Microsoft Breakup Lunacy

[rlynchttl]

Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am a Microsoft
development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.

However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge imposed
this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
to stop adding features to cars.

How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is this?


Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

[C. Drouin]

This breakup ruling of Microsoft will only hurt us... the developers. What
am I going to do with my MSDN subscription ??? Pay more for 2 part I'm sure.

This guy worried about Microsoft going bankrupt is a bit extreme.. but THATS
WHAT YOU GET FOR LETTING LAWMAKERS DECIDE !!!
They don't know jack about what we do. Some other mega corp (or a few) will
just take up the slack anyway.


"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am a
Microsoft
>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>
>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge imposed
>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>to stop adding features to cars.
>
>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is this?
>
>
>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

[Russ]

"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>... However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding > >features
to Windows for the next 10 years is unacceptable. ....

Where do you get that? Have you read Jackson's actual judgment, or are you
just listening to overblown rumors?

There is no prohibition against adding features to Windows. There is only
a prohibition against adding "middleware"-type functions to the system in
a way that forces OEMs and users to buy the system with the middleware bundled
in.

The judgment has definitions of "Middleware" and "Middleware Products" that
narrows the scope of this reasonably well, I think, although a tech-savvy
lawyer might try to broaden or narrow the interpretation of it to suit somebody's
purpose. The Applications half of Microsoft will have no such prohibitions
concerning middleware, since they WON'T own the operating system, and therefore
can't force a bundling with it.

[Ron Simpson]

It is lunacy! It is wrong that old perspective laws are guiding this and
out of touch judicials are deciding it. It is also good that we techies
don't decide this either (how many techies love Java or Linux?). Luckily,
and rightfully, the marketplace decides this. It is the many small businesses
out there that have decided what's good about Microsoft products is good
for their business. In spite of Microsoft's attempts to shoot itself in
the foot, or any overly aggressive marketing behavior, small business has
made Microsoft successful. Small business has decided they like integration,
low cost support, and upward evolution at a good clip. Microsoft has provided
the most value in these areas. It wasn't that Microsoft had their products
loaded on new PCs, it isn't even an issue of who has the best in class products,
it is what software company offers the best integration – hardware, software,
operating system – and has the greatest potential to stay in business - period.
Other products, even "best in class", became irrelevant and have fallen
by the wayside because small business doesn't have the time or interest to
shop.
The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes beyond
"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it last?"
Small business will NEVER shop for an operating system and will not put
up with incompatibilities and uncertainties in other products (like Linux),
no matter how close to Windows they get. They will not allow a second operating
system to be born, grow, evolve, and debug to the point where Windows is
today. They do not have the time, the money, the tech support resources
needed to allow another operating system to catch-up and then compete. With
all their lack of technical and judicial savvy, small business has already
decided this issue correctly. If Microsoft is split in two, small business
will treat it like it never happened and continue to buy the same products,
"experts" and wizened judges to the contrary be damned!
(I am in software development for a large automotive company and consult
to small business. It took a while for small business to re-teach me to
listen!)

"C. Drouin" <drouinc@snet.net> wrote:
>
>This breakup ruling of Microsoft will only hurt us... the developers. What
>am I going to do with my MSDN subscription ??? Pay more for 2 part I'm sure.
>
>This guy worried about Microsoft going bankrupt is a bit extreme.. but THATS
>WHAT YOU GET FOR LETTING LAWMAKERS DECIDE !!!
>They don't know jack about what we do. Some other mega corp (or a few)
will
>just take up the slack anyway.
>
>
>"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am
a
>Microsoft
>>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
>> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>>
>>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
>>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge
imposed
>>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
>>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>>to stop adding features to cars.
>>
>>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is this?
>>
>>
>>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!
>

[Justin Hull]

Ron, I see at the end you sonsult for small business so I wont challenge
you on to many points. In fact I agree specificly with one thought, but
I think you took it in the wrong direction:

"The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes beyond
"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it last?"

Small Business and personal consumers do not think about the OS, they just
buy what tends to be put in front of them. Does it work? Does it do what
I need it to do? Can I get support for it? Those are some of the questions
asked. So if not SB or PC, who would/does make the choice? The OEM or retailer.
This, I feel, is more where the Judge and DOJ were dealing with. If Dell
wants to put Linux on there systems, or Netscape, or any other non-Microsoft
product that should be their choice. If Dell feels that they can sell to
Small Business a Linux/Java package that can do the job, they must have the
freedom to make the sale *without* penalties other the market interest.
When Microsoft begins to dictate to OEMs, retailers, and other distributors
of computer products, "use us or else" then they over step the limits of
competition. That is not to far off from thugs coming by these small businesses
you consult and demand "protection" money for using their liquor, garbage
collection, etc etc etc. If they don't comply, "sorry Mr. Jones for getting
robbed tonight".

As much as I get frustrated about MS, I do feel we need them. They have
provided a way of making the complex world of computers more managable to
the general public. We just need some competition to stop MS from getting
lazy in development and production. So you are right, SB does not choose
the OS (nor wants to most the time), but those who have the most impact on
OS slection, let's allow them the choice without penality.

Justin


"Ron Simpson" <rgsconsulting@msn.com> wrote:
>
>It is lunacy! It is wrong that old perspective laws are guiding this and
>out of touch judicials are deciding it. It is also good that we techies
>don't decide this either (how many techies love Java or Linux?). Luckily,
>and rightfully, the marketplace decides this. It is the many small businesses
>out there that have decided what's good about Microsoft products is good
>for their business. In spite of Microsoft's attempts to shoot itself in
>the foot, or any overly aggressive marketing behavior, small business has
>made Microsoft successful. Small business has decided they like integration,
>low cost support, and upward evolution at a good clip. Microsoft has provided
>the most value in these areas. It wasn't that Microsoft had their products
>loaded on new PCs, it isn't even an issue of who has the best in class products,
>it is what software company offers the best integration – hardware, software,
>operating system – and has the greatest potential to stay in business -
period.
> Other products, even "best in class", became irrelevant and have fallen
>by the wayside because small business doesn't have the time or interest
to
>shop.
>The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
>no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes beyond
>"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it last?"
> Small business will NEVER shop for an operating system and will not put
>up with incompatibilities and uncertainties in other products (like Linux),
>no matter how close to Windows they get. They will not allow a second operating
>system to be born, grow, evolve, and debug to the point where Windows is
>today. They do not have the time, the money, the tech support resources
>needed to allow another operating system to catch-up and then compete.
With
>all their lack of technical and judicial savvy, small business has already
>decided this issue correctly. If Microsoft is split in two, small business
>will treat it like it never happened and continue to buy the same products,
>"experts" and wizened judges to the contrary be damned!
>(I am in software development for a large automotive company and consult
>to small business. It took a while for small business to re-teach me to
>listen!)
>
>"C. Drouin" <drouinc@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>This breakup ruling of Microsoft will only hurt us... the developers.
What
>>am I going to do with my MSDN subscription ??? Pay more for 2 part I'm
sure.
>>
>>This guy worried about Microsoft going bankrupt is a bit extreme.. but
THATS
>>WHAT YOU GET FOR LETTING LAWMAKERS DECIDE !!!
>>They don't know jack about what we do. Some other mega corp (or a few)
>will
>>just take up the slack anyway.
>>
>>
>>"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am
>a
>>Microsoft
>>>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
>>> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>>>
>>>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>>>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
>>>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>>>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>>>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge
>imposed
>>>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
>>>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>>>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>>>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>>>to stop adding features to cars.
>>>
>>>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is
this?
>>>
>>>
>>>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>>>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!
>>
>

[Ashish]

Hi,
What u think.
How it can affact to developer or company who is using microsoft products.

Division is for all opreating system and software products.
means windows and Windows NT in one group and
other product in different group.
Is it possible to divide those.

and what abot SQL server, IIS and MTS they are in which group.


"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am a
Microsoft
>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>
>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge imposed
>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>to stop adding features to cars.
>
>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is this?
>
>
>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

[Doug]

Justin,

I'm just curious about how this is different from an auto dealer who must
sign an agreement that he will sell only a particular brand of automobile.
This is essentially what the OEM is doing when they decide to become a Windows
reseller.

Doug

"Justin Hull" <jphull@nni.com> wrote:
>
>Ron, I see at the end you sonsult for small business so I wont challenge
>you on to many points. In fact I agree specificly with one thought, but
>I think you took it in the wrong direction:
>
>"The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
>no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes beyond
>"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it last?"
>
>Small Business and personal consumers do not think about the OS, they just
>buy what tends to be put in front of them. Does it work? Does it do what
>I need it to do? Can I get support for it? Those are some of the questions
>asked. So if not SB or PC, who would/does make the choice? The OEM or
retailer.
> This, I feel, is more where the Judge and DOJ were dealing with. If Dell
>wants to put Linux on there systems, or Netscape, or any other non-Microsoft
>product that should be their choice. If Dell feels that they can sell to
>Small Business a Linux/Java package that can do the job, they must have
the
>freedom to make the sale *without* penalties other the market interest.

>When Microsoft begins to dictate to OEMs, retailers, and other distributors
>of computer products, "use us or else" then they over step the limits of
>competition. That is not to far off from thugs coming by these small businesses
>you consult and demand "protection" money for using their liquor, garbage
>collection, etc etc etc. If they don't comply, "sorry Mr. Jones for getting
>robbed tonight".
>
>As much as I get frustrated about MS, I do feel we need them. They have
>provided a way of making the complex world of computers more managable to
>the general public. We just need some competition to stop MS from getting
>lazy in development and production. So you are right, SB does not choose
>the OS (nor wants to most the time), but those who have the most impact
on
>OS slection, let's allow them the choice without penality.
>
>Justin
>
>
>"Ron Simpson" <rgsconsulting@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>It is lunacy! It is wrong that old perspective laws are guiding this and
>>out of touch judicials are deciding it. It is also good that we techies
>>don't decide this either (how many techies love Java or Linux?). Luckily,
>>and rightfully, the marketplace decides this. It is the many small businesses
>>out there that have decided what's good about Microsoft products is good
>>for their business. In spite of Microsoft's attempts to shoot itself in
>>the foot, or any overly aggressive marketing behavior, small business has
>>made Microsoft successful. Small business has decided they like integration,
>>low cost support, and upward evolution at a good clip. Microsoft has provided
>>the most value in these areas. It wasn't that Microsoft had their products
>>loaded on new PCs, it isn't even an issue of who has the best in class
products,
>>it is what software company offers the best integration – hardware, software,
>>operating system – and has the greatest potential to stay in business -
>period.
>> Other products, even "best in class", became irrelevant and have fallen
>>by the wayside because small business doesn't have the time or interest
>to
>>shop.
>>The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
>>no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes beyond
>>"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it
last?"
>> Small business will NEVER shop for an operating system and will not put
>>up with incompatibilities and uncertainties in other products (like Linux),
>>no matter how close to Windows they get. They will not allow a second
operating
>>system to be born, grow, evolve, and debug to the point where Windows is
>>today. They do not have the time, the money, the tech support resources
>>needed to allow another operating system to catch-up and then compete.

>With
>>all their lack of technical and judicial savvy, small business has already
>>decided this issue correctly. If Microsoft is split in two, small business
>>will treat it like it never happened and continue to buy the same products,
>>"experts" and wizened judges to the contrary be damned!
>>(I am in software development for a large automotive company and consult
>>to small business. It took a while for small business to re-teach me to
>>listen!)
>>
>>"C. Drouin" <drouinc@snet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>This breakup ruling of Microsoft will only hurt us... the developers.

>What
>>>am I going to do with my MSDN subscription ??? Pay more for 2 part I'm
>sure.
>>>
>>>This guy worried about Microsoft going bankrupt is a bit extreme.. but
>THATS
>>>WHAT YOU GET FOR LETTING LAWMAKERS DECIDE !!!
>>>They don't know jack about what we do. Some other mega corp (or a few)
>>will
>>>just take up the slack anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am
>>a
>>>Microsoft
>>>>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
>>>> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>>>>
>>>>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>>>>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely,
and
>>>>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>>>>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>>>>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge
>>imposed
>>>>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of
telling
>>>>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>>>>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>>>>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>>>>to stop adding features to cars.
>>>>
>>>>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is
>this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>>>>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!
>>>
>>
>

[Jim]

Your missing something in your argument Doug...
Auto dealers, McDonalds, Dunkin Donuts, and the like are franchises. They
purchase the right to distribute a brand name. The company does have the
right to 'control' their business to some extent.

I agree that the sellers do control what is popular, but so does the the
buyers. For example, the Amiga was an amazing machine, both for consumers
and for developers. It didn't catch on because of the 'toy company' image
that Commodore had.

Personally, I feel this will turn out ok, as long as the 10 year innovation
ban is lifted. THAT PART IS WRONG!

Jim

"Doug" <dhyatt@btcnet.com> wrote:
>
>Justin,
>
>I'm just curious about how this is different from an auto dealer who must
>sign an agreement that he will sell only a particular brand of automobile.
>This is essentially what the OEM is doing when they decide to become a Windows
>reseller.
>
>Doug
>
>"Justin Hull" <jphull@nni.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ron, I see at the end you sonsult for small business so I wont challenge
>>you on to many points. In fact I agree specificly with one thought, but
>>I think you took it in the wrong direction:
>>
>>"The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
>>no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes beyond
>>"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it
last?"
>>
>>Small Business and personal consumers do not think about the OS, they just
>>buy what tends to be put in front of them. Does it work? Does it do what
>>I need it to do? Can I get support for it? Those are some of the questions
>>asked. So if not SB or PC, who would/does make the choice? The OEM or
>retailer.
>> This, I feel, is more where the Judge and DOJ were dealing with. If Dell
>>wants to put Linux on there systems, or Netscape, or any other non-Microsoft
>>product that should be their choice. If Dell feels that they can sell
to
>>Small Business a Linux/Java package that can do the job, they must have
>the
>>freedom to make the sale *without* penalties other the market interest.
>
>>When Microsoft begins to dictate to OEMs, retailers, and other distributors
>>of computer products, "use us or else" then they over step the limits of
>>competition. That is not to far off from thugs coming by these small businesses
>>you consult and demand "protection" money for using their liquor, garbage
>>collection, etc etc etc. If they don't comply, "sorry Mr. Jones for getting
>>robbed tonight".
>>
>>As much as I get frustrated about MS, I do feel we need them. They have
>>provided a way of making the complex world of computers more managable
to
>>the general public. We just need some competition to stop MS from getting
>>lazy in development and production. So you are right, SB does not choose
>>the OS (nor wants to most the time), but those who have the most impact
>on
>>OS slection, let's allow them the choice without penality.
>>
>>Justin
>>
>>
>>"Ron Simpson" <rgsconsulting@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It is lunacy! It is wrong that old perspective laws are guiding this
and
>>>out of touch judicials are deciding it. It is also good that we techies
>>>don't decide this either (how many techies love Java or Linux?). Luckily,
>>>and rightfully, the marketplace decides this. It is the many small businesses
>>>out there that have decided what's good about Microsoft products is good
>>>for their business. In spite of Microsoft's attempts to shoot itself
in
>>>the foot, or any overly aggressive marketing behavior, small business
has
>>>made Microsoft successful. Small business has decided they like integration,
>>>low cost support, and upward evolution at a good clip. Microsoft has
provided
>>>the most value in these areas. It wasn't that Microsoft had their products
>>>loaded on new PCs, it isn't even an issue of who has the best in class
>products,
>>>it is what software company offers the best integration – hardware, software,
>>>operating system – and has the greatest potential to stay in business
-
>>period.
>>> Other products, even "best in class", became irrelevant and have fallen
>>>by the wayside because small business doesn't have the time or interest
>>to
>>>shop.
>>>The effort to create a Windows Operating Systems, Inc. is foolish because
>>>no small business cares about operating systems. Thought rarely goes
beyond
>>>"does it make my stuff work, require little or no support, and will it
>last?"
>>> Small business will NEVER shop for an operating system and will not put
>>>up with incompatibilities and uncertainties in other products (like Linux),
>>>no matter how close to Windows they get. They will not allow a second
>operating
>>>system to be born, grow, evolve, and debug to the point where Windows
is
>>>today. They do not have the time, the money, the tech support resources
>>>needed to allow another operating system to catch-up and then compete.
>
>>With
>>>all their lack of technical and judicial savvy, small business has already
>>>decided this issue correctly. If Microsoft is split in two, small business
>>>will treat it like it never happened and continue to buy the same products,
>>>"experts" and wizened judges to the contrary be damned!
>>>(I am in software development for a large automotive company and consult
>>>to small business. It took a while for small business to re-teach me
to
>>>listen!)
>>>
>>>"C. Drouin" <drouinc@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>This breakup ruling of Microsoft will only hurt us... the developers.
>
>>What
>>>>am I going to do with my MSDN subscription ??? Pay more for 2 part I'm
>>sure.
>>>>
>>>>This guy worried about Microsoft going bankrupt is a bit extreme.. but
>>THATS
>>>>WHAT YOU GET FOR LETTING LAWMAKERS DECIDE !!!
>>>>They don't know jack about what we do. Some other mega corp (or a few)
>>>will
>>>>just take up the slack anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I
am
>>>a
>>>>Microsoft
>>>>>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise
applications.
>>>>> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to
Windows
>>>>>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely,
>and
>>>>>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>>>>>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>>>>>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge
>>>imposed
>>>>>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of
>telling
>>>>>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>>>>>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or
telling
>>>>>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>>>>>to stop adding features to cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is
>>this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft
goes
>>>>>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Rotog]

Personally, I feel that the 10 year ban is important. It will give Microsoft
a chance to produce an os that will not blue screen... and cause small business
to loose their data.

10 years of bug fixing might give microsoft the opportunity to create an
operating system rather then a virus.

just my humble opinion... try developing for BSD or a variant I do, and doing
just fine thank you


"Jim" <jlohr@mgpi.com> wrote:

>Personally, I feel this will turn out ok, as long as the 10 year innovation
>ban is lifted. THAT PART IS WRONG!
>
>Jim
>
>"Doug" <dhyatt@btcnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Justin,
>>
>>I'm just curious about how this is different from an auto dealer who must

[JasonL]

Rotog <Rotog@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3944ef10$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Personally, I feel that the 10 year ban is important. It will give
Microsoft
> a chance to produce an os that will not blue screen... and cause small
business
> to loose their data.

Yeah, yeah, great idea genius .. and in the meantime those small businesses
will use what OS? The same one they have today? For ten years? There will be
no small businesses in ten years if they're all forced to use the same OS
they have today without any new innovations.
Oh, wait I get it. With the DOJ strong-arming and smothering the "monopoly"
of MS, some _other_ benevolent company will provide a simple to use,
affordable, widely available OS that is also completely bug free. And of
course this new company would *never* monopolize the market if given a
chance. Why they would probably freely share their source code with other
startups so that the consumer would have many choices. I'm sure that some
bright CEO will figure out how to give away the source code and still make
money.Yep, I've seen hundreds of companies just like that try, but they just
get squashed by MS, oh what was their names ... hmm... actually I don't
think there were any.
And of course, since the DOJ is taking such an interest in controlling the
innovation and competition in the computer OS and software markets, I think
all of us should clamor for more government standardization of OS's &
software. Why, if it weren't for them I might never have known that a
utility to read a specially formatted text file (read : browser) could never
be part of an operating system. Thank you DOJ for clarifying just what an
operating system is. While they are at it, I think that they shouldn't allow
MS to include any hardware drivers with their installation CD's either. It
just isn't fair to me. What if I don't want all those drivers? How is that
fair to the hardware manufacturer's whose drivers aren't included. If I have
to download a driver for one monitor, I should have to download the driver
for all of them.
And yes, please give my small business a choice. I don't want to buy a
computer with an OS and browser and other software already loaded. I want
just a computer (and no MS-DOS either, that comes from the evil redmond
guys). Then I want to spend my time shopping for, buying and loading the OS
and software of my choice. And while you're at it please split up Apple. I
mean really, hummphh, just buy the computer, plug in the power, plug in the
phone jack and voila connect to the internet. You mean, someone chooses for
me the OS I run on my Mac? and indignities of indignities, that means they
didn't ask me which browser I wanted. Oh, I am so victimized by those evil
companies.

> 10 years of bug fixing might give microsoft the opportunity to create an
> operating system rather then a virus.

I'd heard that too. Bill is spending all his free time creating viruses. And
that is why there are so many bugs in MS's products - their developers are
too busy also creating viruses to exploit the holes they intentionally leave
in the products.

Despite the ignorance of your statements, I hope you're smart enough to
realize the sarcasm in mine.

-Jason

[rfp]

Right on brotha, sums it up nicely for me.

Most of the time I get into a discussion about this, I'm talking with some
geek with a "my os is better than your os" attitude and a limited understand
of what a monopoly is (uh, no, not Parker Bros, more like pre-divestiture
AT&T). This case has become the rallying point around which people with
unsubtantiated criticisms of Windows can finally get a firm strangle-hold.
In my opinion, these same people are more frustrated that Windows brought
computing to the masses by dumbing down the interface-- cute little icons,
animated cartoon characters telling you what to press and when -- and wrestling
control of computing from acne-pocked clans of nerds in dark basements.
Now their grandma is sending email and surfing the web and their sisters
are writing word macros; their dad says "folder" instead of "directory" and
anybody can double-click an icon. **** Microsoft, how dare you rip down
my empire, simplify it, lower the learning curve... Well I'll find another
operating system that is text-based and hard for mom to understand...

>
>Yeah, yeah, great idea genius .. and in the meantime those small businesses
>will use what OS? The same one they have today? For ten years? There will
be
>no small businesses in ten years if they're all forced to use the same OS
>they have today without any new innovations.
>Oh, wait I get it. With the DOJ strong-arming and smothering the "monopoly"
>of MS, some _other_ benevolent company will provide a simple to use,
>affordable, widely available OS that is also completely bug free. And of
>course this new company would *never* monopolize the market if given a
>chance. Why they would probably freely share their source code with other
>startups so that the consumer would have many choices. I'm sure that some
>bright CEO will figure out how to give away the source code and still make
>money.Yep, I've seen hundreds of companies just like that try, but they
just
>get squashed by MS, oh what was their names ... hmm... actually I don't
>think there were any.
>And of course, since the DOJ is taking such an interest in controlling the
>innovation and competition in the computer OS and software markets, I think
>all of us should clamor for more government standardization of OS's &
>software. Why, if it weren't for them I might never have known that a
>utility to read a specially formatted text file (read : browser) could never
>be part of an operating system. Thank you DOJ for clarifying just what an
>operating system is. While they are at it, I think that they shouldn't allow
>MS to include any hardware drivers with their installation CD's either.
It
>just isn't fair to me. What if I don't want all those drivers? How is that
>fair to the hardware manufacturer's whose drivers aren't included. If I
have
>to download a driver for one monitor, I should have to download the driver
>for all of them.
>And yes, please give my small business a choice. I don't want to buy a
>computer with an OS and browser and other software already loaded. I want
>just a computer (and no MS-DOS either, that comes from the evil redmond
>guys). Then I want to spend my time shopping for, buying and loading the
OS
>and software of my choice. And while you're at it please split up Apple.
I
>mean really, hummphh, just buy the computer, plug in the power, plug in
the
>phone jack and voila connect to the internet. You mean, someone chooses
for
>me the OS I run on my Mac? and indignities of indignities, that means they
>didn't ask me which browser I wanted. Oh, I am so victimized by those evil
>companies.
>
>> 10 years of bug fixing might give microsoft the opportunity to create
an
>> operating system rather then a virus.
>
>I'd heard that too. Bill is spending all his free time creating viruses.
And
>that is why there are so many bugs in MS's products - their developers are
>too busy also creating viruses to exploit the holes they intentionally leave
>in the products.
>
>Despite the ignorance of your statements, I hope you're smart enough to
>realize the sarcasm in mine.
>
>-Jason
>
>
>

[Phil Weber]

> **** Microsoft, how dare you rip down my empire,
> simplify it, lower the learning curve...

RFP: Well, in fairness, it was Apple that did that. Microsoft just
recognized a good thing when it saw one. ;-)
---
Phil Weber

[JasonL]

Phil Weber <pweber@teleport.com> wrote
>Microsoft just recognized a good thing when it saw one. ;-)
Too bad that's a crime. Now I have to be careful not to copy anyone else's
cool idea's in my apps. I'm sure my users will understand.
-Jason

[Phil Weber]

> Too bad that's a crime.

Jason: It's not! Apple sued Microsoft over it, and they settled out of
court.
---
Phil Weber

[James Curran]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3949189d$1@news.devx.com...
> RFP: Well, in fairness, it was Apple that did that. Microsoft just
> recognized a good thing when it saw one. ;-)

Ahem... it was Xerox that did that. Apple just recognized a good thing
when they saw one.

Ok, you counter that Xerox may have invented it, but Apple made it
popular. But they didn't really; Windows was what made it popular.

--
Truth,
James Curran
http://www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
http://www.NJTheater.com/JamesCurran (Personal)
http://www.BrandsForLess.com (Day Job)

[JL]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@teleport.com> wrote:
> > **** Microsoft, how dare you rip down my empire,
> > simplify it, lower the learning curve...
>
>RFP: Well, in fairness, it was Apple that did that. Microsoft just
>recognized a good thing when it saw one. ;-)
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>
Actually, Apple knows a good thing when it sees it too, since they developed
the Lisa (the Mac's ancestor) from the Xerox PARC GUI...

[Phil Weber]

> OK, you counter that Xerox may have invented it,
> but Apple made it popular.

James: No, I counter that Apple was the first to take the GUI out of the lab
and make a commercial product out of it.
---
Phil Weber

[Joseph White]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@teleport.com> wrote:
> > OK, you counter that Xerox may have invented it,
> > but Apple made it popular.
>
>James: No, I counter that Apple was the first to take the GUI out of the
lab
>and make a commercial product out of it.
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>
Well, not exactly, since Xerox created the 'Star' machine. The problem was
that it was associated with the 'paperless office' (HAH!) concept that Xerox
thought would hurt copier sales!

[dan]

They can add new features. Where did you get that they can't? What they
can't do is have the split companies join forces to develop products. They
have to do their work seperately.

"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am a
Microsoft
>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>
>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge imposed
>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>to stop adding features to cars.
>
>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is this?
>
>
>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

[MK]

Am I right that Word group will create interface elements then Windows group
will create them again from scratch with lawyer-observed "no interaction
allowed" and then Word group will stuck with their version because of "no
interaction allowed"? Where do you think those new features come from?

Or better - everybody will be spending time and money writing interface "like
Word" and "like Outlook". All similar looking programs will behave just a
bit different - that's real benefit to USER - he can choos freely.

OS do not need anything except console, file system, process scheduler and
loader. Are you ready to use that kind of OS? Can you? I can but do not want
to.

BTW, talk to MS developers. They will tell you that they are getting "internal
information" and "unpublished API" from MSDN website.

"dan" <dan@dan.com> wrote:
>
>They can add new features. Where did you get that they can't? What they
>can't do is have the split companies join forces to develop products. They
>have to do their work seperately.
>
>"rlynchttl" <rlynch@tullib.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, the breakup of Microsoft was not only fair, but was needed. I am
a
>Microsoft
>>development tool advocate. I use Visual Studio to build enterprise applications.
>> The breakup of Microsoft into 2 components was necessary.
>>
>>However, the concession demanding Microsoft stop adding features to Windows
>>for the next 10 years is unacceptable. This is the most absolutely, and
>>unarguably dumbest idea I have ever heard of. How on earth can Microsoft
>>continue to operate as a company without creating newer improved versions
>>of its' products? This would be practical if the ?!?!?!, I mean Judge
imposed
>>this on all other companies in the world. This is the equivalent of telling
>>drug companies they can no longer produce new drugs or telling architects
>>they can no longer design new buildings but must use old designs or telling
>>chipmakers their chips cannot run at higher speeds or telling auto companies
>>to stop adding features to cars.
>>
>>How insane, ludicrous, assinine, ridiculous, and just plain stupid is this?
>>
>>
>>Consider this. What would happen to the world economy if Microsoft goes
>>bankrupt?....UMMMMMMMM!!!!!!
>