Is Microsoft truly evil?

[DJNgoma]

Just surfing and found this...

In the US courts this week Microsoft have had an injunction placed on them preventing them from “selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States” any version of Microsoft Office capable of opening custom XML files (.xml, .docx, or .docm), which, frankly is every version of Microsoft Office.

This follows anti-trust action by the European Union over Windows 7, brought about by the company behind the Opera web browser, that first gave us the ridiculous Windows 7 E edition and now a ballot screen for browsers for every retail copy of Windows in the EU and possibly further afield.

This begs the question is Microsoft really too big and too evil? Do they stifle competition? I believe the answer is a firm no.

You only have to look at how well Firefox and Chrome have done in the browser space, not Opera you note. Apple is also doing extremely well with iTunes against Windows Media Player, after the Windows N editions fiasco. This is despite the fact the iTunes is tightly integrated with Apple hardware (iPods) and their music store, which Windows Media Player isn’t.

I think there’s a very important question to be asked here, not just about Apple but the wider world in general. Are we allowing the courts to use lawsuits against Microsoft to distract us from other issues? Also is stifling Microsoft, stifling competition?

Internet Explorer 6 stagnated for many years until the emergence of Firefox as a credible browser. This forced Microsoft to innovate more which in turn has brought about a massive change in every browser and has also brought new players to the market.

All that innovation has helped us, the end users. Would we really have new security controls in our browsers if we didn’t have competition? If we stifle the biggest player, or at least a company that’s still seen as the biggest player, will we bring about stagnation?

Take Windows 7 for instance. This is really the only credible new operating system in the market today. You can’t buy OS X without buying with it, or already being tied to Apple hardware, and despite the best efforts from the likes of Ubuntu, Linux still has a great way to go before it’s truly user friendly. Chrome OS will no doubt address some of the issues, but I don’t believe it’ll knock Microsoft off the top spot any time soon.

Then you look at the reasons why Microsoft Office is the most popular office suite on the planet. The simple fact is that it’s simply the best one out there. While you can get the likes of OpenOffice for free, it too still has some way to go. The proof in this is the news that they too are introducing their own ribbon-type interface.

We all know that almost nobody bought the Windows N editions (sans Windows Media Player) but that didn’t stop the march and rise of iTunes. Also the rise of Firefox and it’s dominant position in the market today had nothing to do with the courts. Frankly, litigation like this simply does not have the same effect as leaving well enough alone.

I know I’ll be attacked for being pro-Microsoft and anti-everyone else, frankly this is the risk you have to take in internet journalism. I will state for the record that I’m neither pro nor anti anything or anyone. I merely want the operating systems and software we use to be as good as they can possibly be.

Constantly attacking Microsoft in the courts in this way, is not the way to achieve this.

Source: Windows 7 News

 

[PeterCH]

An article from a paid shill. Of course he'll say "No, MS is not truly evil."

One example of MS evil. Get a device with Windows in one language, you can't use the OEM code to install an English Windows on the same system - you need to pay for a new copy of Windows with the original OEM one going up into the aether.

Of course running Service Pack 3 does correct some language issues but MS is pure evil, just another example. Heck they even threatened to pull out of the US rather than pay some extra tax. Patriotic?

 

[DJNgoma]

An article from a paid shill. Of course he'll say "No, MS is not truly evil."

One example of MS evil. Get a device with Windows in one language, you can't use the OEM code to install an English Windows on the same system - you need to pay for a new copy of Windows with the original OEM one going up into the aether.

Of course running Service Pack 3 does correct some language issues but MS is pure evil, just another example. Heck they even threatened to pull out of the US rather than pay some extra tax. Patriotic?

The rant on for the old OS, it's called 7+Language Pack=Happiness. I would also threaten to pull out of my own country if I got f'd sideways just because everyone wants to make a quick buck off me. If the courts wanted to do any good, they just need to get that price tag of that Candy Coated Linux, oops I mean Unix, or atleast installable on a PC or even a Virtual PC.

 

[PeterCH]

The rant on for the old OS, it's called 7+Language Pack=Happiness.

Uh no. Win 7 localised for a certain language stays in that language. MUI is not it. Secondly Win 7 does not ship with systems and is not a finalised OS either. Usual approach is to wait for SP1 of anything MS before 'upgrading'.
You should know that.

I would also threaten to pull out of my own country if I got f'd sideways just because everyone wants to make a quick buck off me.

Well, they are paying very little tax in the US, as is. Google it yourself.

If the courts wanted to do any good, they just need to get that price tag of that Candy Coated Linux, oops I mean Unix, or atleast installable on a PC or even a Virtual PC.

???

Oh and Ballmer is pushing up the price of Win 7 from next year - despite the recession. I posted about that too in the Software forum - 2 days back.

Interesting to also note that MS Win 7 in Europe will cost the US Dollar price but in EURO. Yes whatever it is $299 or whatever will be 299 EU. Of course MS won't make Win 7 R299 ZAR in South Africa.

 

[Rosaudio]

Microsoft is evil because they pay people into making the public believe they are not evil

 

[DJNgoma]

Uh no. Win 7 localised for a certain language stays in that language. MUI is not it.

Secondly Win 7 does not ship with systems and is not a finalised OS either. Usual approach is to wait for SP1 of anything MS before 'upgrading'.
You should know that.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/goglobal/bb964648.aspx

LIPs are also provided. The language packs seem to do their job.

Well, they are paying very little tax in the US, as is. Google it yourself.

So that justifies getting the treatment without Vaseline?

???

Referring to the Mac OS.

Oh and Ballmer is pushing up the price of Win 7 from next year - despite the recession. I posted about that too in the Software forum - 2 days back.

Interesting to also note that MS Win 7 in Europe will cost the US Dollar price but in EURO. Yes whatever it is $299 or whatever will be 299 EU. Of course MS won't make Win 7 R299 ZAR in South Africa.

There are alternative OSs... So if you don't like the price, then go on your merry way to the other OSs.
This pricing fiasco can be said about every piece of software is offer with a tag. Don't like it... Then find or make you own software (kind of contradicting my point about Mac OS ).

 

[PeterCH]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/goglobal/bb964648.aspx

LIPs are also provided. The language packs seem to do their job.

It's not the language localisation. It's the User Interface language which is the issue.
BTW that link does not work.

Also with XP (I think its the same with Vista and will be the same with 7) if you get a version of Windows in one language you can't change that language to another (UI language). MS could reverse that ruling but they won't (and they didn't in the past).

So that justifies getting the treatment without Vaseline?

Err so if I pay too little tax and suddenly have to pay as much as everyone else I am being shafted? MS will not pull out of the US, they benefit too much from US government assistance - you can see that the EC is not afraid of MS one iota - and MS will not pull out of Europe - neither sales nor manufacturing.

Corporates also need to pay tax.

Referring to the Mac OS.

Mac is not a monopoly. Mac is a single product - while MS dominates the operating systems across the board, Mac like every other manufacturer of everything in this world dominates it's own product line. Coca-Cola also dominates the Coca-cola line as FILA dominates the FILA line as does FORD dominate the FORD line of cars.

There are alternative OSs... So if you don't like the price, then go on your merry way to the other OSs.

That's the problem. MS killed off the competition in the 90s, they effectively cheated IBM by promising to develop apps for OS/2 while secretly pushing NT, then they forced OEMs to bundle Windows on all new machines, in fact it even became 'illegal' to buy a machine without an operating system. Once MS had the Office and OS monopoly nailed down most consumer apps became MS only. You need to brush up on your history there. There are many reasons why end users are unhappy with MS and other reasons why software developers (ask Borland and others) are unhappy and yet other reasons why web developers and corporates. I'm an end user.

Not to mention that Windows operating systems are what is causing most of the spam and malware spread.

This pricing fiasco can be said about every piece of software is offer with a tag. Don't like it... Then find or make you own software (kind of contradicting my point about Mac OS ).

Well, not everyone can make their own software - and unlike the car market where I can buy a Ford, Toyota, Honda, Peugeot, BMW, Mazda, Audi and MB not to mention a dozen other makes, I can't go into a shop and buy a non-Windows machine and expect to run the same diversity of apps on it. Heck except for Mac OSX there are no other OS'es even sold in B&M shops in SA. Yeah - I guess I could just go and download a distro and install that and be happy - well why should I? I paid MS my license already (OEM). They got the cash out of me.

Some people don't understand why others are unhappy with MS.

 

[Arthur]

... MS killed off the competition in the 90s, they effectively cheated IBM by promising to develop apps for OS/2 while secretly pushing NT ...

Peter, this is just not true. And while it's all old stuff from years ago, the truth matters. History is important, as you rightly say. The fact is Microsoft was passionately committed to OS/2, throughout the company. Only later, with the genuinely unexpected success of Win3 and serious delays with OS/2 1.3 and 2.0, did the relationship become stressed.

I know this first hand because I was a product manager in IBM's ESD (Entry Systems Division) at the time and part of a worldwide requirements and specifications group for OS/2 (and PS/2). I know the Microsoft-IBM JDA (Joint Development Agreement) for OS/2 first hand and know what went on in the JDA and the subsequent much-ballyhoo'd "great divorce". I know the relationship from the IBM side - from 1985 to 1992. I was recruited by Microsoft in 1992, more than a year before the release of NT.

The first real stress on the relationship came when IBM insisted on using Presentation Manager as the GUI and API set even though not all the specs were bedded down - placing impossible strains and delays on the joint development (PM implemented IBM's Common User Access (CUA) definitions, part of the much larger PC-to-midrange-to-mainframe Systems Application Architecture (SAA) definitions, which themselves were a counter to the newly-unshackled UNIX which everyone thought would break IBM's 'monopoly' ... IBM at that time was bigger than the next 7 computer companies combined ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs")). Microsoft was a tiny PC sw company with under 2000 employees worldwide.

One of the first sticking points was IBM's insistence on support for the 286. Microsoft (and many inside IBM, including myself) wanted an all-out focus on the 32-bit version for the upcoming 386, with multiple virtual DOS machine support and far better memory handling and programmability. IBM execs (who didn't understand technology as they were beanies and lawyers fighting the US Government anti-trust case) won out and we focused on getting out the 16-bit version for the 286. IBM won that battle.

Another big issue was maximising compatibility with the apps base. Microsoft didn't do apps then (in 1985, when the JDA started), so getting Lotus Development, WordPerfect Corp, Ashton-Tate, and others on board was critical to market success. IBM top execs didn't understand this - all they could see was OS/2 Extended Edition and the PC as an intelligent mainframe terminal driving PS/2 hardware sales in large SAA networks connected to DB2. Microsoft was championing open hardware and support for "clones", whereas IBM wanted to close it up as much as possible and tie it to PS/2. Again, IBM won that battle.

I might well have said on this forum before: even as a loyal IBMer in the mid-80s I was skeptical of SAA (IBM's overarching Systems Application Architecture) applicability for the PC. It was Bill Gates who persuaded me that OS/2 was the way of the future, at Spring Comdex 1986.

If anything, it was IBM's bumbling and stumbling that hobbled OS/2. But that bumbling was not native to IBM - it was forced onto it by the Government of the United States of America, notably the Department of Justice, with its 17-year anti-trust case against IBM. That put the lawyers and beanies in charge at IBM, and destroyed what was arguably the finest company in history. I still get angry about it. But that's another story.

...then they forced OEMs to bundle Windows on all new machines, in fact it even became 'illegal' to buy a machine without an operating system.

Not true. At least not in the USA or major markets. I'm not sure about the entire planet. Please cite a credible source, with sufficient detail to understand what "forced" and "illegal" mean in context.

...Once MS had the Office and OS monopoly nailed down most consumer apps became MS only.

Not by force of fraud but by user choice in a free and highly competitive market. You use the world "monopoly" too loosely, and it is not true that Microsoft has ever had a monopoly. Dominance, yes, but not a monopoly, as any honest Mac user will gleefully tell you. Did you know MS Office was first released for the Mac in 1989, and for Windows only in 1990, as a bundle of standalone apps? It offered users like you and me unprecedented value, undercutting the dominant apps players by >50% or more. (Aside: I'm moving house and cleaning up - on Friday I threw out my diskettes of Office 3.0, the first Office for Windows version. It was something like 25 diskettes. It's still in the bin until Tuesday for anyone who wants some history). You also forget how WordPerfect, Lotus, Borland and Ashton-Tate utterly dominated their respective apps categories, and Novell utterly dominated networking. Microsoft came from way behind. MS unseated the incumbents because they (the dominant apps vendors) failed to recognise the platform shift in time, but mainly because the Big Boys had grown complacent, arrogant and greedy and "this upstart Microsoft knows nothing about apps. Hell, they mainly did apps for the Macintosh, and everyone knows that's a toy" a fat exec at a major software vendor once said. You might not remember, but in the early 1990s WordPerfect sold for $449, and Lotus 1-2-3 for much the same. That's around R5000 per application in today's money. MS Word (which was first developed for Xenix (Microsoft's implementation of UNIX on the PC), and MS Excel (first developed for the Apple Mac) were priced much lower because they had <5% marketshare. Win 3.0 came out in May 1990 - the last intended release. But because OS/2 was proving much more difficult and very much slower than originally planned, users went for Win3 in their millions. In June 1990, when nervous hardware OEMs wanted to finalise deals for the Aug-Dec buying season, Microsoft (yes Microsoft) tried to persuade them to wait for OS/2 1.3 (Extended Edition, with comms and database support), but IBM-MS couldn't commit to a release date, so the OEMs signed for DOS+Win3 OEM in unprecedented numbers. IBM wanted the OEMs to sign for Windows -- yes you heard me right -- because it wanted to leverage OS/2 to drive PS/2 sales and preferred the 'compatibles' or 'clones' to get an older technology like DOS+Windows 3.0. I and a few others inside IBM were shocked at this short-sightedness and we were very vocal about it in Boca Raton (ESD HQ) and Austin, TX (where OS/2 EE was being developed). By the end of the summer of 1990 the world had changed. A year later the JDA was effectively history.

As an aside, under the JDA, IBM was development lead for the 286 version called OS/2 1.x, and Microsoft for 'open' 32-bit version called OS/2 3.0. IBM developers (not Microsoft) incorporated Windows into OS/2 2.0 (under an existing licence) and marketed it as "a better DOS than DOS. A better Windows than Windows". Windows NT is really OS/2 3.0 (the full 32-bit "open" version of OS/2) with the Windows API set instead of IBM Presentation Manager. The early versions of NT even had OS/2 copyright notices.

In short: Microsoft was deeply committed to OS/2. Genuinely. Honestly. Sincerely. When the market went with Win3 and Win3 apps, Microsoft listened to what users said, and incorporated the Win API set. That took great guts, because execs had to swallow their own vision and follow what the market said. Not many companies do that successfully.

...You need to brush up on your history there.

Agreed.

____________________________
Bonus inside info:

* The biggest Mac fans outside of Apple are at Microsoft. It's the Mac fans outside of Apple that get all steamed up about Microsoft and paint it as The Great Satan. But that's almost the opposite of the truth from Microsoft's perspective. In all my years at Microsoft I never heard a single vaguely negative or carping comment about Apple or Mac; without exception, every group and person at "Corp" in Redmond, from billg and steveb down to the humblest v-admin were positive and supportive. Don't forget it was Microsoft that basically bailed out Apple in 1997, when Steve Jobs needed cash to save the ailing Apple.

 

[w1z4rd]

Yes.

 

[DJNgoma]

Yes.

I know what you mean w1z4rd lol. With King Arthur giving us some more insight into this whole matter(stuff that I didn't know or was vague on the issue). It seems PeterCH should be eating some humble pie during this time ...

@PeterCH
I know the link I posted works it even talks of the User Interface being supported in different languages, please do us a favour and do your homework properly next time.

 

[I am Penguin]

I know what you mean w1z4rd lol. With King Arthur giving us some more insight into this whole matter(stuff that I didn't know or was vague on the issue). It seems PeterCH should be eating some humble pie during this time ...

@PeterCH
I know the link I posted works it even talks of the User Interface being supported in different languages, please do us a favour and do your homework properly next time.

Peter will be back with a reply. Beign a fierce ANTI Microsoft/Sony campaigner and a Staunch OSX supporter, he will bash M$ at will and every oppurtunity, repeating the same story over and over. The next counter argument against M$ will be about the economic dillema and Japan.

Thanks for the insight King. Peace.

 

[bex.cpt]

Peter will be back with a reply. Beign a fierce ANTI Microsoft/Sony campaigner and a Staunch OSX supporter, he will bash M$ at will and every oppurtunity, repeating the same story over and over. The next counter argument against M$ will be about the economic dillema and Japan.

Thanks for the insight King. Peace.

A windbag of note. the last time it was CORE and the price discrepancy between PC and APPLE and APPLE SA vs APPLE elsewhere.

Some people should not have so much time and bandwidth available.

 

[DJNgoma]

A windbag of note. the last time it was CORE and the price discrepancy between PC and APPLE and APPLE SA vs APPLE elsewhere.

Some people should not have so much time and bandwidth available.

Agreed, I'll have the pic when he does eat the pie.

 

[w1z4rd]

I know what you mean w1z4rd lol. With King Arthur giving us some more insight into this whole matter(stuff that I didn't know or was vague on the issue). It seems PeterCH should be eating some humble pie during this time ...

Naah Ive caught him out lank times in his disinformation. He will ignore where he is wrong and just plough on without admitting anything. Or he will make up stuff and say you said it. He is a really good apologetic. No squalms.

He often has a go at wiki cause it doesnt say what he wants it to say and his reasoning for that was:
1) Wiki results came up first by Google
2) He had "Encarta Shares"

I mean.. how do you argue with that kinda reasoning?

However, yes.. Microsoft is evil. Theyre out there to make a buck and they will do it at your expense.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Most people will answer 'yes' just because Microsoft is in the heading.

 

[w1z4rd]

Most people will answer 'yes' just because Microsoft is in the heading.

Not really.. I think that would be the opinion of a Windows Astroturfer perhaps.

The correct usage of the english language would be "Microsoft is in the lead".. didnt Word catch that for you?

Why do I hate Microsoft... a good example would be World of Warcraft. Blizzard made a Linux WoW client but did not release it due to pressure from Microsoft. Basically they threatened to cut off any MS API support that they would normally get if Blizzard released a client for Linux.

That kinda stuff and how they bully the hardware vendors into selling their OS with the hardware... gets my goat.

Also the fact that MS have to pay people to say nice things about them worries me also.

Sure I understand MS is in the business of making money, but they are not shy to do it at my expense.

Sloot.. I understand the catch line "everyone hates a winner" appeals to you at the moment hence the reason you are using it (most likely because thats all you can think of).. but I am a Schumacker and a Man Utd supporter as well.. and theyre winners

FYI.. in my area of work (large servers).. MS is dead last in the industry. Its only really with kiddies desktops that they really own. In the server market theyre used by people who dont know any better.

 

[DJNgoma]

Not really.. I think that would be the opinion of a Windows Astroturfer perhaps.

The correct usage of the english language would be "Microsoft is in the lead".. didnt Word catch that for you?

Why do I hate Microsoft... a good example would be World of Warcraft. Blizzard made a Linux WoW client but did not release it due to pressure from Microsoft. Basically they threatened to cut off any MS API support that they would normally get if Blizzard released a client for Linux.

What do you mean by API? AFAIK there is OpenGL and OpenAL that could be substituted as alternatives, so I don't see how this "bullying" is so bad when it would have been used on Linux anyway.

 

[w1z4rd]

What do you mean by API? AFAIK there is OpenGL and OpenAL that could be substituted as alternatives, so I don't see how this "bullying" is so bad when it would have been used on Linux anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_API

Very simplified:

Blizzard: We want to make the best game possible Microsoft, can you assist us with your API and SDK to make sure the game runs really well and all bugs are sorted out.
MS: Sure
Blizzard: Oh and we will be releasing a Linux client as well.
MS: Then forget about the API and SDK support.
Blizzard: Well since 99% of our users are MS clients we better drop the Linux client.

In another context:

Hardware maker: We want our hardware to run the best, so lets work with MS to make sure our drivers work well.
MS: Fantastic we want your hardware to run the best and will work closely with you to give you API, SDK support and other benifits
HM: We are also going to make Linux drivers
MS: Oh... about that support .. we dont wanna do it.
HM: Well we need the support more to create a competitive product than we need to support the Linux desktop.

Obviously it did not happen like that, but basically that sums up what happens.

 

[RoosTa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_API

Very simplified:

Blizzard: We want to make the best game possible Microsoft, can you assist us with your API and SDK to make sure the game runs really well and all bugs are sorted out.
MS: Sure
Blizzard: Oh and we will be releasing a Linux client as well.
MS: Then forget about the API and SDK support.
Blizzard: Well since 99% of our users are MS clients we better drop the Linux client.

In another context:

Hardware maker: We want our hardware to run the best, so lets work with MS to make sure our drivers work well.
MS: Fantastic we want your hardware to run the best and will work closely with you to give you API, SDK support and other benifits
HM: We are also going to make Linux drivers
MS: Oh... about that support .. we dont wanna do it.
HM: Well we need the support more to create a competitive product than we need to support the Linux desktop.

Obviously it did not happen like that, but basically that sums up what happens.

So why is there an OSX client, if MS was so anti-another OS? Maybe Blizzard doesn't want the overhead to support the endless amount of distro's?

Edit:
Oh and +1 for Arthur!

 

[killadoob]

Sadly wiz you are dead wrong mate, i know many companies who run servers for pastel and they run a windows server because pastel struggles on linux (yes i know it is not linux fault FFS).

I know better than microsoft but i know i can do everything on windows that i need to. Let's not make this a linux vs windows debate but people who use windows are not kiddies who know nothing but people who require windows to work and mostly game.

Sadly windows is needed by loads of people for them to function and not everyone enjoys dual booting or using multiple OS's when one OS can do everything. You will also find these linux okes who know everything still need windows for apps and games, yet always go on about how windows is for people who are clueless.

Please note i realize it is not linux's fault that it cannot run windows programs/games so lets nip that in the bud right now . Take myself i have tried ubuntu but my apps i use for work and games do not run, so i would have to boot into linux when not gaming or working. So i would be booting into linux to browse the net, now why on earth would i dual boot an OS to surf the net when windows does that just fine? Makes no sense to me. Now if you do things that does not require windows then use linux for sure but not everyone who uses windows is clueless.