Topic: Ha ha Microsoft, busted again
started by: Frosty
quote:
Originally posted by Silicon Dream:
U have got to admire him, he is a v.good business man, I dont see why people diss him so much, especially all that previous court business, that was completely unfair, just caus the other companies aint got the skills, doesnt mean they can sue...
other companies ain't got the skills? Good businessman? He STOLE mac's ideas and nearly copied their OS.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
[person guy's mad scientist guy] i want you to touch my butt! <insert heavy breathing>[/person guy's mad scientist guy]
quote:
Originally posted by Silicon Dream:
U have got to admire him, he is a v.good business man, I dont see why people diss him so much, especially all that previous court business, that was completely unfair, just caus the other companies aint got the skills, doesnt mean they can sue...
and i bet, he's better with commas, than you are, anyway, Microsoft makes some good products, like Word and Powerpoint, but I wish they would've stuck to apps, and stayed the hell out of the OS business, because, you know, the Windows kernels suck, and now we're all stuck with them...
quote:
Originally posted by SLATE:
other companies ain't got the skills? Good businessman? He STOLE mac's ideas and nearly copied their OS.
Yes but now hes a billionaire and mac still only has 5\% of the market... sounds pretty good to me.
------------------
Radio Dj: so now that your not on saturday night live what are you gonna do?
Jim Bruer: I dont know.. fight mexicans or something.
FUHAOHB2IPDEFCIPUDQNFQFYLOEGOGB
quote:
Originally posted by SLATE:
other companies ain't got the skills? Good businessman? He STOLE mac's ideas and nearly copied their OS.
and mac is such an innocent little company, theyd NEVER do anything wrong. theyre SO much better than gates. they have a LEGAL monopoly on macintosh. can you purchase a macintosh without macOS on it? can you purchase macintosh parts and build your own? and bill gates is so horrible....taking nearly all the business from PCs....yeah, hes a real jerk.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
------------------
Net Syndrome - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/ >
Spydir Web - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/spydirweb/ >
quote:
Originally posted by Spydir:
Any idiot can get you to install a OS
<subliminal message>Install Linux</subliminal message>
Screw MacOS - get PPc Linux 
Bah, fuck it - screw Macs in general. Unless you < sit on your ass and clock how long it takes a Photoshop document to scroll from top to bottom >, a PC is better.
quote:
Originally posted by Spydir:
And Sithiee, you can buy Mac parts and build your own. It's just the only people who like mac's are mac zealots who love apple so much they have to make sure steve job's had something to do with the building of their machine.
can you buy the parts to make a mac machine without having to have any of them be made by or ordered from apple? even if you can, the pc market is so much more open in this area, jobs has a monopoly on macintosh. besides, isnt having a monopoly defined as controlling 85\% of the market? dont macs count for more than 15\%? i dont think its fair to say that macs arent computers (well...maybe)
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
quote:
Linux : the OS which hath descended from Heaven above, bathing us in Its graceful light!!!
without ye olde driver support...
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
besides, isnt having a monopoly defined as controlling 85\% of the market? dont macs count for more than 15\%?
yes but of the macintosh market 99\% of it is from apple....
------------------
Radio Dj: so now that your not on saturday night live what are you gonna do?
Jim Bruer: I dont know.. fight mexicans or something.
FUHAOHB2IPDEFCIPUDQNFQFYLOEGOGB
------------------
All that I know there was no God for me
Force that shatters all, absence of mortality
quote:
Originally posted by damien_s_lucifer:
Mac OS pre-version X : from a technological standpoint, it's total crap. it's the Casio of OS's.Mac OS X : Just cause it's "based on Unix!" doesn't mean it's any good. There are some pretty crappy Unices out there (SunOS 2.4 comes to mind)
Windows 9x : almost total crap, but pre-emptive multitasking is a nice plus.
Windows NT / 2K : Like 9x, but with the special 贄 "Doesn't Crash As Much" feature.
Linux : the OS which hath descended from Heaven above, bathing us in Its graceful light!!!
Windows XP : A true merging of NT and 9x; the eXPloitability of Win95, the crashing power of NT SP1, and the price of 2K Pro.
Personally I can't wait for XP. Now when I 0wn WinXP b0x0rs with Sub7 I can use the "Raw Sockets" support to TCP flood on port 80.
oh great now i cant p...
[PORT BLOCKED]
Mac OS X : Just cause it's "based on Unix!" doesn't mean it's any good. There are some pretty crappy Unices out there (SunOS 2.4 comes to mind)
Windows 9x : almost total crap, but pre-emptive multitasking is a nice plus.
Windows NT / 2K : Like 9x, but with the special 贄 "Doesn't Crash As Much" feature.
Linux : the OS which hath descended from Heaven above, bathing us in Its graceful light!!!
From that barefeats page:
7/7/2001 -- Gigabit Ethernet Switches may be a waste of money at 趚 per port. In a recent test conducted by Bare Feats (to be published in a few days), large network file transfers were only 13\% faster than 100BaseT. And when network rendering was done, the Gigabit network lowered the total job time compared to 100BaseT by only 5\%. According to Asante, who makes the switch I tested, Apple has blocked the use of Gigabit for any networking not using AppleShare IP. That means if you aren't running AppleShare IP, your 1000BaseT will be running at 100BaseT.
That should be illegal!
------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...
The difference between MS and Apple is that Apple makes their own hardware and software, so they have every right to decide what software goes on their products. MS doesn't make their own hardware(I'm talking full computers here, not just keyboards, mice, and gaming stuff), they have to get others to put their software on computers being built. But they started doing strong arm tactics and forcing the OEMs to do their bidding and no one else's. Apple can do whatever they like to their products. People will just not buy them anymore and then MS will have to buy even more of Apple, and then Steve Jobs will have to get a new title: BG's Towel Boy. But that doesn't mean that MS is a good thing. I think they cheated their way to the industry standard, and they will do everything, legal or otherwise, to stay there. When compared with other OS's, even MacOS to some extent, they are some of the worst. When it comes to severs, WinNT and Win2K have the worst uptimes of all OS's. Some of the best OS's haven't been rebooted in YEARS. If a MS server ever stayed up for a year, I think the time-space continuem would implode on it's self and all life would cese to exist. That is why *inx and *BSD will always be the better server OS. They actually stay up and running.
</rant>
video used by apple: outsourced
sound used by apple: outsourced
ram used by apple: outsourced
wow thats already about half the computer, but apple makes all its own hardware right?
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
quote:
Originally posted by demonk:
There aren't any other companies that produce full Mac computers. Apple tried that a few years ago, saw that they would become their compition, and killed the program.
and thats not anti competition? "oh know! we might have to compete! STOP THEM!!!!" microsoft just played a market that was there, they didnt stop one from coming into existence.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
and thats not anti competition? "oh know! we might have to compete! STOP THEM!!!!" microsoft just played a market that was there, they didnt stop one from coming into existence.
They have 99\% of their market, you say.... They are anti-competitive... Well thats too fucking bad. Maybe if a certain company didnt have a monopoly in the computer industry, other companys and OS's would stand a chance. Don't get me wrong, linux is doing damn well, but if it wasn't free, would it be doing so well? Doubt it.
Microsoft has a monopoly. Macintosh cannot afford competition, otherwise they would go out of business.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer business.
Its a size issue, sithiee. Example: MS is on like 75\% or something. MacOS is on 15\% or so.
The ironic thing is that most graphics, webpages and shit are done on Macs.
But anyways, microsoft is in command of the PC OS industry.
Example: Bell had a monopoly over the nations phones. What happened? We got baby bells.
Microsoft has control over the OS/Apps business. What should happen? Microsoft should be split into 2 entities, OS and Apps.
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
macintosh has a monopoly too.
No, they don't, and I really don't feel like taking the time to explain this to you.
------------------
Net Syndrome - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/ >
Spydir Web - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/spydirweb/ >
They pick up a technology (perfect example: javascript). They extend said technology (ever wonder why NS js != IE js?), then they choose a time to break it and force all of their users to use their products.
quote:
Originally posted by Spydir:
demonk's right. Machintosh doesn't have a monopoly. APPLE, INC. has a monopoly. But really, it's not. The OS only runs on certain computers, namely apple's. You can't get MacOS on anything else. So, if you want Machintosh, you have to get a mac. It's not a monopoly, it's "I want to spend way to fucking much for a computer".
ok, yes, its APPLE, same fucking thing to most people.
but how is "i want a pc, i have to get one with windows" so much different from "i want a mac, i have to buy it from apple"? if anything, seeing as how there are for more alternative OSes (is that right?) designed for the pc, and how theres really not as much for macintosh, wouldnt it be apple that has more of a monopoly? but because theyre smaller, its ok.
thats another thing i have a problem with. a serial killer is breaking the law, and they get in trouble. is someone just kills one person, they still get in trouble. maybe not as much, but still they get in trouble. why is it that microsoft is getting in trouble for breaking the law and apple isnt? because theyre doing it on a bigger scale? breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law. apple shouldnt be shielded from this just because they arent as good at as microsoft is.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
Let's pretend that you create a little black box that consists of 5 different widgets, and that it is a brand new product that no one else has ever made. Now, you outsource the production of 4 of those widgets, build the fifth one in house, and then assemble them in house to sell them. Since you are the only source of this brand new product, you have what is known as a legal monopoly.
Ok, now I come along, think your product is pretty cool, and deside to get into that line of business. I'm not really interested in making those first 4 widgets, or even putting all five together. I'm really only interested in make that fifth widget. So, I go out and find other people are you looking for someone to make that fifth widget for them. Thing is, this new type of product has alot of interchangable widgets, so there several different suppliers for each widget, including my fifth widget. So, I tell all these people who are putting together these new black boxes(which are different from your black box) that my fifth widget is the best and only solution. They decide to do business with me. But, I tell them that the only way to do business with me, is that they have to license my widget, and I'll charge them a license fee for each black box shipped, whether or not it had my widget in it. Now, my widget was the best at the time, so people switched over without seeing the error of their ways. But, now some new people come along that produce a widget just as good if not better than mine. But since I charge all those license fees, use other threats, and most of the people who buy the black boxes only know how to us it with my fifth widget, no one will give that alternative widget a chance. I have effectively killed those other people's business and created an illegal monopoly.
All the while you are producing your fifth widget, which can't be used in the black boxes that mine are used in. Also, no one else will ever produce a fifth widget for your black box since you are the one to assemble them, therefore paying all the costs of the black box, so you will always use your own fifth widget.
Does that make since? Do you see how you don't have an illegal monopoly while I do?
Microsoft On Planet Grekkp
Bill: Let's do stuff!
You: But we don't have a 'fridge.
Bill: Damn you, Macintosh!
You: Damn you, Macintosh!
Bill: Damn you, You!
You: Damn you, Me!
------------------
"Put the cheese on my bum." -Tom Green
-< PersonGuy >
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
...isnt having a monopoly defined as controlling 85\% of the market
A legal monopoly is defined as 25\% of the market. And a monopoly is not illegal, if it's shown that the monopoly is because the product is actually preferred to other products. Nestle, the guys who own Nescafe coffee, had somehting like 97\% of the market share at one time. It was perfectly legal because people bought more of it, they didn't engage in any anti-competitive practices.
As far as MS goes, yeah they're VERY anti-competitive in some ways. But if someone makes a 3rd party app to run on their system, or writes drivers or does anything to provide an alternative to MS products (ie Netscape Navigator, no pun intended), the system doesn't block it. If you install a MS OS, it doesn't sotp you wiping it and installing a different OS. The problem is that they SUPPORT their products - not in the useful way like tech support, though - and make sure that any business or user who chooses their stuff will have shitloads of software available which was designed with MS inter-operability in mind.
MS are still a bunch af arseholes though. Nothing's going to change that. The best use I've found for my windows box so far is leaving it running that video stream of the naked chick on the sofa. Was running allllllllllllllll night long while I was working on my linux box...
quote:
Originally posted by The_Stomper:
Personally I can't wait for XP. Now when I 0wn WinXP b0x0rs with Sub7 I can use the "Raw Sockets" support to TCP flood on port 80.
hahahahahahahahahaha
sub 7.........
hahahahahahahahahaha
llama.........
as for TCP floods, can't do that. Only true and giant vulnerability that XP and 2k have is default NetBIOS sharing. Other then that i'm pretty sure u can't do anything to my
"WinXP b0x0r". And i have no firewall or anything like that.
It's feature-complete, they just work on the bugs and release a few more milestones before final roll-out.
------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
- ...your a fool.
- ...your post in no way said anything about how microsoft does bad stuff.
- ...it would have to be at least 51\% or else it wouldnt make any sense. if its less than 50, then 2 people could have a monopoly on the same market. that goes against the idea of a monopoly.
- ...your post doesnt paint out any of the anti competetive things ms has done.
- ...the only reason anyone used netscape in the first place was because it wasnt made by microsoft... their browser has always been buggy, always been unreliable, and while IE has suffered from this too, it was never to the extent nutscrape was.
My apologies, Sithee, it appears I did not explain myself fully.
- A lot of people seem to tell me that. I'm starting to think they're right
- The point was, MS don't necessarily DO bad stuff, not in the way we mean here. They try and promote themselves in such a way to make people feel they NEED MS. That's not bad, that's just good business practice.
- Digging back through my old Economic textbooks from school, I'm fairly sure a legal monopoly has been defined as holding 25\% or more of the market share. Yes, this means more than one company can hold a monopoly. Yes, it defeats the meaning of "monopoly", but the reason is that it allowed the MMC (Monopolies and Mergers Commission) to intervene in the cases of "cartels" forming, which otherwise would have escaped the loophole. Law never did make any sense anyways, heh. It's probably changed now quite considerably, I'm going back quite a few years on this, and also this is based on the standing in the UK, I'm sure the USA has different regulations.
- Again, returning to point 2, it's because I feel a lot of what MS have done is on the fine line between "anti-competitive" and "good business practice". They've adopted a borg-like attitude that, although I personally do not like, I admit does work well for them. They have been responsible for funding projects that would otherwise have died, so it's not always "bad" how they operate.
- Going back to my initial points on monopoly - a legal monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing, if it exists for a reason. Some monopolies are "granted", that is created by the government. Others are "earned" - because the competition is just crap, as you pointed out about netscape.
This is only a personal view, and it wasn't my intention to get anyone riled over it. Your points are well made and taken on board, Sithee (especially the first one, heh), however I was not actually intending to contradict the majority of statements made. My fault for bad wording.
btw as there's noone called "raven" posting I'm assuming you meant me...
This message has been edited by Rogue on July 14, 2001 at 04:13 PM
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
quote:
Originally posted by PersonGuy:
See why I hate metiphores!?[b]Microsoft On Planet Grekkp
Bill: Let's do stuff!
You: But we don't have a 'fridge.
Bill: Damn you, Macintosh!
You: Damn you, Macintosh!
Bill: Damn you, You!
You: Damn you, Me![/B]
another FAILED personguy joke. *sigh*
you can go get WinXP SRC1 (something like that) its a public release final build. 650 or so megs on a LOT of FTPs out there. or you can buy the disc from microsoft for บ.
my friend joe installed it yesterday. says its FAST AS HELL.
then i aksed him if it would run Half-Life/Counter-Strike. and he didnt answer. so until i find out for sure, im not touching the thing.
------------------
I may be paranoid, but not an Android.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogue:
A legal monopoly is defined as 25\% of the market. And a monopoly is not illegal, if it's shown that the monopoly is because the product is actually preferred to other products. Nestle, the guys who own Nescafe coffee, had somehting like 97\% of the market share at one time. It was perfectly legal because people bought more of it, they didn't engage in any anti-competitive practices.As far as MS goes, yeah they're VERY anti-competitive in some ways. But if someone makes a 3rd party app to run on their system, or writes drivers or does anything to provide an alternative to MS products (ie Netscape Navigator, no pun intended), the system doesn't block it. If you install a MS OS, it doesn't sotp you wiping it and installing a different OS. The problem is that they SUPPORT their products - not in the useful way like tech support, though - and make sure that any business or user who chooses their stuff will have shitloads of software available which was designed with MS inter-operability in mind.
demonk, your post makes sense, but i still feel the same way. dont worry, your point has gotten across.
raven, your a fool. your post in no way said anything about how microsoft does bad stuff. im still quite sure that its only considered a monopoly when you own 85\% + of a market, but id have to check for sure. it would have to be at least 51\% or else it wouldnt make any sense. if its less than 50, then 2 people could have a monopoly on the same market. that goes against the idea of a monopoly.
and your post doesnt paint out any of the anti competetive things ms has done. if someone writes an alternative to MS stuff, MS is ok with it. if you try and get rid of MS, theyre ok with it. MS just writes their programs to work well with each other. none of that is bad. something that might have supported your claim would be mentioning their not allowing you to delete IE.
on another point, the only reason anyone used netscape in the first place was because it wasnt made by microsoft. thats dumb. their browser has always been buggy, always been unreliable, and while IE has suffered from this too, it was never to the extent nutscrape was. IE betas are more reliable than nutscrape full releases. i dont suppose this was all that relevant, but i always found it slightly hypocritical when people would say microsoft is petty for keeping their browser there, when the same people were using an inferior program just to keep MS down.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
thats another thing i have a problem with. a serial killer is breaking the law, and they get in trouble. is someone just kills one person, they still get in trouble. maybe not as much, but still they get in trouble. why is it that microsoft is getting in trouble for breaking the law and apple isnt? because theyre doing it on a bigger scale? breaking the law is breaking the law is breaking the law. apple shouldnt be shielded from this just because they arent as good at as microsoft is.
The only product that MacOS will run on is Apples machine. It isn't some stand along product, it is a basic part of the the full Apple computer. There are no other companies trying to get Macs shipped with their OS since Apple does all the building and shipping. But there are companies trying to get their OS on PCs that are shipped, but MS literally crushes them, or "Embrace and Extends" them into oblivion. They are cutting the legs off their competition, while Apple is not. MS IS breaking the law, but Apple can't breake the law, since they have no possible competition. That is why the monopoly laws were created. They were created to stop one or two companies from completely taking of the market through strong arm tactics and unethical practices, killing all legitimate competition. If a company creates a monopoly because they have the better product, then more power to them. But if they get their monopoly from killing their competition like MS has, then they are no longer allowing for fair market competition.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
Now what aare the chances that microsoft just wanna nick the code and bung it into their programs 
Bill Gates Says: What a clever idea....
quote:
Originally posted by Silicon Dream:
Any1 else heard about microsofts new exchange website, they promote open souce applicatiosn and allow people to post source codes for various things on their website/database so others can use this.Now what aare the chances that microsoft just wanna nick the code and bung it into their programs
Bill Gates Says: What a clever idea....
Haha, stupid Bill. Why not put your kernel source up, Billy boy? You can make license agreements that say they can't compile it, or copy it or distrib it or sell it, etc.
Stupid Bill. He's prob stealing the source posted there and claiming its his own.. Hmm, that reminds me of the early days of MS
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
Oregon, n.:
Eighty billion gallons of water with no place to go on Saturday night.
------------------
Net Syndrome - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/ >
Spydir Web - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/spydirweb/ >
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
no, I don't give a fuck if that spelt wrong.
------------------
Net Syndrome - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/ >
Spydir Web - < http://www.netsyndrome.net/spydirweb/ >
quote:
Originally posted by Spydir:
tusheno, I don't give a fuck if that spelt wrong.
tushe = a cute butt
touche = french for "touch", i.e. while fencing, when you score a point. now used in arguments when you admit the other side has a good point.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...