Bill Gates assists in funding first aviation-themed public high school

Teacherjh wrote:

1: Several OSs work better than Windows. Windows is just sort-of adequate.
Adequate is good enough for Americans.


Oh, yeah. Thanks a bunch for pointing that out to all of us. Of
course, that's why everyone is using them (NOT).

2: Consumer "acceptance" has squat to do with quality. It has to do with
marketing and compatibility.


In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR
makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace.

In a previous article, CriticalMass said:
By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software
everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here.

Or maybe by going to every major computer maker in the world and telling
them "If you sell even ONE computer without Windows on it, we're going to
quintuple the price you pay on the ones that do have Windows on it". And
thus, they went from having a large market share to gaining a monopoly by
illegal means.

You don't believe me, read the transcripts from the anti-trust trial.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent,
one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even
vaguely resembles a circle. -- [unknown]

In article , CriticalMass
wrote:

In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR
makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace.

complete nonsense.

marketing is the key. ms is the proof.

--
Bob Noel

CriticalMass wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Anyway, even if you were correct in your assertion that MSFT achieved its
monopoly through reasonable and legal means, that does nothing about the
assertion that they've abused said monopoly.

Or does this distinction still escape you?



It does.

That's a shame. As you'd know if you actually followed any of this, how a
monopoly was achieved has nothing to do with whether or not it is abused
after having been achieved. That is, there's nothing wrong with acquiring
a monopoly (assuming nothing illegal was done en route). But *abusing* it
is a crime.

By what means did MS achieve "its monopoly"? Maybe, by making software
everyone chose to use? H'mmmm. Maybe, we're on to something here.

You really do need to look further into this if you're going to be making
statements like this in public. It'll save you some embarassment.

There are several ways that the monopoly was achieved. My opinion is that
the most important was the first step: that IBM - having its own DOJ
problems around the same time - effectively endorsed the MSFT product while
leaving it free to compete with IBM. The endorsement from IBM - "nobody
gets fired for buying IBM", I hope you recall - went a long way towards
acceptance in the business community.

Once the relationship with IBM was established, but after the clones started
coming out, MSFT negotiated deals with the vendors that precluded their use
of any other OS (in actuality or effectively through pricing). Any company
wanting to compete with IBM in the PC market had to agree to this contract.

The vendors also had to pay for the MSFT license even if a machine was sold
w/o. Thus, there was no incentive even to sell a "naked" machine.

Most people discuss this issue, as it is illegal behavior for a monopoly
(but not for a company not a monopoly, note {8^). They discuss it because
it is what became the crime.

But I still find the original granting of the monopoly by IBM more
fascinating. I cannot imagine why IBM would make that type of
mistake...and so I wonder if this was a result of the DOJ's case against
IBM for abuse of monopoly. Was this some legal tactic on IBM's part?

The argument that "no one had any other choice", which you and others
apparently try to make, is intellectually vacant, given that there were
never any market forces preventing potential competitors from entering
the fray and providing competing OSes.

It was all about being compatible with IBM...which did preclude any choice
other than MSFT.


C'mon. Where does this bashing "the ones that make it" ever end? Gates
built a better mousetrap.

"Built"? You don't even know the genesis of PC-DOS?

Get over it. You don't want to use it?
That's fine with me. Load up Linux or something equally as goofy, and
see what software apps there are out there you can run. It's your
choice, big guy. Just don't try to argue that MS is junk simply because
it's the biggest dog on the block. That's not a defensible position.

That's absolutely true. A monopolistic product could still be a quality
product. Any arguments that the MSFT product is poor must be made on
grounds like the lack of security, the insufficient memory protection, the
bloated kernel, etc.

In my view, MS has done nothing but what any other creative company in
similar circumstances would do - innovate.

My cat thinks I'm God. She's about as correct as you, for the same reasons:
insufficient information for intelligent analysis.

What innovation? The GUI comes from Xerox, the kernel didn't have 1970s
technology for safe multiprocessing until the 1990s, it's a step backwards
in engineering to bundle the UI and the kernel, ... so what innovation?

The only innovations I've seen have been on the business side...and these
have tended to end up in court.

Enron was innovative too, I suppose?

- Andrew

In article ,
In the short term, MAYBE. Long term, what works, and VALUE per DOLLAR
makes the difference, in terms of what lasts in the marketplace.

complete nonsense.
marketing is the key. ms is the proof.

The thing with MS is that they use to make good products but they have
gotten lazy. Anyone here remember Word Perfect 5.0, Ami Pro and Word
Star? You pretty much had to either recieve special training to use them
or get one of hose quick key sheets to put over teh function keys
When word game out (the GUI verison) it changed everything. Same with
lotus vs. quatro pro(sp) vs. excel. MS came to be on top my making a
better product. ONCE they got on top they started to use that fact to
crush anyone/thing that even looked like a treat.
MS products are just plain buggy. winXP has thousands of know bugs (MS
lists them) and security is a joke. What they currently do is release
beta software as v1.0, then send out service packs and LOTS of updates.
So love them or hate them MS got where it is legally. But they have
also used that position do carry out illegal actions.
As for VALUE per DOLLAR, that would be linux. It's free, and sun
office is also free. But most people are not that PC savy, they want to
buy a box, plug it in an go, and you can't quite do that with linux yet
(getting really really close but still not yet). I recently helped a
small busniess setup an all linux LAN for about $75! Try doing that with
MS
As pointed out by others the best product doesn't always raise to the
top. Beta was a better standard than VHS but Sony was stupid. Atari made
a better PC than apple or IMB (back in the day) but again... Anyone
remember amiga... MS deserves to be on top because they fought to get
there, that doesn't mean they make the best product; nor does it mean that
they didn't use being on top to illegally pressure other companies.

In article , 'Vejita' S. Cousin
wrote:

The thing with MS is that they use to make good products but they have
gotten lazy. Anyone here remember Word Perfect 5.0, Ami Pro and Word
Star? You pretty much had to either recieve special training to use them
or get one of hose quick key sheets to put over teh function keys
When word game out (the GUI verison) it changed everything.

Word has *always* been a GUI word processor, and it came out as a
Macintosh application first, way back in 1984. Word for Windows wasn't
released until 3 years later.

And you're absolutely right -- they used to make really good software,
at least on the application front. Actually, most of their application
software is still terrific -- I just find their OS to be abysmal.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Manchester, CT =USA=