Microsoft memes (was Re: .NET cross-platform)


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Microsoft memes (was Re: .NET cross-platform)

  1. #1
    Tim Romano Guest

    Microsoft memes (was Re: .NET cross-platform)

    Dave,
    To argue that proprietary standards are better than mediocre cross-platform
    open standards is analogous to supporting dictatorships over democracies
    because of the relative inefficiency of the latter. Free markets are, in the
    long term, more deserving of legal protection than are any short-term
    efficiencies. Abuse of monopoly threatens free markets. This long view
    must seem like an alien perspective to you, if you've been very close to
    Microsoft.

    In addition to threatening free markets, abuse of monopoly, when information
    is concerned, may threaten freedom itself. I would encourage everyone to
    question Microsoft's memes. Microsoft memes lead to a world in which a
    database about everyone's preferences and favorite sites and purchases is
    not regarded as a terrible invasion of individual privacy but as a golden
    opportunity for Microsoft to gain further control....control.... control....

    Tim Romano

    "David A. Rothgery" <drothgery@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.15a8ca9b6e83e7a99896d1@news.devx.com...
    > "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> <"Tim Romano" <tim_romano at
    > yahoo dot com>> wrote:
    > > "David A. Rothgery" <drothgery@myrealbox.com> wrote in message

    >
    > > <ROTHGERY>
    > > > Back in the DOS days, WP's word processor dominance (and Lotus'
    > > > spreadsheet dominance) was as complete as Microsoft's dominance of

    those
    > > > markets today.</ROTHGERY>

    > >
    > > <ROMANO>:
    > > > > There are qualititative and quantitative differences between having

    a
    > > lot of
    > > > > customers and having a monopoly.

    > > </ROMANO>
    > >
    > > I repeat: there is a difference between having "dominant" market share

    and
    > > having a monopoly.

    >
    > No there's not. That's the _definition_ of a monopoly. What you mean, I
    > think, is that there's a difference between having a monopoly and
    > abusing monopoly power. Which is obviously true.
    >
    > > The essential feature of a monpoly is that it has the
    > > potential for creating so-called barriers of entry for companies wishing

    to
    > > compete in the market;

    >
    > Microsft did face very significant barriers to entry in spreadsheets and
    > word processors, and contrary to popular beleif, they didn't get around
    > them using Evil Monopoly Magic.
    >
    > This is from somebody who worked on Excel during the time when it went
    > from being a bit player to the dominant spreadsheet...
    >
    > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/stories/storyReader$122
    >
    > > <ROTHGERY>
    > > > At least for custom solution builders (which is what we VB types do

    90%
    > > > of the time), there's an enormous benefit in have a standard platform
    > > > around, especially since no one has really gotten a cross-platform GUI
    > > > to work right. </ROTHGERY>

    > >
    > > I certainly don't disagree with your underlying premise that standards

    are a
    > > good thing. But I do take issue with the assumption that proprietary
    > > standards are better for the developer and the consumer than open

    standards.
    >
    > They are certainly better than no standards at all. Or standards that
    > work poorly on all platforms.
    >
    > --
    > Dave Rothgery
    > Picking nits since 1976
    > drothgery@myrealbox.com
    > http://drothgery.editthispage.com




  2. #2
    Larry Linson Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote:

    > OS2 had to run existing Win3-compatible applications.
    > OS2 wasn't launched before Win3.


    I believe a little research will show that there were versions of OS/2 concurrent
    with earlier versions of Windows. I used various early versions of OS/2 in
    the course of my (mostly mainframe and mini-oriented) work at IBM and thought
    it not a bad desktop operating system. The early versions were collaborations
    between IBM and Microsoft.

    But, after I retired from Big Blue, when I wanted to work in the "rest of
    the world", I went to Windows 3.0, and migrated to later versions.

  3. #3
    David A. Rothgery Guest

    Re: Microsoft memes (was Re: .NET cross-platform)

    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote:
    > Dave,
    > To argue that proprietary standards are better than mediocre cross-platform
    > open standards is analogous to supporting dictatorships over democracies
    > because of the relative inefficiency of the latter.


    I'd suggest taking this to the off.ramp, except that I don't read that
    group. So I'm just going to avoid posting on this thread again.

    --
    Dave Rothgery
    Picking nits since 1976
    drothgery@myrealbox.com
    http://drothgery.editthispage.com

  4. #4
    Tim Romano Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)

    Larry,
    I believe you, but I must say that I do not remember seeing any early
    versions of OS2 being marketed commercially before Win3 appeared. I started
    seeing the OS2 ads while everyone was waiting for Windows 95.
    Tim Romano


    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote in message
    news:3b3f7cd0$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote:
    >
    > > OS2 had to run existing Win3-compatible applications.
    > > OS2 wasn't launched before Win3.

    >
    > I believe a little research will show that there were versions of OS/2

    concurrent
    > with earlier versions of Windows. I used various early versions of OS/2 in
    > the course of my (mostly mainframe and mini-oriented) work at IBM and

    thought
    > it not a bad desktop operating system. The early versions were

    collaborations
    > between IBM and Microsoft.
    >
    > But, after I retired from Big Blue, when I wanted to work in the "rest of
    > the world", I went to Windows 3.0, and migrated to later versions.




  5. #5
    Who Cares Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)

    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote in message
    news:3b3f7cd0$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    >
    > I believe a little research will show that there were versions of OS/2

    concurrent
    > with earlier versions of Windows.


    I was running OS/2 1.30 in '91 prior
    to the release of Win 3.11.

    http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html





  6. #6
    Who Cares Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    news:3b3fb67c$1@news.devx.com...
    > Larry,
    > I believe you, but I must say that I do not remember seeing any early
    > versions of OS2 being marketed commercially before Win3 appeared.


    Released in December, 1987, OS/2 1.00

    http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html

    This is what really irks me about Microsoft. OS/2
    was far better than Windows. Novell 4.0 was
    so much better than Win NT 3.0 that it wasn't
    even funny. Heck, NT didn't reach Novell
    4.0 parity until NT 4.0 SP3 or 4 or so,
    several years later.







  7. #7
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    news:3b3f14a3$1@news.devx.com...
    > Kunle,
    > OS2 had to run existing Win3-compatible applications. OS2 wasn't launched
    > before Win3.


    That was for OS/2 v2 and later v3 (or Warp).

    > Many people considered OS2 a product of considerable merit,

    technologically.

    It died because of IBM faux pas. OS/2 v2 relied on the 286 rather than fully
    utilising the 386 and, by the time Warp was launched with a technically
    superior core engine, somebody had messed up the user interface big time.
    Eventually, MS released a "good enough for most users" Win95. The rest is
    history....

    > Microsoft was, IMO, a monopoly abusing its power when it took actions to
    > kill Lotus and DR-DOS.


    What actions exactly?. I have heard of the Windows 3 and DR-DOS checks and I
    am in two minds about it to be honest. The classification of Win9x as a
    "bundling or tying" of DOS and a GUI shell to kill off other DOS products is
    ridiculous IMO. It was a move I hoped MS had made since Windows 3 as a user.

    > An operating system company with dominant market
    > must not take actions designed to break the competing product of a
    > competitor.


    DOS was the OS that MS is accused of having a dominant market share with
    (see my earlier statement about IBM's competing DOS). Any actions MS took
    with it's add-on product - a GUI shell (i.e. Windows 3) for it's own OS - is
    irrelevant. If WordPerfect refused to run on DR-DOS would it be guilty of
    abuse of power?

    > Such action is tantamount to creating a barrier of entry. I
    > don't give a fig that lawyers manage to obfuscate the situation.


    > I acknowledge the need for standards. Without standards, we're all sunk.
    > But Microsoft continually tries to substitute its own standards for open
    > standards. Even that wouldn't be so terrible a thing for competition if

    the
    > MS applications company were separate from the O/S company. It's the
    > combination that is most insidious to free trade and competition...


    Open standards (and the open standards process) are getting better nowadays.
    MS would have been stifled by big competitiors like IBM, DEC, Apple who had
    [too] much influence on such bodies in the past. We would probably just be
    getting the "ANSI/ISO Windows 3 - a graphical substrate for application
    execution in a WIMP environment for DOS compatible Personal Computers"
    standard out the door about now....

    There was a time when MS was smaller than all these guys and many of them
    were offered the chance to buy it.....

    Kunle



  8. #8
    Tim Romano Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/...t/caldera.html

    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b4059a5@news.devx.com...

    > > Microsoft was, IMO, a monopoly abusing its power when it took actions to
    > > kill Lotus and DR-DOS.

    >
    > What actions exactly?. I have heard of the Windows 3 and DR-DOS checks and

    I
    > am in two minds about it to be honest. The classification of Win9x as a
    > "bundling or tying" of DOS and a GUI shell to kill off other DOS products

    is
    > ridiculous IMO. It was a move I hoped MS had made since Windows 3 as a

    user [sic].

    <ROMANO>
    > > An operating system company with dominant market
    > > must not take actions designed to break the competing product of a
    > > competitor. </ROMANO>


    Or to make it look as though the competing product is broken.

    Tim Romano



  9. #9
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    news:3b40c77a@news.devx.com...

    > > The classification of Win9x as a
    > > "bundling or tying" of DOS and a GUI shell to kill off other DOS

    products
    > is
    > > ridiculous IMO. It was a move I hoped MS had made since Windows 3 as a

    > user [sic].


    [sic?]

    > <ROMANO>
    > > > An operating system company with dominant market
    > > > must not take actions designed to break the competing product of a
    > > > competitor. </ROMANO>


    DOS was the operating system. MD-DOS *never* broke DR-DOS as far as I can
    tell. Windows as an MS application that provided a graphical shell for DOS.
    If that product was designed to work with MS-DOS only, so what? Same
    situation as WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3 running on MS-DOS only. Or is it
    that *all* products from the dominant OS player must work an all competing
    products ??

    > Or to make it look as though the competing product is broken.


    See above.

    Kunle



  10. #10
    David Rothgery Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" :

    > DOS was the operating system. MD-DOS *never* broke DR-DOS as far as I can
    > tell.


    What actually happened, FYI:
    There was a beta of Win 3.x that didn't run on DR-DOS, and suggested
    switching to MS-DOS. No release version exhibitted this behavior.

    --
    Dave Rothgery





  11. #11
    Tim Romano Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)

    Kunle,
    I wrote "sic" because I did not understand that last sentence of yours,
    which seemed to be missing a verb or, if not missing a verb, then the tense
    of the verbs made it unclear what you were trying to say; also, the
    antecedent of "It" was unclear: "It was a move I hoped MS had made since
    Windows 3 as a user."

    DR-DOS was achieving market share and mindshare, and posed a competitive
    threat to Microsoft. Rather than compete with DR-DOS by improving MS-DOS as
    rapidly as DR was improving DR-DOS, Microsoft chose to make it appear as
    though DR-DOS and Windows would not work together. This ruse killed DR-DOS.

    I think your argument, that "DOS" never broke DR-DOS nor made it appear as
    though DR-DOS was broken, that it was the windowing shell built upon DOS
    that caused this, is utterly SPECIOUS. Microsoft was in control of both DOS
    and Windows; Windows, as intermediary between application software and O/S,
    can rightly be considered an extension of the O/S. Certainly that is how
    most users perceive it: "Windows-compatible" software. Not much of a market
    these days for non-graphical apps, huh?
    Sure, Microsoft's expert witnesses will define "market" in a way that suits
    Microsoft's ends.

    I offer this background as context for .NET and Microsoft's future tactics,
    whatever they may be; abuse of monopoly power (or refraining from such
    abuse) may be a major factor affecting the rate of adoption of .NET.

    Tim Romano


    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b40f8a3$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    > news:3b40c77a@news.devx.com...
    >
    > > > The classification of Win9x as a
    > > > "bundling or tying" of DOS and a GUI shell to kill off other DOS

    > products
    > > is
    > > > ridiculous IMO. It was a move I hoped MS had made since Windows 3 as a

    > > user [sic].

    >
    > [sic?]
    >
    > > <ROMANO>
    > > > > An operating system company with dominant market
    > > > > must not take actions designed to break the competing product of a
    > > > > competitor. </ROMANO>

    >
    > DOS was the operating system. MD-DOS *never* broke DR-DOS as far as I can
    > tell. Windows as an MS application that provided a graphical shell for

    DOS.
    > If that product was designed to work with MS-DOS only, so what? Same
    > situation as WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3 running on MS-DOS only. Or is it
    > that *all* products from the dominant OS player must work an all competing
    > products ??
    >
    > > Or to make it look as though the competing product is broken.

    >
    > See above.
    >
    > Kunle
    >
    >




  12. #12
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    news:3b413148$1@news.devx.com...
    > Kunle,
    > I wrote "sic" because I did not understand that last sentence of yours,
    > which seemed to be missing a verb or, if not missing a verb, then the

    tense
    > of the verbs made it unclear what you were trying to say; also, the
    > antecedent of "It" was unclear: "It was a move I hoped MS had made since
    > Windows 3 as a user."


    OK, I meant "It [the bundling of the Windows GUI shell and MS-DOS] was a
    move I hoped MS made with Windows 3 (speaking as a user not a developer)."

    > DR-DOS was achieving market share and mindshare, and posed a competitive
    > threat to Microsoft. Rather than compete with DR-DOS by improving MS-DOS

    as
    > rapidly as DR was improving DR-DOS, Microsoft chose to make it appear as
    > though DR-DOS and Windows would not work together. This ruse killed

    DR-DOS.

    A beta release of a new graphical shell [one of many such shells from
    different manufacturers at the time] for MS-DOS checked that it was working
    on MS-DOS. If not it informed the user. If DR-DOS was my product, I wouldn't
    be best pleased but I fail to see the conspiracy here.

    > I think your argument, that "DOS" never broke DR-DOS nor made it appear as
    > though DR-DOS was broken, that it was the windowing shell built upon DOS
    > that caused this, is utterly SPECIOUS. Microsoft was in control of both

    DOS
    > and Windows;


    Microsoft was also in control of Word for DOS. If Word for DOS refused to
    work on DR-DOS, would MS be guilty of abuse of power?. I mean, do *all*
    products from a dominant OS provider have to work on all competing
    compatible OS's?

    > Windows, as intermediary between application software and O/S,
    > can rightly be considered an extension of the O/S. Certainly that is how
    > most users perceive it: "Windows-compatible" software. Not much of a

    market
    > these days for non-graphical apps, huh?


    Not much of a market either when MS entered it. In fact it took MS until
    version 3 (and the release of the i386) to get it right. Looking back now,
    it is easy to blame MS for all sorts but I suspect DR could have been more
    creative and come out with Windows 3 rather than the GEM stuff it was
    hawking. Can't blame MS for DR having a poorer solution.

    > Sure, Microsoft's expert witnesses will define "market" in a way that

    suits
    > Microsoft's ends.


    As will DR/Caldera's witnesses.

    > I offer this background as context for .NET and Microsoft's future

    tactics,
    > whatever they may be; abuse of monopoly power (or refraining from such
    > abuse) may be a major factor affecting the rate of adoption of .NET.


    I suspect the major factors will be performance, robustness and availability
    of cross-OS ports. MS seems to be doing it's bit for the client side of .NET
    for other OSes. The OS vendors can take up the gauntlet for implementing
    server applications.

    Kunle




  13. #13
    Tim Romano Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)

    Kunle Odutola:
    > Microsoft was also in control of Word for DOS. If Word for DOS refused to
    > work on DR-DOS, would MS be guilty of abuse of power?. I mean, do *all*
    > products from a dominant OS provider have to work on all competing
    > compatible OS's?


    The monopolist's products must not go out of their way to find a way NOT to
    work (or to appear not to work) on the products of competitors. Difficult
    to prove such contortions, or their intent, in a court of law, but the
    principle holds. These are unfair trade practices. My argument runs as
    follows:

    Microsoft had dominated the desktop O/S market.
    Competitors wishing to support DOS-compatible software had to remain
    compatible with the MS-DOS.
    DR, a competitor, began to gain mindshare and marketshare in the DOS market.
    MS was introducing a windowing environment.
    Whether that windowing environment is considered an extension of the O/S, or
    a software layer, it was critical for DR that DR-DOS run compatibly with the
    emerging MS windowing environment; but even more critical than the
    compatibility was market perception of the compatibility: if DR-DOS was
    Windows-compatible but the marketplace believed it wasn't, its true
    compatibility would matter little because it would lose mindshare and
    marketshare.
    By detecting DR-DOS during the beta, and displaying error messages,
    Microsoft shook the confidence of the marketplace in DR-DOS. Mindshare
    eroded. Marketshare eroded. Dead duck. -FIN-

    You anticipate that the adoption of .NET will hinge primarily upon
    cost-performance issues. But there is a grass-roots movement worldwide to
    get governments to abandon proprietary solutions in favor of open-standards.
    Microsoft, should it continue to pursue practices that show complete
    contempt for user privacy issues, may fuel the fire and find itself
    overthrown in a popular "marketplace" revolution. If I were Microsoft, I'd
    worry about today's 13 year olds -- and about Sony. Clearly, Microsoft's
    tacticians understand this. XBox is a loss-leader designed to garner the
    mindshare (brand loyalty) of today's youngest teenagers.

    Tim Romano







  14. #14
    Daniel Pratt Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)

    Hi Tim,

    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    news:3b41d10d$1@news.devx.com...
    > Kunle Odutola:

    <...>
    > By detecting DR-DOS during the beta, and displaying error messages,
    > Microsoft shook the confidence of the marketplace in DR-DOS. Mindshare
    > eroded. Marketshare eroded. Dead duck. -FIN-

    <...>

    Although I might feel differently if I knew the nature of these error
    messages you're talking about, I have to say that the mere inclusion of
    warning/error messages that are triggered upon running a beta product on a
    non-approved OS does not a conspiracy make. In fact, if they perhaps hadn't
    rigorously tested Windows on DR-DOS, it was probably good policy.

    IIRC, the Beta1 .NET SDK warned off people attempting to put anything
    ..NET on a non WIN2K machine. Was Microsoft trying to shake the consumer
    confidence of its other OS? I would guess not.

    Regards,
    Dan



  15. #15
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET cross-platform)


    "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
    news:3b41d10d$1@news.devx.com...
    > Kunle Odutola:
    > > Microsoft was also in control of Word for DOS. If Word for DOS refused

    to
    > > work on DR-DOS, would MS be guilty of abuse of power?. I mean, do *all*
    > > products from a dominant OS provider have to work on all competing
    > > compatible OS's?

    >
    > The monopolist's products must not go out of their way to find a way NOT

    to
    > work (or to appear not to work) on the products of competitors.


    Hmmm, that probably excludes Windows then since it did work on release.

    > Difficult
    > to prove such contortions, or their intent, in a court of law, but the
    > principle holds. These are unfair trade practices. My argument runs as
    > follows:
    >
    > Microsoft had dominated the desktop O/S market.
    > Competitors wishing to support DOS-compatible software had to remain
    > compatible with the MS-DOS.
    > DR, a competitor, began to gain mindshare and marketshare in the DOS

    market.
    > MS was introducing a windowing environment.


    DR *already* had a windowing environment - GEM. Can't remember if it ran on
    DOS or was an OS in itself.
    http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall.../6148/gem.html

    > Whether that windowing environment is considered an extension of the O/S,

    or
    > a software layer, it was critical for DR that DR-DOS run compatibly with

    the
    > emerging MS windowing environment; but even more critical than the
    > compatibility was market perception of the compatibility: if DR-DOS was
    > Windows-compatible but the marketplace believed it wasn't, its true
    > compatibility would matter little because it would lose mindshare and
    > marketshare.
    > By detecting DR-DOS during the beta, and displaying error messages,
    > Microsoft shook the confidence of the marketplace in DR-DOS. Mindshare
    > eroded. Marketshare eroded. Dead duck. -FIN-


    I think DR's weak marketing of GEM, and it's inability to forsee the
    importance of GUI shells (and execute accordingly) killed it off. Ventura
    (and later the Atari ST platform) showed what GEM was capable of.

    There were FIVE years between MS's launch of the seriously crappy Windows v1
    and the 1990 launch of Windows v3 that eventually nailed GEM, Desqview,
    TopView, GEOS, New Wave and all the other pretenders. I found this
    interesting document a little while ago...see what it says about DRI.
    http://www.ctyme.com/dri2.htm

    > You anticipate that the adoption of .NET will hinge primarily upon
    > cost-performance issues.


    Yep. It is an open standard, it is based on a technology similar to Java
    that has won over millions. It has demonstrated superior performance, MS's
    VS.NET is shaping up to be one of the best dev tool/environment
    available.And there will be a shared source version of the basic platform to
    aid others in porting etc.

    > But there is a grass-roots movement worldwide to
    > get governments to abandon proprietary solutions in favor of

    open-standards.

    There have always been such movements. There are good arguments for and
    against such movements.

    > Microsoft, should it continue to pursue practices that show complete
    > contempt for user privacy issues,


    Hey?. Cite?

    > ...may fuel the fire and find itself
    > overthrown in a popular "marketplace" revolution.


    That is why it is so aggresive despite it's size and position right?

    > If I were Microsoft, I'd
    > worry about today's 13 year olds -- and about Sony. Clearly, Microsoft's
    > tacticians understand this. XBox is a loss-leader designed to garner the
    > mindshare (brand loyalty) of today's youngest teenagers.


    Actually, when asked at the end of the 80s which companies he thought would
    be the most important/successful in IT, Bill Gates said Nintendo and/or
    Sega. He felt that segment of the market was likely to be the new revenue
    leader. He was wrong about the actual companies but his prediction turned
    out to be just right - just see what Sony has done with the PlayStation.
    Some of us knew then that it was only a matter of time before Bill joined
    the fray....

    Kunle




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center