Printable View
Kinda off topic, but has anyone seen the dicscovery network show where they are interviewing a former M$ employee? He says something like "the plan as it was explained to me, was to take over the world, and do it as quickly as possible."
Personally I think if m$ products are really superior to open source they should embrace the competition!!!
I am in the uncomfortable position of defending M$. I am not used to it, so forgive me if I struggle. From a strictly capitalist point of view, why should they be forced to release any information. If refusing to do so makes their product less attractive because there are no third party apps available then people will look elsewhere. Thereby providing a free market incentive for M$ to release the information that is needed to prevent this from happening. I agree the analogy fails in providing code to a competitor so they can copy it, but why should Coke have to provide their formula to the marketplace so that the snack companies can tune their products to make a better accompaniment to Coke or make glasses that would make it look more attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by CybertecOne
That is probably the truth, it is almost guaranteed that Bill Gates is one of the most paranoid people (that is financially set) alive! I have heard countless rumors and stories of startup companies being "shoved" around by M$...Quote:
i rekon this would amout to alot of paranoia for old Bill as he could be toppled by the same...... Anyone in their shed.... not just multi billion dollar companies
That is most likely the reason for not complying with EU...
"How to tell if someone is paranoid: Follow them around!" =)
@ isildur,
Because they are trying to act as monopolists, and there is no room for private monopolists in a strictly capitalist system. OK you have the state controlling certain services for economic and strategic reasons but that is the only monopolism that is permitted.Quote:
From a strictly capitalist point of view, why should they be forced to release any information.
Capitalism relies on private enterprise competing in an environment dictated by supply and demand.
;)
Ah but although M$ is a near monopoly, they don't control entry or exit into the market, they don't control the means of production... trying to remember the rest of the litany from almost 30 years ago. They have become a monopoly because the great unwashed masses made them that way. They made very good business decision, they provided a product that those masses selected. Have they at times done things that are anti-capitalistic? Certainly and they should be punished for it when it can be demonstrated. Have they done other things that are think are morally wrong, certainly and I have voted with my pocket book. I have used primarily linux and now Mac OS X for 10-12 years personally. My business computer is another story and out of my control.
Lol that whole idea of someone in a garage taking Microsoft down is a direct quote from "Anti-Trust" the movie. They used it in court as a reason they have no Monopoly.
Oddly enough I like capitalism. If I can get rich because I have a better idea than someone already out there what is wrong with that?
I make music and have been going for my own business for a little bit now so the idea of making money for doing something someone else already does for cheaper and the same quality is how I intend to make cash from it.
Well,
That is the fundamental concept of capitalism and competition, although capitalism doesn't really apply to artistic work, due to its inherent uniqueness.Quote:
so the idea of making money for doing something someone else already does for cheaper and the same quality is how I intend to make cash from it.
EDIT:
To return more to the original topic.
I guess there is at least one Federal Judge who sees things more clearly? Which is why MS are now facing a class action suit, with their own internal memoranda being used in evidence against them.......... they did know.Quote:
This is something that still gets me... How hardware manufacturers are still crying that it was Microsofts fault they weren't ready to support Vista... It's pure bullshit...
I was gladdened to hear this:
And there is some very interesting stuff here:Quote:
What would be ironic is if the plaintiffs asked Mike Nash, a vice president in the Windows Product Management group, to join the case, as an email he wrote outlined that he had been burnt by the programme. "I PERSONALLY got burnt, read the email, "Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
He wasn't the only Microsoft employee to express concerns about the programme too, as Jim Allchin, then co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, said, "We really botched this... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
http://blogs.computerworld.com/more_...unk_pc_lawsuit
:lildevil:
As for existing hardware, well, when I buy something I make sure it is supported by the operating system I intend to run it under. That is my deal with the manufacturer, and I expect it to work properly. I also expect them to support any service packs and patches for that operating system until it reaches EOL.
What I do not expect is for it to be supported for NEW operating systems. That is quite unreasonable, and in no way legally enforceable, unless they clearly stated that was the case. If they chose to provide the support then I would consider that a bonus, but in no way my right.
So, if MS want to sell their swanky new operating system, it is up to them to provide the generic drivers for equipment that was sold to run under an earlier version of Windows, if they so chose.
As is pointed out in the article you took those quotes from... they are taken out of context. There's no way to know for sure when this was stated or what it described. People are taken by marketing all the time... I remember reading a Microsoft website a couple years back that clearly stated the difference between the various Vista stickers and what they meant. I would argue that the judge simply has no clue. I think this is a big problem with law that we're going to see going forward. Without insight from the technical generation, the generation that consists of most judges and lawyers will cannot make a fair ruling... they can't even get the facts straight or understand the problem most of the time... Legal issues involving IT in any way, shape or forum, require insight from those versed in IT and this doesn't include those who are easily paid to say anything... it should come from an impartial team... essentially a "tech jury" outside of the regular jury that declares all technical comments legitimate or not... I think the Julie Amero happening at all was evidence that those in a position to enforce the law don't understand it... and it took an outside team of volunteers to step in and clarify things.Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
There's nothing really interesting here... Microsoft is saying why vendors haven't provided driver support... Essentially the same thing that you say below... A lot of people seem to forget that Vista was a code rewrite... which was part of the reason it took so long, so old drivers won't work.. new drivers are required... a lot of hardware vendors didn't want the added expense of supporting hardware they'd already collected the money on.Quote:
And there is some very interesting stuff here:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/more_...unk_pc_lawsuit
I'd say your expectation is reasonable... However the people who bought "Vista Capable" computers clearly had no idea if there operating system was properly supported... They didn't properly research their purchase. Computers are becoming cheaper and cheaper... almost to the point of being disposable... For that reason people don't properly research their purchases... Not like they do when buying a home, or a car, or making any other major purchase... and I, for one, still consider a computer to be a major purchase.. .It requires research and time... You don't walk into the store without any knowledge and rely on the labels and the sales person... it's like buying a car because you like the paint job.Quote:
As for existing hardware, well, when I buy something I make sure it is supported by the operating system I intend to run it under. That is my deal with the manufacturer, and I expect it to work properly. I also expect them to support any service packs and patches for that operating system until it reaches EOL.
I agree 100%... which is why I don't get why you posted the second link.. since it is essentially whining about the fact that Vista doesn't support old hardware.Quote:
What I do not expect is for it to be supported for NEW operating systems. That is quite unreasonable, and in no way legally enforceable, unless they clearly stated that was the case. If they chose to provide the support then I would consider that a bonus, but in no way my right.
So, if MS want to sell their swanky new operating system, it is up to them to provide the generic drivers for equipment that was sold to run under an earlier version of Windows, if they so chose.
This may become interesting.
O
Ah!
Because it is a complaint, and the question is who is responsible?Quote:
I agree 100%... which is why I don't get why you posted the second link.. since it is essentially whining about the fact that Vista doesn't support old hardware.
You cannot expect the peripheral manufacturers to write drivers and management software for equipment that was purchased BEFORE an operating system was launched, unless they specifically stated that the new OS would be supported when it was released.
It would make absolutely no business sense for them to do so, as they would be incurring costs, and accepting attendant responsibility, for something that they are making no revenue out of.
Sooooo.............. let's follow the money shall we? :cool:
Micro$oft are the ones who will make the money out of Vista (they hope). The OEMs and peripheral manufacturers have their own agenda for faster chips, cards and so on to stimulate their business. The actual operating system is not so important to them unless:
1. It renders their current product lines and stocks obsolete, leaving them and their retailers holding the baby.
2. It forces people to upgrade from an old product to a current one that they already manufacture.
For Microsoft to roll Vista out successfully they needed to consider:
1. New machines.
2. Upgraded machines.
3. Corporate licence customers.
4. Public licence customers.
5. OEM and peripheral vendors
6. The marketplace.
Well, #1 should be a nobrainer, as the machine has been built to run the operating system.... hasn't it?
#2 started off quite promisingly, as there was a rather neat little tool that would check your system and tell you what would need to be done.
Two things about it set the alarm bells ringing for me:
A. It wouldn't run on a Windows 2000 Pro machine (I wonder why? :lildevil:)
B. I kept getting a message that "the driver for this device will need to be updated" (by whom? I wondered).
#3. Corporates employ people who would spot A. and B. just like I did, and realise the true potential cost of a migration.
#4 Would depend on who you are. I have had to sort out quite a few "early adopters" and they were certainly not happy bunnies when they realised the cost.
#5 M$ did not maintain adequate liasion with the hardware side of things, let alone applications. It was their project, and they should have maintained a tighter grip, rather than just pulling the pin and tossing it at the unsuspecting World.
#6. This one they tried to get right (the release date would have damaged the Christmas peak in computer sales) but screwed up very badly. The "Vista ready/capable" sticker thing was totally mishandled. Consumer laws are mostly the same on this one: if it is reasonable for the consumer to assume that a product will perform to a certain standard from the way it is presented, then that is the contract. Otherwise you are looking at misrepresentation, passing off and possibly criminal activities (I hear there might be a few uncomfortable bunnies over at Intel?).
I was working on a Vista installation the other day. Getting legacy peripherals to work :D I attached one and it found the new hardware, could not instal it.......... then offered to go to the Manufacturer's site on the web to try to find a driver......................
It seems that MS OSes don't ship with generic driver support for legacy equipment like they used to.
As O says:
:lildevil:Quote:
This may become interesting.