Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Microsoft concerns over possible unfair competition

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft concerns over possible unfair competition

 
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
"bt" wrote
> Like they were 'demanding' .net ? Like they were 'demanding' 'product
> activation' ? DRM ?


The other side of the industry was asking for DRM and product activation, to
cut down on priacy... sofar, it doesnt appear to have worked, I read the
other day that more copies of XP had been pirated inrelation to sales, than
any of the predecessors, I thought that was a laugh.

> The only group demanding it so far are Microsoft. And they are
> gauranteed to use it as part of their 'lock-in' strategy as the fear
> having to compete honestly.


Adobe and Symantec are also using product activation, creative are
supporting DRM, and even some Linux apps are based on .net, I think it odd
that you included .net in the above, but anyway...

> The concept is fundementally flawed for atleast two reasons:
> 1. People do not trust Microsoft - and for good reasons.


True...

> 2. It reduces the usability, compatibility, and flexibility of the
> computer. It also adds complexity.


So does Linux, but it is doing just fine. Well, useability, compatibility
and complexity...
From where I sit anyway.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
"Nathan Mercer" wrote
> > Agreed! It doesn't matter how bloody fast it goes...I'm sticking
> > to AMD CPU's (unless they sell out and implement similar into
> > next-gen CPU's too!).


> > If AMD sell out I'll give up on x86 PC's and get Linux on a MIPS
> > or PPC architecture instead...



> Of course AMD will, the market will demand it as a security feature...


Interesting... which one of the above comments was your reply about?
Security, or mips/ppc?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
In article <jJE7b.143334$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:
>"Chris Wilkinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...

*SNIP*
>Of course AMD will, the market will demand it as a security feature...
>

No, the music and movie industries will demand it. Users either won't
give a **** because they're apathetic and ignorant, or they'll call it
the evil which it is because xxAA are behind it.
The IT industry is magnitudes larger than xxAA combined. Hell, Sony
Electronics is larger than RIAA - And Sony Music is a major RIAA player.
IBM alone has double the revenue all of the RIAA constituent companies
combined. Entertainment is, IIRC, a $60b/year industry. IT is > $600b
(those numbers are for the US, and are in USD).
The only reason IT ends up playing along is that they don't have dozens
of pet congress and senate critters who are well bought and paid-for.
They don't lobby (with the exception mainly of MS (who do have pets in
DC and most other capitols), who are still a **** in the bucket next to
IBM) anywhere near as heavily as xxAA, despite their vastly greater
economic clout.

So, be honest, Nathan. When you say "the market" you really mean a
jumped-up bunch of greedy assholes, in collusion with a convicted
monopolist, who want to lock the world into their income cycles.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
 
Reply With Quote
 
Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:19:02 +0000, Matthew Poole wrote:

<snipped a classic>

Just when is that +1 Insightful modifier function coming to usenet...
 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
"Peter" wrote
> Most consumers buy PCs with little or no thought to chosing of software.
> Most don't know much about it, and even if they do, in most cases, there
> are no alternatives to the MS monopoly.


But what about the wonderous Linux... they have a replacement for pretty
much everything.
It isn't MS's fault that customers are un-educated.


 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:00:35 +1200, Chris Wilkinson wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Patrick FitzGerald wrote:
>> Micro$oft is hyocritical to complain about unfauir competition.
>>
>> They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
>> called Palladium.
>>
>> Let us ensure they never suceed in that very nasty plan

>
> Agreed! It doesn't matter how bloody fast it goes...I'm sticking
> to AMD CPU's (unless they sell out and implement similar into
> next-gen CPU's too!).


You haven't been paying attention have you?

I think it was part of the price to pay for AMD64 support in XP.

>
> If AMD sell out I'll give up on x86 PC's and get Linux on a MIPS
> or PPC architecture instead...


What next-gen option would you use for MIPS these days? I suppose a Mac G5
would be the obvious PPC next-gen option - at least until IBM brings out a
"cheaper" PPC970 Linux workstation.

Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
"AD." wrote
> I think it was part of the price to pay for AMD64 support in XP.


According to the white papers, it can be disabled in the bios... although in
saying that, I'm would have thought that one of the (p)reviews would have
mentioned it...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
In article <jJE7b.143334$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:
>"Chris Wilkinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > They have an evil plan to control what you can run on your computer
>> > called Palladium.
>> >
>> > Let us ensure they never suceed in that very nasty plan

>>
>> Agreed! It doesn't matter how bloody fast it goes...I'm sticking
>> to AMD CPU's (unless they sell out and implement similar into
>> next-gen CPU's too!).
>>
>> If AMD sell out I'll give up on x86 PC's and get Linux on a MIPS
>> or PPC architecture instead...

>
>Of course AMD will, the market will demand it as a security feature...


"The market" will most certainly not ... "a market" might ... their problem

Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2003
In article <3f5f7002$(E-Mail Removed)>, "T.N.O." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Lennier" wrote
>> Yup - it's a very microsoft thing to take something wonderful and generic
>> and flexable and then reduce it into something incompatible, inflexible,
>> hopelessly inefficient and hideously complex.

>
>I have re-read this post over and over, and also BT's prior post, and I
>haven't a clue what Microsoft took that was "wonderful and generic and
>flexible" and turned into "incompatible, inflexible, hopelessly inefficient
>and hideously complex."
>
>Can you elaborate please?


I think what they are saying is that standards are wonderful ... because there
are so many to choose from

Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
 
Reply With Quote
 
bt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2003
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:39:35 +1200, "T.N.O." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The other side of the industry was asking for DRM and product activation, to
>cut down on priacy...


The 'industry' is not the market. And it's not a 'side' either - more
like a small corner.

>sofar, it doesnt appear to have worked, I read the
>other day that more copies of XP had been pirated inrelation to sales, than
>any of the predecessors, I thought that was a laugh.


Not that I doubt you read such a claim, but I'd like to know HOW they
arrive at the figures.

I'll give you a hint: they assume they will sell X number of copies in
a given area. When they do not, they assume the differance is pirated
copies. They then tell the lawmakers they have 'proof' of the piracy
problem...

>> The only group demanding it so far are Microsoft. And they are
>> gauranteed to use it as part of their 'lock-in' strategy as the fear
>> having to compete honestly.

>
>Adobe and Symantec are also using product activation, creative are
>supporting DRM,


Well, ok: only Microsoft and OTHER vested interests are demanding it.

>and even some Linux apps are based on .net, I think it odd
>that you included .net in the above, but anyway...


I included .net because it was another example of Microsoft telling
the market what the market wanted. In this case MS told us all the
market wanted MS to handle our private info. MS later admitted no one
trusted them to.

>> The concept is fundementally flawed for atleast two reasons:
>> 1. People do not trust Microsoft - and for good reasons.

>
>True...
>
>> 2. It reduces the usability, compatibility, and flexibility of the
>> computer. It also adds complexity.

>
>So does Linux, but it is doing just fine. Well, useability, compatibility
>and complexity...


No, I am talking about IN ADDITION to what we have now.


Brendan (Avatar)

--
`,,`,,`,,`, ,`,

Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSE 4 11-15-2006 02:40 AM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola Microsoft Certification 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSD 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd realexxams@yahoo.com Microsoft Certification 0 05-10-2006 02:35 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM



Advertisments