Re: XP good until 2014 according to Microsoft

riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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 ?

Read what I wrote and don't try to spin it. "Policy is devised by a group
of people". Microsoft are open about this. Ballmer approves it (or doesn't)
but the actual devising of policy is done by the VPs and specialists
concerned. He couldn't possibly formulate every policy for the company; he
simply doesn't have the expertise and that is why they have a Management
Team. My statement as written does not mean that people override him (that
isn't what I said) and I therefore don't have any solid specific examples of
that (I won't resort to using leaked reports from a "usually reliable
source" :-) )

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.

Cite?


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.


So how is MS responsible for dodgy OEMs?


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.

Oh Really? So the $8 million that MS paid Spyglass (revised from the
original agreed $2 million after a dispute about how many people had
acquired it) was just for the bankruptcy party, was it? Spyglass originally
intended to base their code on NCSA Mosaic anyway (in the end they didn't
but there is no doubt they had very little designing to do...) If someone
paid me $8 million to take an already existing product and make it better,
I'd go bankrupt too... All the way to the Bahamas.

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.

You misunderstand. I don't think there's anything wrong with working on ICL
mainframes (I did so myself) or for ICL as a company (I did that too). My
point was that you CHOSE to do so, at a time when most people chose IBM or
felt that their careers could not progress unless they worked for IBM. Of
course some people worked for the BUNCH (I made a point of doing so to get
as broad an experience as possible, and I worked on IBM sites as well. But I
strongly resisted actually working for IBM (just as I believe you would
have) until an ironic twist of fate saw me ensconced at Hursley Park.)

You didn't actually answer my implicit question and of course you don't have
to, but I'll put it to you again: Did you feel the same way about IBM as a
company, during the 1970s, as you now feel about MicroSoft?

Think on it.


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.

Yes, I was working for CDC at the time and was in Bloomington, Minnesota
when the decision was announced. (I remember Seymour Cray was at the party,
a shy man who was there through duty rather than desire, our triumphant CEO,
Bill Norris, was self-effacing and refused to gloat, but the rest of us were
pretty chuffed about it all... :-)) Even though the settlement was HUGE by
most people's standards, for IBM it was petty cash...

Certainly, even at the highest level IBM had behaved badly, but that was
pretty much the norm in those days. It was convenient for CDC to forget that
they themselves had settled out of Court with Sperry Univac a few years
earlier. (Given that the founders of CDC were mainly from Univac, I found
this surprising.)

It is precisely because of cases like this where even the mighty IBM found
they couldn't "get away with it" that the way was paved for a more ethical
management and policy.

IBM today is nothing like the corporation it was then, and Microsoft isn't
either.




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'.

I guess he has shares in the company that distributes free computers and
software to underpriveleged schools, and the free software that has turned a
rising generation of over 70 million young people into C# and VB programmers
too? Oh yes, that would be Microsoft...

It's a bit spooky. While we've been having this conversation over the last
few days, I got a newsletter from MS NZ. They had some stuff to give away...
it was some educational video on using WPF, which is something I've been
trying unsuccessfully to find time for. Anyway I went into the draw and Lo!
and Behold! those nice people at Microsoft pulled my name out of a hat and
the DVD turned up yesterday. It is brilliant and a realistic way to learn
the software. So what kind of giveaways come with the Penguin... :-) A DVD
of "Happy Feet"?... that would be... uh...cool. :-)



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.

As over 80% of them already have, that's hardly an objection...

Certainly, the products I mentioned run in a MS environment, but so do
Fujitsu and Micro Focus COBOLs... Are they then colluding through their
"partnerships" with MS?

Furthermore, the output of the .NET products is NOT limited to a MS platform
(not that anyone cares anyway... people using these products are already
using a MS environment, and before you mention that MF and Fujitsu also
produce COBOL for Unix, have a look at what percentage of their total
revenue THAT represents...). C# and the other .NET languages (including the
..NET COBOL versions) produce CLR for .NET. They can do the same for Mono. (I
hear there is even a project going on to bring CLR to the mainframe
environment.)



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.

Good point. I am aware of it and I am very sympathetic to Open COBOL (for
instance).

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

I wish you could :-) We are having this conversation because you seem unable
to maintain indifference whenever "Microsoft" is mentioned. While you have a
perfect right to feel however you feel, I find the vitriol tiresome sometmes
so I was hoping to explore and understand just why you feel this way.

The conclusion I am coming to is that you have some very good points and MS
has behaved badly on occasion. But MS-DOS was a long time ago, and C# is a
long way from Dartmouth BASIC on an IBM PC in 1983. I actually LIKE some of
their products and am not too concerned about judging them morally. (When
those judgements start flying around few of us are safe...) That doesn't
mean I approve of unethical behaviour by any company, but I'm certainly not
going to stop using Windows XP, Visual Studio 2008, Office 2007, or C#
because MS may or may not have screwed a Browser company 14 years ago...



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.

OK.

Pete.

--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: [SLE] Observation from reading diffrent threads... -- you really need my class!
    ... Linux/Open Source will often let you move away from _older_ ... costs over Windows, but it does not eliminate them. ... IBM first used a DOS ... Microsoft licensed that for $50,000. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: XP good until 2014 according to Microsoft
    ... people would still rather pirate Windows than use a "free" OS. ... They then paid OEMs $5 by way of a discount to _not_ install Mozilla. ... was never subject to litigation from MS. IBM also agreed to sell CP/ ... which Microsoft stole source code from Stac Electronics' "Stacker" ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)