Free ride? I'll say - Part 2

States: MS pushed for Linux attack

Reuters
May 14, 2002, 10:35 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-913219.html

WASHINGTON--A Microsoft executive urged the company to quietly retaliate against supporters of the rival Linux operating system in an August 2000 memo that nine states still suing the software giant want admitted as evidence.

The nine states seeking stiff antitrust sanctions against Microsoft late on Monday asked the judge in the case to reconsider her decision that shielded Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates from the e-mail message during his testimony last month.

In the memo, Microsoft senior vice president Joachim Kempin complained to Gates and other senior executives that computer chipmaker Intel was encouraging computer makers to support Linux and funding development of new devices that would work with Linux.

Kempin said Microsoft should withhold technical information from Intel and "work underground" to promote its competitors in the computer chip industry, according to portions of the memo disclosed in the states' legal filing.

"I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements--again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.

Microsoft had no immediate comment on the states' filing.

The nine states, which have rejected a proposed settlement of the four-year case, say strong sanctions are needed to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use its Windows operating system monopoly to bully competitors.

Originally developed in Finland and updated by programmers around the world under its open source status, Linux has been touted as a possible alternative to Windows but has never been widely used on personal computers.

'Anti-Linux actions'

Kempin recommended that computer makers who were not "friendly" with Microsoft should be hit "harder than in the past with anti-Linux actions."

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly disallowed the Kempin memo--along with several others--during Gates' testimony after Microsoft's lawyers objected to it.

The states' attorneys argued in their filing on Monday that Kempin's e-mail shows Microsoft continued to discuss anti-competitive tactics even though the original trial judge had already ruled those tactics in violation of antitrust law.

The states said the strategy suggested by Kempin is similar to the one Microsoft used to force Intel to stop working with Sun Microsystems several years earlier--work that would have threatened the Windows monopoly.

In March, an executive from Linux distributor Red Hat told Kollar-Kotelly that Linux operating system was being blocked as an alternative to Windows because computer makers feared retaliation from Microsoft.

Red Hat chief technology officer Michael Tiemann said computer makers had rebuffed his attempts in recent years to pre-install the Linux operating system on their machines because they feared Microsoft's response.

Microsoft's lawyers countered in court that Red Hat failed to popularize Linux because of its shortcomings, not because of any interference from Microsoft

A federal appeals court last June upheld trial court findings that Microsoft illegally maintained its Windows monopoly, but the appellate judges rejected breaking the company in two and sent the case back to a new judge, Kollar-Kotelly, to consider the most appropriate remedy.

The two sides concluded 32 days of testimony in the case on Friday. There will be arguments in court Wednesday through Friday by lawyers on various motions but final arguments are not expected until mid-June.

Kollar-Kotelly is also weighing whether to endorse the proposed settlement reached between Microsoft, the U.S. Justice Department and nine other states in November.

The nine states still pursuing the case are California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia.

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
With your background, you are asking me about history? BTW, that
appeared in several books about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and was
part of TV movie about the beginnings of Microsoft and Apple. I
have always heard of Bill Gates working with Steve Jobs early in
their careers and the movie plus a few books verified this. It
wasn't until MS came out with the first Windows which caused the
breakdown between them.
I've seen the TV movies but I don't recall anything about a collaboration on the Mac/Lisa.
BTW, I started with Windows 95, before that I used from a VIC 20 up
to the Amiga. I thought Amiga's OS, Workbench was the best around.
It was a CLI interface. I was able to run System 7 and MSDOS along
with Workbench, all at the same time, on the same screen. Microsoft
did not destroy Amiga, Commadore did that themselves and took
everyone with them. Like Enron.
I remember the Amiga. Cool machine! I came close to buying one several times, but never took the plunge. The first computer I owned was an Atari 800, but I've used just about evrything at some point or another...

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
I hate this thread and I hate the idea that I am back contributing
to it. Read below one mans opinion of the loss of realnames. It
was a bad business model and they owed Microsoft millions of
dollars according to the article. Everyone is going to blame
Microsoft. You get a headache or cold, it must be Microsoft. We
should all give it a rest or go onto a PC site. I'm not saying this
in anger. This is not the site for flaming Microsoft. This
argument will never get solved here.

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2865301,00.html
Well .. I read this link, and I agree that this particular writer did not think the idea was good. However; I read further and think it is a GREAT idea. It is especially innovative to making computers EASIER for the general public to use.

I remember when this was originally anounced and even thought it was a great idea then.

YES; the company IS LOSING money right now ... BUT SO IS EVERY OTHER INTERNET COMPANY. It seems to me that they "offered" MS the equivalent of a "stock" exchange in return to continue their help. I also suggest that in "todays" internet-economy ... when NO INTERNET is making the "profits" they expected 5 years ago when RealNames was first founded .... it would be "nice" of MS to LOWER THEIR RATES to them. (NOTE: even the SuperBowl advertising rates were drastically LOWERED this year cause many companies are losing money currently.)

But it is also POSSIBLE that MS does indeed see the POTENTIAL of the concept and I am willing to BET that MS "copies/steals" the idea within a year.
Keith Teare, founder and CEO of RealNames: "In this case the
widespread use of the browser and its absolute requirement for our
system means that Microsoft's decision has resulted in innovation
being stopped. The only naming technology in the world capable of
allowing non-ASCII characters to be used as Web addresses is being
killed at birth - before it succeeds and becomes 'out of control.'
A small private company is being denied an audience - not because
of money - but because of fear of losing control.'

http://www.teare.com/
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
Personally I don't ever buy Windows with my computers, as I build my own PC's. Then I put Win2000 on the newly build PC's, which I obtain from the office for a fair amount of money, which is FOR FREE! :-P
The "problem" is that since you MUST PAY FOR MS WINDOWS when you
buy a computer. Thus a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of people will go to
the extra expense, time, and trouble to throw away their windows
and pay/load Linux.
 
I don't think Digital Research had anymore expertise with PC's then anyone else at the time. They were all new to the computer age. BTW, Bill Gates father was a banker, I know nothing about him being a lawyer. Gates didn't even have an operating system at the time he nogoiated with IBM and had to buy it from someone they knew that had written one. Bill Gates father advance him the money, which was fifty thousand dollars to buy the operating system. Then within a short time period they had to modify it to work on IBM's new line of personal computers and demo it for the execs at IBM. That was the birth of Microsoft. Also it was Bill Gates who handled the contract, not his father.

I have no idea to the thinking of IBM's management at the time. The story I told you has been documented both in books and on television on both the biography channel and in a made for TV movie. Is there any documentation, such as a book or something that I can read? I'm always interested in learning. Take care.

--
C700uz, E100rs
http://www.pbase.com/gene
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
Hi Kevin

The link is for the Supreme court review of the entire case. If you bothered to go to the link and read it you will see that, in this case (no pun intended) I am being 100 percent accurate. It's a big link.
That's easy. Read the last sentence of your post:
BTW, I read your "apology":

"OTOH of course Levin doesn't deserve an apology but what the heck."

Since no one named "Levin" has participated in this thread, I'll
assume you mean me. In other words you apologized, then appear to
have taken it right back. I don't think that counts.
Since you are in error in critiquing my link, Should I call you a liar? Perhaps I should make other accussations? This is why I apologised in the manner I did. It is no easy thing to admit fault, it's even harder when the person you're apologising to has called you a liar and accuses you of insulting them.
You also continue to claim that MS was "convicted" in 1994. Once
again, there is no concept of "conviction" in a civil suit. You
agreed to that before:
I do believe you are incorrect on this (i.e. you can't be convicted in a civil suit) However I will be happy to let one of the more expert legal people arbitrate. However the link you post to a message is not my message and isn't particulerly relevant anyway.
 
My second computer was the Atari 800. I thought with 64k of ram and a disk drive, I was in heaven. Times really change. My present desktop which I built has an Asus motherboard, Athlon 1.4 mhz chip, 768 mb ram, ATI Radeon 64 mb DDR video ram, plus everything else I wanted except a DVD recorder which I'm undecided on and want the price of the units and the media to drop more. I also have a Sony notebook which I like. I am running XP which I do like. The only operating sytem that I have run which I have not liked was Win ME. To me that had a lot of good points but way too buggy for me to resolve. Anyways take care. It's been fun debating with you. You have a lot of knowledge. Thanks for the compliment about my grand daughters. They make photography easy.

--
C700uz, E100rs
http://www.pbase.com/gene
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
States: MS pushed for Linux attack

Reuters
May 14, 2002, 10:35 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-913219.html
In the memo, Microsoft senior vice president Joachim Kempin
complained to Gates and other senior executives that computer
chipmaker Intel was encouraging computer makers to support Linux
and funding development of new devices that would work with Linux.

Kempin said Microsoft should withhold technical information from
Intel and "work underground" to promote its competitors in the
computer chip industry, according to portions of the memo disclosed
in the states' legal filing.

"I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where
possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements--again
without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
Someones comment on the email off of Reuter's website:

"If I were the judge, I would want documentation related to specific actions that MS took to maintain its monopoly. I wouldn't be interested in all of the discussions/debates they had about what they might do. I would want evidence of what they did, and the discussions that led to those actions, though the actions themselves would get my primary attention.

An executive from an MS Partner company testifying before a senate panel around the time the antitrust case got started said it best when responding to the now famous quote about MS "cutting off Netscape's air supply," (paraphrasing)"I would liken what was said to what a coach of a competitive sports team would say to his players. When he says 'kill,' he doesn't mean 'maim.' He means go out there and be aggressive."

The technology business market has historically been extremely competitive. I remember when I was growing up in the 1980s, watching what was happening back then between technology competitors, I used to cringe. It's definitely not this nice, staid place to be. If you think that's what it is, be prepared to become roadkill. :-)"

Joe, what you posted is interesting and we all have to wait until we see what the final outcome will be. I will hold back my opinion until that time. Thanks for posting it. I found it interesting but it still does not change my basic views, but time will tell. Take care and have a nice day.

--
C700uz, E100rs
http://www.pbase.com/gene
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
Personally I don't ever buy Windows with my computers, as I build
my own PC's. Then I put Win2000 on the newly build PC's, which I
obtain from the office for a fair amount of money, which is FOR
FREE! :-P
Oh My GOD .... an admission of PRIVACY !!! ....

I NEVER would have thunk it !!! ... and I am just SHOCKED !!!

(that knock on your door is the MS police .... And They Are There To "Help" You ... Like the Government)

But seriously you are aware that you can no longer do that with WinXP ... it will only run on ONE computer. If you make several "changes" within your computer .... it will crash-bomb and you have to call MS to "explain" what you did and HOPE they will BELIEVE that you just "modified" your ORIGINAL computer and give you a new activation code. If you "build" your own computers ... you will have to buy a separate copy for each computer. (Not sure what you would do if you DESTROY an original computer and want to "transfer" your WinXP to the a REPLACEMENT --- seems to me like you got --- A LOT of "explaining" to do LUCY !)

BUT; MS is NICE to you with Office XP cause it has been designed "secretly" by MS to allow you to load it on TWO computers .... (but NOT THREE). They explain that they rationalize this by accepting you may have ONE desktop and ONE laptop.

Personally ... I was gonna build my next new system with a COUPLE of REMOVABLE DRAWER HARD-DRIVES. (The first to run both WinXP-Pro and Linux ... and the second to maintain a BACK-UP HD for each configuation). However; this may not work with the MS new "protections".
The "problem" is that since you MUST PAY FOR MS WINDOWS when you
buy a computer. Thus a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of people will go to
the extra expense, time, and trouble to throw away their windows
and pay/load Linux.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
Hi Gene
Joe, what you posted is interesting and we all have to wait until
we see what the final outcome will be. I will hold back my opinion
until that time. Thanks for posting it. I found it interesting but
it still does not change my basic views, but time will tell. Take
care and have a nice day.
I'm puzzzled why you're not following up on this link since it's a Judge discussing exactely how MS violated the law via Netscape and Java.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iv

Dave
 
Dave, I understand all the areas where MS is in trouble. These were business decisions which MS made to fight their competition and right now as it stands they overstep the line of fair business practices. MS is still trying to appeal this based on what they believed to not be a fair judge. This was not a case that was heard by a jury, but only a judge, not that a jury would of understood it anyways. But they are still fighting this, with appeals and political influences.

I don't look at Microsoft or Sun as being model corporations. Even though Java has improved the way we view the internet, it has had it's problems. I know Sun wanted to grow Java into the universal operating system and was a threat to MS. All of that is a given, and their fear of Netscape possibly creating an OS system based on their popular browser opposed a real threat to Microsoft. When MS was late entering the internet and realizied the popularity of what it was going to be, became extremely aggressive. How MS handled this aggressive push to maintain their power base against very real threats is what has been challenged. I never had any doubt that MS over stepped the line of fair business practice a number of times. Corporations will always leverage their power to maintain their power, it is what corporations do best. And the courts are used to sometimes level the playing field. The final chapters have not been written yet, but some more should be finished by the end of the year.

We have really strayed away from the original post which started these last two threads. I believe they were complaining why MS would establish a photo website because according to the original poster they knew nothing about photography. But corporations don't have to know anything about things like that because they have the resources to hire the right people or the wrong people depending on one's views, or their success or failure. Time will tell. Also I believe they were upset because MS used names like Kokak, etc. Well companies do that all the time. But anyways that original post turned into some very interesting threads where I have learned from both points of view and was able to express some of my own, be it right or wrong.

Dave, I have appreciated all the efford you brought into this debate and which I thank you. Take care and have fun.
Joe, what you posted is interesting and we all have to wait until
we see what the final outcome will be. I will hold back my opinion
until that time. Thanks for posting it. I found it interesting but
it still does not change my basic views, but time will tell. Take
care and have a nice day.
I'm puzzzled why you're not following up on this link since it's a
Judge discussing exactely how MS violated the law via Netscape and
Java.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iv

Dave
--
C700uz, E100rs
http://www.pbase.com/gene
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
Hi Gene

Well perhaps we are not as far apart as it would seem. Personally I would never start a thread like this because often enough it winds up in alot of recriminations. I react as strongly as I do because of many people who really do believe that without Microsoft we would all be using Vic 10's.

I haven't been using computers from the "begining" whatever that means. I started in 1987 with an Atari. Jack Tramiel ran that OS into the ground without any help from Bill Gates at all. At the time it was a worth rival of both Mac and Amiga. I'm sure if he had been succesful the computer using public would really be in trouble. So I understand your point about companies in general.

It's my understanding that the Judge in question was found to be biased (translated, so angry he couldn't contain himself) although I doubt if he started off that way. The page in question saysmuch of what you said, the difference being that he is backingn up his logic and statments using the internal evidence provided, unwillingly, by Micorsoft internal documentation. What I find facinating is Microsofts long range view and how they plan years a head to squelch the opposition no matter what the cost.

Dave
I don't look at Microsoft or Sun as being model corporations. Even
though Java has improved the way we view the internet, it has had
it's problems. I know Sun wanted to grow Java into the universal
operating system and was a threat to MS. All of that is a given,
and their fear of Netscape possibly creating an OS system based on
their popular browser opposed a real threat to Microsoft. When MS
was late entering the internet and realizied the popularity of what
it was going to be, became extremely aggressive. How MS handled
this aggressive push to maintain their power base against very real
threats is what has been challenged. I never had any doubt that MS
over stepped the line of fair business practice a number of times.
Corporations will always leverage their power to maintain their
power, it is what corporations do best. And the courts are used to
sometimes level the playing field. The final chapters have not been
written yet, but some more should be finished by the end of the
year.

We have really strayed away from the original post which started
these last two threads. I believe they were complaining why MS
would establish a photo website because according to the original
poster they knew nothing about photography. But corporations don't
have to know anything about things like that because they have the
resources to hire the right people or the wrong people depending on
one's views, or their success or failure. Time will tell. Also I
believe they were upset because MS used names like Kokak, etc. Well
companies do that all the time. But anyways that original post
turned into some very interesting threads where I have learned from
both points of view and was able to express some of my own, be it
right or wrong.

Dave, I have appreciated all the efford you brought into this
debate and which I thank you. Take care and have fun.
Joe, what you posted is interesting and we all have to wait until
we see what the final outcome will be. I will hold back my opinion
until that time. Thanks for posting it. I found it interesting but
it still does not change my basic views, but time will tell. Take
care and have a nice day.
 
Hi Gene

Well perhaps we are not as far apart as it would seem. Personally I
would never start a thread like this because often enough it winds
up in alot of recriminations. I react as strongly as I do because
of many people who really do believe that without Microsoft we
would all be using Vic 10's.
Well Said ... I agree that so many people seem so "fanatical" when they give 100% credit to Bill Gates for our computers. And they seem to think "computers" would not exist at all without his "vision". I simply feel that computers WERE there BEFORE Bill Gates ... and would be further along without his (illegal) "interference" starting in '88 when he effectively blocked DR-DOS, GEOS, DESKVIEW ... etc.

Those products were all AHEAD of MS technology and I would have prefered MS concentrate all its "technical" skiills to producing a better COMPETITIVE PRODUCT instead of wasting those same skills on ways to sabotage them and/or prevent the PUBLIC from getting easy access.
I haven't been using computers from the "begining" whatever that
means. I started in 1987 with an Atari. Jack Tramiel ran that OS
into the ground without any help from Bill Gates at all. At the
time it was a worth rival of both Mac and Amiga. I'm sure if he had
been succesful the computer using public would really be in
trouble. So I understand your point about companies in general.
True ... in those early days; Commodore, Atari, Apple and even IBM made some major mistakes.

BUT; to some degree they were also OVERWHELMED by the NAME REGOGNITION and endless money of IBM. They were the only company with the $$$'s behind it to build the first really HEAVY DUTY computer. I mean .. the IBM just "looked-more-professional". And IBM was the ONLY NAME THE "PUBLIC" knew and TRUSTED.

Bill Gates benefited from his attachment to IBM.
It's my understanding that the Judge in question was found to be
biased (translated, so angry he couldn't contain himself) although
I doubt if he started off that way.
Again ... VERY well put ... if anyone followed the trial in detail ... they could not miss how deceptive every single attorney and witness for MS was. They intimidated and "beat-up" on the judge daily; and I am surprised that he could keep his composure as long as he did during the trial. MS could have been found in contempt at several points during the trial.

MS even used a FAKED video tape ... and got caught red-handed.

And I swear that Bill Gates and Bill CLINTON must be BROTHERS with equally FORGETFULL MEMORIES when it benefits them. But Bill Gates didn't need to say a lot .... his e-mails revealed volumes of his business ethics.

(And his PARANOIA which I think is the root of his problem).

The page in question saysmuch
of what you said, the difference being that he is backingn up his
logic and statments using the internal evidence provided,
unwillingly, by Micorsoft internal documentation. What I find
facinating is Microsofts long range view and how they plan years a
head to squelch the opposition no matter what the cost.
Again .... those were WASTED years that could have been used to the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS by simply desiging BETTER products instead of 90% diversion to propriety designs.

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
I assume you meant "piracy"?

And yes, you can do it with XP if you can get your hands on a "corporate" version, which doesn't require registration!
But I prefer Win2000 over WinXP!
Personally I don't ever buy Windows with my computers, as I build
my own PC's. Then I put Win2000 on the newly build PC's, which I
obtain from the office for a fair amount of money, which is FOR
FREE! :-P
Oh My GOD .... an admission of PRIVACY !!! ....

I NEVER would have thunk it !!! ... and I am just SHOCKED !!!

(that knock on your door is the MS police .... And They Are There
To "Help" You ... Like the Government)

But seriously you are aware that you can no longer do that with
WinXP ... it will only run on ONE computer. If you make several
"changes" within your computer .... it will crash-bomb and you have
to call MS to "explain" what you did and HOPE they will BELIEVE
that you just "modified" your ORIGINAL computer and give you a new
activation code. If you "build" your own computers ... you will
have to buy a separate copy for each computer. (Not sure what you
would do if you DESTROY an original computer and want to "transfer"
your WinXP to the a REPLACEMENT --- seems to me like you got ---
A LOT of "explaining" to do LUCY !)

BUT; MS is NICE to you with Office XP cause it has been designed
"secretly" by MS to allow you to load it on TWO computers .... (but
NOT THREE). They explain that they rationalize this by accepting
you may have ONE desktop and ONE laptop.

Personally ... I was gonna build my next new system with a COUPLE
of REMOVABLE DRAWER HARD-DRIVES. (The first to run both WinXP-Pro
and Linux ... and the second to maintain a BACK-UP HD for each
configuation). However; this may not work with the MS new
"protections".
The "problem" is that since you MUST PAY FOR MS WINDOWS when you
buy a computer. Thus a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of people will go to
the extra expense, time, and trouble to throw away their windows
and pay/load Linux.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
Hi DC

Interesting link.

Aside from either defending Microsoft or bashing Microsoft, let us say they lose their case and they are broken up.

I am assuming, based on some comments from the Judge (that I remember and I won't bet on my memory in this) he proposed to break Microsoft up into an applications company and an OS company. IOW There would be one company making Windows and another company making applications.

How do others see this playing out, assuming such is the case?

Dave
 
No one is forcing you to use Microsoft.

Use Linux instead and leave us alone.
 
I assume you meant "piracy"?
And yes, you can do it with XP if you can get your hands on a
"corporate" version, which doesn't require registration!
But I prefer Win2000 over WinXP!
But you are missing my point. First of all .. that option does not exist for the majority of the PUBLIC; (which is who MS insists they are "benefiting" when at defend their predatory business practices).

And what is to stop MS from incorporating "activation" schemes in their next version of Win2K, (WinXP-Pro) ???

In other words ... MS is moving "slowly" into these YEARLY PAY schemes.

At some point; maybe tomorrow or maybe the next day .. I submit that ALL of their software will have YEARLY TIME-BOMBS where they will attempt to ensure they will be PAID for EVERY COMPUTER they are on.

They indeed ARE already charging "yearly" in several foreign countries and with schools here in the US.

Once they get us paying a "low" fee on a "yearly" basis ... what is to stop them from doubling, tripling, quadripling their yearly license fee ???

What is a FACT is that MS initially (1981), only charged $3/copy for its DOS ... and MS MADE (lots of) MONEY at this price. Within 7 years ... that price increased to $30 for DOS. Then they only charged an additional $30 for Windows. But that price was increased to $89 for Win95. Add another $100 for the "upgrade" to Win98 and WinME. And ANOTHER for WinXP. So a HOME consumer today is paying $300 for XP. I realize there is such a thing as "inflation" .. but I submit $3 to $300 is just a little above the COL. Keep in mind ... this also occured in the face of infinitely HIGHER PRODUCTION that normally means LOWER PRICES. (ala where even more expensive computer HARDWARE has dropped from $2000 to $500 for basic computers)

Now LOOK for a minute at MS. First of all .. I am a CAPITALIST and have NO PROBLEM with a company making a "profit". Note that I don't even care about a BIG PROFIT. But I do object when they make that profit ILLEGALLY; (which the COURTS have held they have).

If you look at all the "richest-men-in-the-world" .... MOST of them have started with a rather large family fortune to begin with ... and gained it over a long period of time. ALSO; in most cases a companies money is in the hands of "one" man/family.

In the case of MS .... remember that NOT ONLY Bill Gates is "rich" ... but his partner Paul Allen is almost equally as rich. Also; it is well known that a very-very large number of MS employes are multi-millionares also. So if you were to "TOTAL" up all of MS dollars ..... it is magnitudes more than can even be seen in Bill Gates alone. AND MOST OF THIS WAS DONE WITHIN A 5-10 YEAR TIME SPAN.
Personally I don't ever buy Windows with my computers, as I build
my own PC's. Then I put Win2000 on the newly build PC's, which I
obtain from the office for a fair amount of money, which is FOR
FREE! :-P
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top