Re: taking our health care back......

"tom_sawyer70@xxxxxxxxx" <tom_sawyer70@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:a5865d10-51bf-4020-b131-82d0babe2116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jul 31, 1:41 pm, The BorgMan <m...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Oh well.

Stupid consumers who don't do their homework deserve what they get as
long as no fraud was committed.


But there was a guilty verdict because a crime was commited.

...and they were punished for the crime, as it should be.



You have lots of choices that don't involve major PC
manufacturers.

Most people buy from the major PC manufacturers (that's how they
got to be "major:).

Sure - so what? If people want something different, they can get it.
Microsoft has no duty to insure that the choice that best suits your
needs is easily available to you.

Again, you seem to have no problem with such a thing as ethics.

I think business ethics (outside following the law) are like "enlightened
self interest" - a pleasant fiction.

I expect adherence to the law, no more, no less.


No, but why would the largest retailers be selling a product that
you argue isn't viable for early adoptors in business and give
supporting reasons to the question of why most people downgrade?

Money.

It is to their financial benefit to do so.


Which screws the general public ... and as this mentality spreads
through business, financial and medicinal fields, as well as
government, you end up with a country with a mess such as the US.

Businesses exist to profit their owners, not to make the world a better
place.


Another good analogy. In this instance if you don't want the same
dinner you just don't like food court food, and you need to go to a
restaurant that isn't in the food court. It may be harder, and more
work for you - but that is the price of having a taste outside the
mainstream.

Expand it to anywhere ... the same PCs are found ubiquitously
throughout the US, and the world, for that matter with the same crappy
MS software while they're brought up on charges for the same
practices.

Yes, because people want it.


As long as "the squeeze" is legal - great. They sign because it's
better for their financial interests.

But it wasn't.

Some of it was, some of it wasn't.

....and some of what wasn't would be perfectly legal were Microsoft not a
monopoly, and whether or not they were/are a monopoly is a very legally
blurry question.

I guess that I'm confused why you keep stating if it
was legal, it wasn't. The courts found so on several occasions.

....and they found several of their dirty tricks legal also.

If Bobs gravel company (the only one in your small town and for 300
miles) tells you "buy all your gravel from us for the next three
years, or we're never doing business with you again"... you make a
financial choice. There ain't nothing wrong with him putting those
sorts of conditions on his doing business, unless laws prohibit it.

Or unless Bob's cousin in the local judge. It still doesn't make it
right and it still screws the customer.

Businesses don't exist for justice and equality. They exist to extract as
much profit as possible under the law.


Because not "any" application will work... and I doubt they've
bothered (or even have the resources to) have tested even .01% of the
software out there. Nevere mind all the possible interactions between
drivers and software on the myriad of different hardware
configurations to be dealt with.

...but in my experience, actually working on Vista mcahines, the
great majority of applications just work.

Support?

Own, build, and support.


Business customers don't like to be early adopters, even of things
that work just fine early in their life span.

Because in technology, it rarely works as advertised if it works at
all.

In ANYTHING it rarely works as advertised if it works at all in the
beginning.


Ummm... hardware issues between 95/98 and ME? No, not really at all.
Do you have any IT background at all, or are you an the PEBKAC?


Roughly 25+ years from a do-it-yourself heathkit model with 48k RAM,
through LAN and desktop support roles for a 5,000 person, 35-city
network, through the current role of third-level support and OS
configuration engineering services for 1,200 NetWare, Linux, AIX and
Solaris servers for a Fortune 500 company.

Then why woould you think there were hardware issues between 95/98 and
ME? Everything was the same except some minor cruft on the top that made
performance worse.

Quite frankly, after my experience with MS in the early-mid 90's and
learning all of the sabotage and dirty pool played in the name of
"business," I decided not to support them anymore.

That is your choice, and if enough people agree with you Microsoft will
pay for their actions - problem is, it appears not enough people agree
with you to vote with their wallet.


Again - so what?


You don't understand the long-term effects of screwing customers and
how that relates to the economy? Maybe you haven't seen the news
lately ... tech, medicine, big pharm, financial industries ... have
all contributed with this mindset.

I expect businesses to rent-seek and take profits wherever possible -
it's the duty of the consumer to not allow it if they feel it an issue,
either through boycott or regulation.


So you've stated that people want Vista because it just
works,

No, I haven't.

I've stated that Vista mostly just works.

I've stated people want Windows.

I've never said people want Vista because it just works.

You said that people want Windows and Vista is the choice today unless
people go through a hell of a lot of hassle.

....and that is completely true.


People want Windows. Because of history, familiarity, and
compatability.

Vista is on the shelves because people want _Windows_, not because
people necessarily want that version of Windows... and it's the
currently available version.


I don't know anyone, except those in support roles who make money off
of Windows flaws, who "wants" Windows.

They keep buying it, so they must want it.

I know high-level CS
professors at high-ranking schools who despise Windows and Microsoft,
but have benefited from the stock. It's a sell of the soul, if
anything.

I don't despise Microsoft. They've had some dirty dealings, and they're
the USA Today of the software industry... but people want a USA Today.


No, I don't. I said businesses have chosen not to adopt Vista because
businesses don't like to be early adopters.


Because they get burned by tech too much (or have in the past).


Not just tech - everything.

Or do
you think that businesses just arbitrarily hate select not to use new
software *even when they've already paid to upgrade it"? Why wouldn't
they like the latest, greatest features?

Oh yeah, because not only is it a costly headache, but there is no
perceived value. MS caught a lot of heat when they tried to push
companies toward support models that basically were of no value to the
companies. Some are catching on.

Sure - and if they make it unprofitable for Microsoft to continue their
present course, Microsoft will either fail or change.


People don't like Vista because it requires change,

For no real reason ... because they're doing basically the same thing
they did with XP, or 2000, etc.

Eh... the security model is a lot better, and the driver model is
completely different... but then XP was just doing wahat 2000 did which
was just doing what NT did, which is just doing...


and 95% of computer
users are really pretty incapable of using their computer safely.

I know it's a lot ... not sure if it's 95% (or maybe higher).

In the real world it might be higher. Among people who use a computer in
the jobs daily I'd say the number still approaches 80%.


Most
computer users really need an appliance - and the general purpose
computer just ain't that yet... whether made by Apple,
Intel/Microsoft, or any other manufacturer.

Because it hurts those companies interest. Google might have the
clout to do it.

It's in their interest if they can make more profit from it. As soon as
the market is there, it'll get filled.


You can order PCs from major manufacturers with no OS, you can order
them with a number of odd OS's, etc., etc.


You still pay for the MS license.

No, I don't, or the machine wouldn't be $80 cheaper with no OS.


You can't do it at a retail outlet necessarily, and it may not show
up directly on their home user PC page, and it may have to be a major
manufacturer other than your standard cadre of manufacturers who
catre to the retail, lowest common denominator, market.

Yeah ... really, no choice unless you're on of the few who really want
to avoid the MS tax.

Yep - welcome to the real world.


Did the punishment fit the law? Because as long as it did - your
argument is with the law itself.


MS should have been wiped out, so no. It wasn't much different than
Madoff's ponzi scheme. Read the trial documents.

Does the law say they should have been wiped out?

MS was excellent at breaking the rules and daring someone to catch
them. Companies like Intel were not strong enough or had the balls to
walk away. When someone finally did, it was too late ... the damage
had been done. BeOS, Netscape, Lotus, WordPerfect, the streaming
technologies, Sendo, etc., were already gone or a fraction of what
they would have been if they had not gone into agreements with MS only
to have their IP stolen or had the agreement broken.

IP theft in the technology industry is the biggest joke in existence.

There isn't a piece of commercial software in existence, nor a CPU in
existence, which doesn't violate numerous pieces of other companies IP.
"Cross-licensing" in response to lawsuit/counterlawsuit is a hallmark of
the industry.

As for Microsofts dirty tricks - where they broke the law, they should be
punished.

....but IMO they are only a monopoly in the most tortured sense of the
term, and our legal code should be changed so actual monopoly power is
required for anti-trust laws to apply.

--
Aaron


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Copyright and Patent Law?
    ... c) letting Microsoft refuse to allow some other vendor to make ... someone copying Windows to their hearts' content is not ... freedoms through the removal of so-called IP law, ... I'm saying a LOT of talent is needed to make a good game. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... driving Netscape out of business, ... And Microsoft is about to do it yet again, ... Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Outlook, IE, and Windows itself. ... those poor Apple people that decided they were going to close the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Preinstalled XPPRO on Compaq PC requests reactivation ?!?!?!
    ... A business contact of mine ... preactivated AND registered with Microsoft. ... One of them is forcing a reactivation every time it restarts. ... detection/removal tools, and Windows Update, to check this machine out. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • [Full-Disclosure] Re: MS-02-052 + blackholing MS
    ... with advisories for Microsoft products from the last 6 months. ... security, I look at the long-term track record of the product, and of relat ... windows server products can be locked down. ... I'm not your standard business customer), they are almost _never_ the right ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • RE: Fax Service wont start
    ... Small Business Server 2003\Logs'. ... Access Add/Remove Programs, Add/Remove Windows Components, uncheck 'Fax ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)