Patriotic Duty

[Ricardo_V]

A previous thread about Sony vs. Oly had, for a while, some interesting observations about memory sticks. Let me add my two cents.

My opinion is that we have a patriotic duty to fight monopolies and promote competition and free enterprise.For example, this means jumping through hoops to avoid purchasing Microsoft products (where possible).

The same goes for the memory stick. Sony is clearly trying to use its considerable corporate muscle to establish its own standard. So, do your patriotic duty, and refuse to buy Sony products until they give us the option to use CF cards.

 

[Chris Charlton]

I agree, although I use a PC (win2k) I think Sony's policies stink, also think how many cameras they would sell if the 707 used compact flash and the batteries were pretty standard with the option of a lithium pack like the E* , they would sell tons more.

Its pure marketing to make you buy memory sticks then think "well hell, I bought all these sticks, why not buy a Sony mp3 player too, so I can use them with that?"

This is what Sony is trying to do, but they bite, and we should unite against them!!!

Chris

P.S. A little tipsy, too many glasses of nice chardonney

A previous thread about Sony vs. Oly had, for a while, some
interesting observations about memory sticks. Let me add my two
cents.

My opinion is that we have a patriotic duty to fight monopolies and
promote competition and free enterprise.For example, this means
jumping through hoops to avoid purchasing Microsoft products (where
possible).

The same goes for the memory stick. Sony is clearly trying to use
its considerable corporate muscle to establish its own standard.
So, do your patriotic duty, and refuse to buy Sony products until
they give us the option to use CF cards.

 

[Min Choi]

Amen to that!!
I refuse to buy anything that takes sony sticks.

Chris

P.S. A little tipsy, too many glasses of nice chardonney

A previous thread about Sony vs. Oly had, for a while, some
interesting observations about memory sticks. Let me add my two
cents.

My opinion is that we have a patriotic duty to fight monopolies and
promote competition and free enterprise.For example, this means
jumping through hoops to avoid purchasing Microsoft products (where
possible).

The same goes for the memory stick. Sony is clearly trying to use
its considerable corporate muscle to establish its own standard.
So, do your patriotic duty, and refuse to buy Sony products until
they give us the option to use CF cards.

 

[Rembvrijn]

Ricardo,

What alternate operating system do you recommend to utilize my thousands of dollars worth of software? Mac is pretty cool, but I would have to trash 80% of the programs I use and am used to. I dont even understand the Unix thing and doubt all my software would run on that.

I do know that I can use a windows emulator on the Mac, but that would run much slower than my current computer/operating system.

What is my alternative? Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft "stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I have to other companies to turn to as an alternative? I dont. The world wont turn away from Microsoft until there is an alternative. I wont either. And if there WAS an alternative, how do we know it would be better?

(The above comments do not preclude MS from actually having stolen anything. No judgement is being made either way.)

GageFX

A previous thread about Sony vs. Oly had, for a while, some
interesting observations about memory sticks. Let me add my two
cents.

My opinion is that we have a patriotic duty to fight monopolies and
promote competition and free enterprise.For example, this means
jumping through hoops to avoid purchasing Microsoft products (where
possible).

The same goes for the memory stick. Sony is clearly trying to use
its considerable corporate muscle to establish its own standard.
So, do your patriotic duty, and refuse to buy Sony products until
they give us the option to use CF cards.

 

[The Vilnius Schoolmaster]

Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor
developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft
"stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I
have to other companies to turn to as an alternative?

It's called anti-competitive practice. It's against the law.

It's 1993 and you have a mid-sized computer company, that sells computers to many people, some want OS/2, most want DOS/Windows. Profit margins are slim.

A Microsoft exec tells you that for every computer you sell, regardless of the operating system, you agree to pay MS $100.

You say no.

MS then says ok fine, if you don't agree you are not licensed to use our OS AT ALL!

You need to sell Windows/Dos for 75-80% of your customers so not carrying it means you are out of business. If you sell OS/2 you have to pay for it's licensing and the $100 that MS charges you.

In a business that often offers single digit percentage of profts, $100 is a lot of money. You stop selling OS/2.

MS has been previously found guilty of doing such things.

Monopolies are a bad thing for consumers, it keeps prices artificially high and impedes technological advances.

Take a look at long distance rates, do you think that if Bell/AT&T still had total control you'd be getting 5cent/10cent a minute rates?--The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[artorius]

Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor
developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft
"stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I
have to other companies to turn to as an alternative?

It's called anti-competitive practice. It's against the law.

It's 1993 and you have a mid-sized computer company, that sells
computers to many people, some want OS/2, most want DOS/Windows.
Profit margins are slim.

A Microsoft exec tells you that for every computer you sell,
regardless of the operating system, you agree to pay MS $100.

You say no.

MS then says ok fine, if you don't agree you are not licensed to
use our OS AT ALL!

You need to sell Windows/Dos for 75-80% of your customers so not
carrying it means you are out of business. If you sell OS/2 you
have to pay for it's licensing and the $100 that MS charges you.

In a business that often offers single digit percentage of profts,
$100 is a lot of money. You stop selling OS/2.

MS has been previously found guilty of doing such things.

Monopolies are a bad thing for consumers, it keeps prices
artificially high and impedes technological advances.

Take a look at long distance rates, do you think that if Bell/AT&T
still had total control you'd be getting 5cent/10cent a minute
rates?
--
The Vilnius Schoolmaster

What do you call what Apple is doing?

Don't want to use their OS, you can't jump to linux or MS. Nothing but THEIR OS works. Trival but true.--ArtoriusRespect!

 

[Rembvrijn]

Then how about just making computers and selling them without an OS? The consumer can then buy the OS they want. That OS will be Windows because everything is written for Windows - there are no other viable options. WHY? Beacuase Bill Gates is the devil? NO. Becuase no one is making them. It doesnt matter WHY they are, they just AREN'T. No one is stopping them. You could do it if you want. I couldnt because I dont have the attention span.

I also find nothing wrong with your assessment of Microsoft's practices. Sleazy, maybe. I dont think there is anything wrong with it though. If you want to sell computers with MS OS, you gotta play their game, otherwise, dont sell em. It's your choice. Life is rough and we have decisions to make. If it doesnt make business sense to pay $100 for each non MS computer, then dont do it. If it DOES make sense, business wise, then DO it.

And what artorius said.

GageFX

I dont necessarily like Windows, Bill Gates, or Microsoft, but I dont find too much wrong with their practices. (I dont remember the whole case, but I'm sure there is SOMETHING I disagree with.)

Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor
developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft
"stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I
have to other companies to turn to as an alternative?

It's called anti-competitive practice. It's against the law.

It's 1993 and you have a mid-sized computer company, that sells
computers to many people, some want OS/2, most want DOS/Windows.
Profit margins are slim.

A Microsoft exec tells you that for every computer you sell,
regardless of the operating system, you agree to pay MS $100.

You say no.

MS then says ok fine, if you don't agree you are not licensed to
use our OS AT ALL!

You need to sell Windows/Dos for 75-80% of your customers so not
carrying it means you are out of business. If you sell OS/2 you
have to pay for it's licensing and the $100 that MS charges you.

In a business that often offers single digit percentage of profts,
$100 is a lot of money. You stop selling OS/2.

MS has been previously found guilty of doing such things.

Monopolies are a bad thing for consumers, it keeps prices
artificially high and impedes technological advances.

Take a look at long distance rates, do you think that if Bell/AT&T
still had total control you'd be getting 5cent/10cent a minute
rates?
--
The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[William C]

Patriotic Duty? I glad I am not from your country because
you will be in charge. How is your little square mustache
of yours? How are your boots? Own a gun?

I own a memory stick because I own Sony's excellent
PEG-N610C handheld device. I must now be deported
because I am un-patriotic from your point of view.

If people have problems with the memory sticks let the
market decide. Are you saying you would have bought a
Sony camera and not E-whatever# camera, but you where forced
to go with the E-whatever# because of the memory stick.

Really is that why you have an E-whatever#? Please get real.

I guess you are going to stop using cable tv, going to baseball
games and riding on Amtrak. Or better yet I guess you never
had a VHS tape.

I should stop using my Microsoft OS Computer for what
an Mac. Form my point of view Apple and Microsoft are both
monopolies. Linux please is not for the masses and easy to use.

My two cents and I have the power to decide where to
spend it. NOT YOU!

Bill

 

[The Vilnius Schoolmaster]

Then how about just making computers and selling them without an
OS? The consumer can then buy the OS they want.

That's silly, the majority of people can barely install thier own drivers, let alone an entire OS from scratch.

That OS will be
Windows because everything is written for Windows - there are no
other viable options. WHY? Beacuase Bill Gates is the devil? NO.

There is a reason why they broke up AT&T, Standard Oil, it had nothing to do with them being "devils" or not You'd be living in a much different world, if these two enitities were still in operation today.

If you want to sell computers with MS OS, you gotta play
their game, otherwise, dont sell em. It's your choice. Life is
rough and we have decisions to make. If it doesnt make business
sense to pay $100 for each non MS computer, then dont do it. If it
DOES make sense, business wise, then DO it.

Nothing personal, but that's a luddite attitude to have. The consumer doesn't have choice, as a direct result of Microsofts predatory practices. I would like more viable choices, and if MS didn't do ILLEGAL things, I would have those choices. You might like the idea of having essentially one person decide what everyone gets, I do not.

If (hypothetically) one company built all of the cameras in the world, and started charging you $100, per portrait that you sold or otherwise they wouldn't allow you to use their cameras , would you say, "Oh well if I want to be in business, I'll have to play by their rules???? I think not.--The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[ksj]

Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor
developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft
"stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I
have to other companies to turn to as an alternative?

It's called anti-competitive practice. It's against the law.

It's 1993 and you have a mid-sized computer company, that sells
computers to many people, some want OS/2, most want DOS/Windows.
Profit margins are slim.

A Microsoft exec tells you that for every computer you sell,
regardless of the operating system, you agree to pay MS $100.

You say no.

MS then says ok fine, if you don't agree you are not licensed to
use our OS AT ALL!

You need to sell Windows/Dos for 75-80% of your customers so not
carrying it means you are out of business. If you sell OS/2 you
have to pay for it's licensing and the $100 that MS charges you.

In a business that often offers single digit percentage of profts,
$100 is a lot of money. You stop selling OS/2.

MS has been previously found guilty of doing such things.

Monopolies are a bad thing for consumers, it keeps prices
artificially high and impedes technological advances.

Take a look at long distance rates, do you think that if Bell/AT&T
still had total control you'd be getting 5cent/10cent a minute
rates?
--
The Vilnius Schoolmaster

Actually OS/2 didn't fly because IBM was competing with the other box makers. They didn't want to strengthen IBM's hand via-a-vis the Micro Channel Architecture (MCA), which IBM was pitching as a replacement for the "standard" PC architecture then. At the time, everyone expected IBM to pitch OS/2 to the other box makers, then make some future upgrade require MCA to drive the other box makers out of business.

MS was never found guilty of what you claim. They did agree not to use such practices in the 1994 consent decree, but that's a far cry from "found guilty"

As for patriotism, I expect we won't hear from Richardo any time soon as he's busy disconnecting his unpatriotic monopoly phone service, electricity, cable service and natural gas...

 

[The Vilnius Schoolmaster]

MS was never found guilty of what you claim. They did agree not to
use such practices in the 1994 consent decree, but that's a far cry
from "found guilty"

OK let me re-state, I may have mis-led with my original statement.

I agree with what you say, MS was never found guilty, it was alleged that they did this, and they consented to what amounts to the "corporate lawyer babble version" of "no-contest" agreement to these practices.

The fact still remains that they DID do it. Unethical and illegal.

As for OS/2 I was just using it as an example. I used OS/2, and while it was very good, NT was definately better. The same cannot be said however for Office/Explorer/Messanger and so on. MS leverages it's dominance in the OS market to put other companies out of business, stifle innovation, and keep prices artificially high.

History has shown that the BIGGEST losers in ANY monopoly, is the consumer.--The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[nick dinatale]

Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor
developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft
"stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I
have to other companies to turn to as an alternative?

It's called anti-competitive practice. It's against the law.

It's 1993 and you have a mid-sized computer company, that sells
computers to many people, some want OS/2, most want DOS/Windows.
Profit margins are slim.

A Microsoft exec tells you that for every computer you sell,
regardless of the operating system, you agree to pay MS $100.

I agree with you on the fact that MS did some shady things, but consumers long had choices in the type of OS systems to choose from. Apple has been a viable chioce for a long time, but consumers were put off by the prices. Consumers drive the economy here. Is cheaper (price) better. Consumers say yes. MS took advantage of this as do ALL businesses in our society. That is the essence of capitalism. Now that technology and price has somewhat leveled out the idea that one company is making all this money on their R&D and marketing is shocking. Kind of a CATCH22. We all (general) bought into this due to ease of use and yes, price. Now most of us are stuck with these chioices we made sometime ago. Do I invest in new OS system, learing new ways of doing things or do I keep using what I am versed in. We all still have these choices, but it will cost those of us who want to deviate from the normal way of doing things.

Sorry for rambling.
I thought this was about photography
A wise person once said don't mix pleasure with politics and religion.
Enjoy the camera and your surroundings

Nick

You say no.

MS then says ok fine, if you don't agree you are not licensed to
use our OS AT ALL!

You need to sell Windows/Dos for 75-80% of your customers so not
carrying it means you are out of business. If you sell OS/2 you
have to pay for it's licensing and the $100 that MS charges you.

In a business that often offers single digit percentage of profts,
$100 is a lot of money. You stop selling OS/2.

MS has been previously found guilty of doing such things.

Monopolies are a bad thing for consumers, it keeps prices
artificially high and impedes technological advances.

Take a look at long distance rates, do you think that if Bell/AT&T
still had total control you'd be getting 5cent/10cent a minute
rates?
--
The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[Rembvrijn]

I never reply to threads in this manner as I find it annoying, but...

The Vilnius Schoolmaster wrote:

Then how about just making computers and selling them without an
OS? The consumer can then buy the OS they want.

That's silly, the majority of people can barely install thier own
drivers, let alone an entire OS from scratch.

I find it more silly that people cant do it themselves. It's not brain surgery.

That OS will be
Windows because everything is written for Windows - there are no
other viable options. WHY? Beacuase Bill Gates is the devil? NO.

There is a reason why they broke up AT&T, Standard Oil, it had
nothing to do with them being "devils" or not You'd be living in a
much different world, if these two enitities were still in
operation today.

So all companies that work hard and dominate the market should be broken up. Great incentive to succeed.

If you want to sell computers with MS OS, you gotta play
their game, otherwise, dont sell em. It's your choice. Life is
rough and we have decisions to make. If it doesnt make business
sense to pay $100 for each non MS computer, then dont do it. If it
DOES make sense, business wise, then DO it.

Nothing personal, but that's a luddite attitude to have. The
consumer doesn't have choice, as a direct result of Microsofts
predatory practices. I would like more viable choices, and if MS
didn't do ILLEGAL things, I would have those choices. You might
like the idea of having essentially one person decide what everyone
gets, I do not.

The consumers dont have a choice becuase MS is the only one, NOT because of them being predatory. MAKE ANOTHER OPTION.

If (hypothetically) one company built all of the cameras in the
world, and started charging you $100, per portrait that you sold or
otherwise they wouldn't allow you to use their cameras , would you
say, "Oh well if I want to be in business, I'll have to play by
their rules???? I think not.

If I could do this and make money, then YES, I would play by the rules. If not, I'd be a brick layer. BUT, this would never happen and it is not even the scenario. You are making the END USER the payer of the fee and that's not equitable to the computer situation.

--
The Vilnius Schoolmaster

Unless you make a valid point, I wont continue to go back and forth on this. The existance of MS and their practices do not affect my life in the LEAST and the mere fact that you wrote "M$" PROVES that you are simply MS bashing.

Use your MAC or Unix and I will use my PC. I think that's a fair resolution.

GageFX

 

[Rembvrijn]

William... take a breath, man.

As for your statement on camera choice, Sony isnt even a consideration for me because of the Memory Stick. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If they keep it up, they will vote themselves out of business.

GageFX

Patriotic Duty? I glad I am not from your country because
you will be in charge. How is your little square mustache
of yours? How are your boots? Own a gun?

I own a memory stick because I own Sony's excellent
PEG-N610C handheld device. I must now be deported
because I am un-patriotic from your point of view.

If people have problems with the memory sticks let the
market decide. Are you saying you would have bought a
Sony camera and not E-whatever# camera, but you where forced
to go with the E-whatever# because of the memory stick.

Really is that why you have an E-whatever#? Please get real.

I guess you are going to stop using cable tv, going to baseball
games and riding on Amtrak. Or better yet I guess you never
had a VHS tape.

I should stop using my Microsoft OS Computer for what
an Mac. Form my point of view Apple and Microsoft are both
monopolies. Linux please is not for the masses and easy to use.

My two cents and I have the power to decide where to
spend it. NOT YOU!

Bill

 

[brianf]

William... take a breath, man.

As for your statement on camera choice, Sony isnt even a
consideration for me because of the Memory Stick. I'm sure I'm not
the only one. If they keep it up, they will vote themselves out of
business.

GageFX

My last camera was a SonyS75, good camera (didn't like the Sony Red or green, very radioactive looking) but after a few months using it and having to pay through the nose for Memory spare battery prices etc I decided to sell it and go for the E20.

I love the E20 as a camera but as a side issue I'm realy pleased I can now use CF and Smartmedia at more competitive prices, and if I decide to upgrade in the future I should be able to use the memory and batteries in my new camera Sony's loss.

Brian.

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi ksj

I have to say that I agree with you. I think the reason OS2 didn't fly is because IBM made exactly the mistake that MS has not YET made. At the time they really were the dominant company in IT (nobody ever got fired for buying IBM).

They thought they were so powerful that they could move the goal posts to MCA architecture - get two jumps ahead of the clone manufacturers and everyone would follow suit.

In effect, they moved the goal posts - however, the rest of the world decided that goals still counted in the old place.

If Mac OS becomes better than Windows, then, gradually, it will sell more (same with Linux). If somebody makes a better office suite than Office - gradually it will sell better. Microsoft's business practices may be crappy, but the real secret of their success is the killer application - and they are really good at it.

I use macs and PC's, and I KNOW that for this power user Mac OS9 was nothing like as good as windows 2000, and not as good as Win '98.

OSX seems to me to be pretty much equivalent in power to XP - an impressive feat. it's stable, intuitive and attractive. Hopefully more people will swing that way and provide more competition.

I still believe that if someone takes their customer base for granted they can lose it very fast (like IBM did with OS2).

kind regards
jono slack

Is this the fault of Microsoft or the poor
developing by others? I dont think the problem is that Microsoft
"stole" from other companies. If that was the problem, wouldn't I
have to other companies to turn to as an alternative?

It's called anti-competitive practice. It's against the law.

It's 1993 and you have a mid-sized computer company, that sells
computers to many people, some want OS/2, most want DOS/Windows.
Profit margins are slim.

A Microsoft exec tells you that for every computer you sell,
regardless of the operating system, you agree to pay MS $100.

You say no.

MS then says ok fine, if you don't agree you are not licensed to
use our OS AT ALL!

You need to sell Windows/Dos for 75-80% of your customers so not
carrying it means you are out of business. If you sell OS/2 you
have to pay for it's licensing and the $100 that MS charges you.

In a business that often offers single digit percentage of profts,
$100 is a lot of money. You stop selling OS/2.

MS has been previously found guilty of doing such things.

Monopolies are a bad thing for consumers, it keeps prices
artificially high and impedes technological advances.

Take a look at long distance rates, do you think that if Bell/AT&T
still had total control you'd be getting 5cent/10cent a minute
rates?
--
The Vilnius Schoolmaster

Actually OS/2 didn't fly because IBM was competing with the other
box makers. They didn't want to strengthen IBM's hand via-a-vis
the Micro Channel Architecture (MCA), which IBM was pitching as a
replacement for the "standard" PC architecture then. At the time,
everyone expected IBM to pitch OS/2 to the other box makers, then
make some future upgrade require MCA to drive the other box makers
out of business.

MS was never found guilty of what you claim. They did agree not to
use such practices in the 1994 consent decree, but that's a far cry
from "found guilty"

As for patriotism, I expect we won't hear from Richardo any time
soon as he's busy disconnecting his unpatriotic monopoly phone
service, electricity, cable service and natural gas...

--Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Gage

Well - sure as sure they will lose some business . . . . . . . . . BUT it's a good strategy.

How many of the users who have sony cameras, when deciding on which notebook computer to use . . . . . are going to Chose Vaio - because it supports memory stick. and then they may as well get that Clie rather than a handspring or Ipaq because . . well, it uses memory stick.

I'm sure it's a great business strategy - you may lose business at any one poing, but get someone to buy one of your products, and chances are they'll carry on making that decision.

After all - they ain't doing badly!

kind regards
jono slack
(who has not a single memory stick)

yet

As for your statement on camera choice, Sony isnt even a
consideration for me because of the Memory Stick. I'm sure I'm not
the only one. If they keep it up, they will vote themselves out of
business.

GageFX

Patriotic Duty? I glad I am not from your country because
you will be in charge. How is your little square mustache
of yours? How are your boots? Own a gun?

I own a memory stick because I own Sony's excellent
PEG-N610C handheld device. I must now be deported
because I am un-patriotic from your point of view.

If people have problems with the memory sticks let the
market decide. Are you saying you would have bought a
Sony camera and not E-whatever# camera, but you where forced
to go with the E-whatever# because of the memory stick.

Really is that why you have an E-whatever#? Please get real.

I guess you are going to stop using cable tv, going to baseball
games and riding on Amtrak. Or better yet I guess you never
had a VHS tape.

I should stop using my Microsoft OS Computer for what
an Mac. Form my point of view Apple and Microsoft are both
monopolies. Linux please is not for the masses and easy to use.

My two cents and I have the power to decide where to
spend it. NOT YOU!

Bill

--Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[The Vilnius Schoolmaster]

I find it more silly that people cant do it themselves. It's not
brain surgery.

So by this then I assume, that you do all of your own home repairs and upgrades, all of your own major vehicle repairs? Did you home school your kids as well. There are people who do all of these things and IF you know what you are doing none are quite brain surgery. Just because YOU can do something, it doesn't mean everyone can or will want to! The fact that you find it silly that some people need a machine that's ready to go out of the box, means that you just might be "out of touch"

So all companies that work hard and dominate the market should be
broken up. Great incentive to succeed.

I am not condoning breaking up anyone who succeeds in anything, what I am saying is that if you break the law, you should be held responsible. M$ has broken the law, on many occasions, and tends to get away with it.

If I could do this and make money, then YES, I would play by the
rules. If not, I'd be a brick layer. BUT, this would never happen
and it is not even the scenario. You are making the END USER the
payer of the fee and that's not equitable to the computer situation.

It is the same thing, you are NOT the end user or consumer, I specifically, said that you were the middleman SELLING his portraits to the end user and having to PAY a fee to the company that made the camera, the only thing I left out, was that you'd have to pay this fee, even though you didn't use thier camera. Completely equitable.

Unless you make a valid point, I wont continue to go back and forth
on this. The existance of MS and their practices do not affect my
life in the LEAST and the mere fact that you wrote "M$" PROVES that
you are simply MS bashing.

You're right, it's not something you can see plain and in your face every single day like gas pricing that's why it's much worse. You think that software that you presumably use and pay for doesn't affect your life in the least?

I guess collectively, if we cannot remember the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them.--The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[The Vilnius Schoolmaster]

I agree with you on the fact that MS did some shady things, but
consumers long had choices in the type of OS systems to choose
from. Apple has been a viable chioce for a long time, but
consumers were put off by the prices. Consumers drive the economy
here. Is cheaper (price) better. Consumers say yes. MS took
advantage of this as do ALL businesses in our society. That is the
essence of capitalism. Now that technology and price has somewhat
leveled out the idea that one company is making all this money on
their R&D and marketing is shocking. Kind of a CATCH22. We all
(general) bought into this due to ease of use and yes, price. Now
most of us are stuck with these chioices we made sometime ago. Do
I invest in new OS system, learing new ways of doing things or do I
keep using what I am versed in. We all still have these choices,
but it will cost those of us who want to deviate from the normal
way of doing things.

Nick,

I agree with you, and perhaps my choice of OS as an example was a bad one, but it's not the only one.

Office vs Wordperfect

Explorer vs Netscape.

MSJava vs JAVA

Messenger vs ICQ

There are many instances where Microsoft uses ther domination of the OS market to parlay illegally into a solid position in other markets. Telling computer manufacturers that they will face higher prices if Navigator is added to any machine running Windows, is simply illegal and predatory.

I don't understand this atittude of people, saying that this is OK for MS to do these types of things and get away with it. It's the consumer that loses in the end.--The Vilnius Schoolmaster

 

[The Vilnius Schoolmaster]

Messenger vs ICQ

What I meant here is that MS went screaming bloody murder to the courts to force AOL to open up it's system to allow competition in the instant messaging arena.

Kind of funny and Ironic.--The Vilnius Schoolmaster