exception.

Thank you for being anal retentive about it, but I was speaking from a practicality perspective.

I've already mentioned the FTP method in passing, but I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to actually imply that it's a practical way for consumers to obtain a web browser. Kudos to you for showing me up on that.

Further to your comment about bundling, why not go all the way and take all windows elements that MS gives free that other companies charge for?

Huh? Why would you do that?

- Take out the Windows kernal. It's UNIX btw.

The Windows kernel is NOT UNIX. Just what the hell are you on?

- Take out the GUI. That came from OS/2.

The GUI was designed by MS, with some help from IBM, for OS/2, you're right -- fail to see the implication behind this.

- Oh, and take out NetBuei and NetBios. Those would be Novel's right?

Actually, no, they're not.
Not that it matters, they don't ship enabled on XP and above.

NetBIOS and NetBUEI were codeveloped by IBM and Microsoft, back in the OS/2 development era (when they worked together).

- Can't forget Windows Pinball. That's not Microsoft's either.

Of course not, it clearly says that on the product. It's actually a demo.

- Don't forget messaging.

Windows Messenger is developed by Microsoft...

- Oops, is that UNIX's command-line interpretor under there? That's gotta go.

Um. No, it's not UNIX's command-line interpretor...

Completely stunning -- you were wrong on every single point, blatantly I may add, in your post.

You've just displaced UR in only a few posts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Asher... his post that you dissected was ON YOUR SIDE!

He was saying how silly it was to take away everything MS bundled! Have you no sense of humor whatsoever?!!

[Asher]

I don't care what side he's on if he's blatantly wrong.

He wasn't being funny, he was being stupid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oy... burning bridges everywhere I see...

[Asher]

Are you so sure he's "on my side"?

When I read his post, to me it sounds like he's a bit confused.

What's with all the "That's not Microsoft's either" ****, when they clearly are MS'?
And what about his FTP comment?

And exactly what part of the post was supposed to be funny?

And as I'm sure you know, I don't need "bridges" on Apolyton, I can hold my own.

[Imran Siddiqui]

His entire bundling list! It was obviously sarcasting, insinuating that in the end Windows wouldn't exist because everything it has some other company competes in that market. And it was damned funny!

[Asher]

But even then, the examples he give don't make sense in that context either...