Re: XP good until 2014 according to Microsoft

On Mar 27, 1:26 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 26, 7:41 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:46 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 25, 11:56 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just downloaded and installed IE8.

<snipped some colourful alleged quotes>

Interesting reading.

From a disgruntled employee leaked by a "reliable source"...

There are a number of recorded instances of Mr. Ballmer's volatile
behaviour. However, he is not Microsoft, and policy is devised by a group of
people.

So now it is you with deep insights into MS's workings ?

Do you have any examples of Ballmer being overridden ?

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/25/linux-is-more-of-a-threat-th...

That looked very reasonable to me. It is interesting that despite all the MS
hate around, people would still rather pirate Windows than use a "free" OS.

One of the consequences of OEMs bundling Windows with (almost) every
machine is that Windows is seen as being "free" with every machine,
when in fact the cost is part of the price. There is often no
comparison of 'PC with Windows' vs 'PC without Windows'.

Because of this perception many, especially third world, think that
there is no difference between getting it "free" with a machine, and
getting it "free" without a new machine.

Also MS have commented that they prefer, and encourage, piracy rather
than have some other system on machines.

In many cases the users do not know that the PC they bought has a
pirated version of Windows on it. It is the dealers installing it and
keeping the cost of Windows.

Business has always been competitive. It is normal, natural, and healthy for
large businesses to keep an eye on their competitors.

It is not an 'eye' it is their foot on the throat, not only of their
competitors but also their 'partners'.

For example when MS wanted a browser they got Spyglass to write IE
based on Mosaic. The deal was that MS would pay Spyglass $5 for every
copy _sold_. MS decided to give it away thus not paying their
'partner' and making them go out of business.

They then paid OEMs $5 by way of a discount to _not_ install Mozilla.

I see nothing nefarious in that.

fanbois often do not.

As long as there is competition we all win. (And even if there isn't, as
long as we get what we want, we still win...)


Generally when there is no competition the price increases, the
monopoly profiteers.


When Mozilla was in
limbo MS dis no development at all and IE 6 was all you got.

OK, that is an arguable statement. As I am not authorized to speak
for MS I won't argue it.

What's to argue ? IE 6 had no improvements for over 5 years until
Firefox took some share and MS reacted with IE7 and now IE8.

Rank Xerox had a monopoly for over 20 years and everyone just used their
copiers and was gald to have that facility. When their copyright expired and
companies like UBIX and Canon announced machines with more features, they
then had to improve their products.

And reduce their prices.

Today, we expect to have photcopy
capability incorporated into our printers, and we expect to have it all for
a reasonable price. The average person doesn't have a Xerox photocopier
because they concentrated on the corporate market and bulk volume
photocopying.

There is nothing "wrong" with a company providing a product that people are
happy with, and NOT improving it until they have to.

Were you 'happy' to pay several thousand dollars for one ?


I deliver software that meets customer needs. If they suggest improvements,
I listen and build a new release. If they are happy with what they have I
don't go "looking for trouble".

I don't know any company that would. (Obviously, if the competition has
something extra, that would also be cause to revisit the current solution).

That sounds like 'normal competition' but MS does not do that. When DR-
DOS 5 had a far superior product to MS-DOS 4.01 they did not make a
better MS-DOS (not for nearly two years), they built the AARD code
into Windows as FUD and then bundled MS-DOS and Windows at the Windows
price to OEMs to eliminate DR-DOS (which by then had a 15% market
share because it was much better).


Yet you are so blinded by hatred for Microsoft that when THEY do this, it is
somehow reprehensible in your eyes. You appear to see it as the wicked
Goliath crushing the poor noble little David.

Actually many 'Davids' have been crushed by MS.

Do you honestly think that if
the places of Jobs and Gates (for example) had been reversed, the world
would be any different?

Of course it would, by at least those two.

Did you ever consider how Microsoft became so successful in the first place?
They provided something that was what people needed, in a form that made it
easy to assimilate. Sure, they may have used other people's ideas,

No, they used other peoples _products_.

The original SCP-DOS (QDOS) was based on CP/M code translated to 8086
by an Intel code converter. This was demonstrably so when MS-DOS 1.0
has an obscure bug that occurred in CP/M 1.4. Both SCP and MS were DRI
OEMs and had every piece of OEM development software that DRI
distributed to OEMs.

When PC-DOS was announced DRI was able to show it contained an
encrypted DRI copyright. IBM settled by rewriting much of it, and
giving DRI rights to clone it. This is why DR-DOS, with FAT support,
was never subject to litigation from MS. IBM also agreed to sell CP/
M-86 for the IBM-PC but never updated it beyond 1.0.

but they
bought and paid for them.

Not always true. see Doublespace.

"""MS-DOS shipped with disk compression software, first "Doublespace",
which Microsoft stole source code from Stac Electronics' "Stacker"
for, they got sued and Stac won, so then they wrote their own code,
and called it "Drivespace"."""

A number of the add-ons in MS-DOS 5 and 6 were not paid for. Central
Point software was licenced, at no cost to MS on the basis that there
would get upgrade revenues.


The result was that the general consumer didn't
have to go to several different shops to acquire stuff, and didn't have to
search for emerging techologies in companies no-one had heard of. It was
just easy to go Microsoft and the world did. I don't think even Bill Gates
had any idea how successful their company was going to be in say, 1982.

Like all phenomenally successful enterprises, there will be those who resent
their success.

No, I don't resent their success, only the methods that they used to
get there, and their imperialism.

IBM experienced the same tall poppy syndrome right throughout
the 60s and 70s. (I wouldn't mind betting you felt the same way then about
IBM, as you do now about Microsoft, and it is no surprise to me that you
chose to work on ICL mainframes rather than IBM ones.)

I worked for ICL, of course I used their machines. Duh.

I was one who was
appalled by their perceived misuse of power. Ironically, I ended up working
for them and it changed my perception. There WERE IBM people who did some
quite dreadful things in pursuit of achieving targets, but they were a
minority, and they were NOT the company. It is the same with Microsoft.


Actually the misue of power was exactly why both companies, the whole
company, were convicted by the anti-trust court cases.

The misuse of power was directed from the top, as found by evidence
presented to the courts.


Despite all the personal abuse and contumely, Bill Gates has not stopped his
personal philanthropy, has placed his stamp on Microsoft, and millions of
people throughout the world have benefitted. The company has been organised
to ensure that a slice of the action is redistributed to the communities.
Some of that is promoting the company, but it is no less valuable for that.

While the foundation may be giving away amounts of medicines this is
tied to governments pledging not to purchase alternate non-patent
suppliers. Bill has massive share holding in the companies involved
and makes money from his 'philanthropy'.


You have a position supporting free and open software, (I am sympathetic)
yet when MS give away very usable versions of products like C#, C++, VB and
Visual Studio, with no strings attached, you don't applaud it.

What makes you think it has 'no strings attached' ? It only runs on
Windows and only produces code for Windows so all users will have to
buy MS software.

In any case you seem to miss the whole point of 'free' software. While
it is often free as in beer (and sometimes not) the main point is that
it is 'free' as in speech.

But why should I applaud it ? Why can't I remain completely
indifferent to C# and Visual Studio ?

IE was given away to a) not have to pay Spyglass for the work they
did; b) drive Mozilla* out of business**.

* Mozilla had announced that the next generation of software would be
browser based (ie like cloud computing) and that the fat desktop OS
would be obsolete. MS drove Mozilla out of business sufficiently to
stop development putting computing back 10 years.

** while Mozilla could be had for free for personal use the corporates
did have to buy it.


(For myself, I believe that picking up these products and learning to use
them is the best thing I have ever done in my whole IT career. It has
expanded my horizons, enabled me to do things I couldn't do before, and it
is really fun.I appreciate that Microsoft made it possible, but I also use
other products from other vendors.)

Yes, you (and Microsoft) were rather late coming to modern tools. It
is natural that you would attach to these, it is called the 'baby duck
syndrome'. Most of us went through that a decade or two ago.


I simply don't understand how you can be so passionately anti-MS (although I
respect your right to be so...:-))

Not being a fanboi and actually following what the company did for 25
years does make one anti-microsoft. It is just like being anti-
scientology, or anti-nazi. They have their fans too.


In fact
if it wasn't for Firefox you would still be stuck with IE6.

I never ever felt "stuck" with IE 6. I found it did what I wanted at
the time. It is probably hard for you to accept that some of us
actually find MS products perfectly fine. (Not ALL products,
perhaps, but some of them are actually outstanding. By coincidence,
I did a satisfaction survey today on Microsoft as a company, their
support, licensing, forums, and their products...Overall they rated
8 from me. Other people will have other opinions. I also rated IBM
and Sun (based on the products I use) at around the same 8.

Interestingly IE8 is not improving MS's market share, it is IE7
users that are getting IE8 while Firefox grows.

Personally, I don't care. I'll use whatever works for me. Currently,
I get good value from both Browsers.

I came across this stuff about
XP. As I know many people here are using it (self included), I
thought it might be of interest...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-xp/future.aspx

Obviously, MS are pretty keen to move us all (kicking and
screaming) onto Vista, but this page attempts to put their point
of view and I thought it seems quite fair.

You chose not to comment on this...

Should I infer that you agree it is fair? :-)

No, you can infer that I haven't read it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: XP good until 2014 according to Microsoft
    ... Microsoft are open about this. ... One of the consequences of OEMs bundling Windows with every ... So how is MS responsible for dodgy OEMs? ... was never subject to litigation from MS. IBM also agreed to sell CP/ ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Many XP Problems Solved
    ... solid and Deskmate was going out and Windows was coming in. ... There was alot involved for the road of success for Microsoft and IBM, ... Registry Booster.. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Many XP Problems Solved
    ... IBM didn't aim at the home market.. ... the future for Microsoft and Windows.. ... that world the Microsoft had arrived and was affordable.. ... Registry Booster.. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Many XP Problems Solved
    ... solid and Deskmate was going out and Windows was coming in. ... There was alot involved for the road of success for Microsoft and IBM, ... Registry Booster.. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter #176
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... Microsoft Windows XP HCP URI Handler Arbitrary Command Execu... ... PHPNuke Category Parameter SQL Injection Vulnerability ... Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer Vulnerability Identific... ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)