Re: OT Prepackaged Bankruptcy for Big 3 ? - Big Problem

"nothermark" <nothermark@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e69pi4592k4p2s67q6d574g2db5i12lq5a@xxxxxxxxxx
....
Yes, they can. And Microsoft can charge $30 for a Vista home license
if they don't sell anything but Microsoft or $100 per license if they
sell significant amounts and any other OS of machines without an OS.
Yep. They can and do, do that. So what? They sell over 96% of all the
operating system software on the planet. Why shouldn't they try their best
to do the best for themselves?

The difference is enough to give HP the edge over Dell if that
happens. They can fund a third party to sue you for using Linux. They
Bull ***! They don't need to do that and AFAICT they don't. You don't
seem to understand the difference between software for an appliance or
software for an integrated system. If someone were to provide a better
system at a better price with more features and reliability, they'd sell
them no matter what MS does. The problem is no one's been able to do that.
No matter how much you cling to SCO, Unix or Linux. They're just toys in
the grand scheme of things.

can buy selection commitees and standards organizations to make sure
their software is chosen. Go look at the SCO suites or Microsoft
Yep. That's what you get to do when you're the 800# gorilla on the
block...and have the lions share of the operating systems marketplace. Or
did you think that the Yugo manufacturing and safety standards s/b adopted
out of fairness to the others?

suites in the EU if you want some background. Try Groklaw if you need
a place to start. PJ is biased but accurate. This is just the tip of
the iceberg. Microsoft is not a nice supplier and a worse competitor.
As to whether or not they're a "nice supplier" that's a matter of opinion.
You're, of course, welcome to yours and any limitations you need to apply to
them.

As for being a "worse competitor", just what did you think the function of a
competitor is? To promote the competitions products? Kinda like some of
the dim-bulbs reading here want the oil companies to "invest" in "green
energy". Why should they? Or do you think that coffin vendors should be
into developing and marketing longevity products as well?

....
That, my friend, is called capitalism at its best. Unless they
somehow break a federal law (and they have been guilty of such and
paid dearly) it is perfectly legal.

Not my kind of capitalism. Making a better moustrap is good. Burnig
down the competitors moustrap factory is bad. It eliminates my choice
in moustraps.
So, the socialist model of having no choices except for government
"sponsored" choices is better?

Apple is a bit of a different fish. I do not like them and do not use
their products. At the same time I recognize that the reason they are
what they are is that they have sufficient control to assure top shelf
hardware in all their machines.

One must use the keyboard withh the left OR right pinky extended at
all times to show just how superior you are. Elitism at is worst.

Won't argue. Most Apple computer owners are elitists. Most of their
audio products owners are stupid elitists.
Again, an opinion. I've used many different types of computers. The only
mistake Apple made so long ago when they were #1 in what became the PC
industry, was that they were so greedy that they wanted to rape everybody
that wanted to work with them. IBM published the specs for "the PC" and
told the manufacturing world, "Have at it!". No licenses. No fees. And
the proof is in the pudding. That's why machines running some form of an
operating system made by the folks in Redmond account for some 96% of all
that kind of software on the planet.

This is competition at it's finest. The user gets to choose what they want.
And they've overwhelmingly voted for Microsoft. Is it the best? Arguably
not. But it's the most common, and by that they rule that roost. Your not
liking them isn't a consideration. Not even a tiny one...

L8r all,
Dusty


.

Loading