OT - Microsoft is at it again

[neofied]

Well, it looks like Microsoft is back to its old ways. This time its buying the backbone for a future antivirus product. No word on whether Microsoft will bundle virus protection with a future Windows release. But what do you bet that they do? I'm sure Symantec and McAfee are getting their antitrust lawyers ready.

Microsoft enters antivirus business (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/06/11/microsoft.antivirus.ap/index.html)

[TredWel]

OK, I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's a topic I feel strongly about, and I'm willing to hold up my end of the debate.

How does Microsoft entering an arena of computer software constitute immediate monopolization? It's called competition, people. They're a business, and they can make the choices they feel to be in the best interest for their stockholders. Nothing more than brute capitalism here.

[neofied]

TredWel, you're 100 percent right and for the most part I'm actually known to side with Microsoft. I did on the most recent antitrust case, at least to an extent. I don't believe they should have to reveal source code for Windows or bundle a competitors software. But I believe they have a right to bundle Explorer, Media Player, and even virus software if they choose. And now that they've added the ability to disable that software, I think the arguments against them are invalid.

If it wasn't for Microsoft, I don't think many people would be browsing the Internet today. Bill Gates knows what people want. They want a full system that will do what they want out of the box. Microsoft made it easy to buy a PC and be online within minutes.

That said, I'll stick with Norton AV. But if Microsoft can build a better mousetrap and give it away, I say go for it.

[nilodor]

I think the problem people have with microsoft stems from them not allowing other companies to see necessary source code so they can make a bug free product. This gives microsoft a big advantage. Just look at how unstable netscape is compared to explorer. Than look at what could be with linex, where it is incredibly stable, mainly because of open source.

However microsoft are not creating a monopoly. The do however have a serious leg up on the competition.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by TredWel
OK, I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's a topic I feel strongly about, and I'm willing to hold up my end of the debate.

How does Microsoft entering an arena of computer software constitute immediate monopolization? It's called competition, people. They're a business, and they can make the choices they feel to be in the best interest for their stockholders. Nothing more than brute capitalism here.

Word. Lets keep the justice system out of this on for once and let them run their business (which is what would eventually happen in the end, this way it saves our tax dollars). We've had a poor run of Attorney Generals, though lets hope our current one doesn't try to fuck up things anymore by going after Microsoft.

Software engineers should develop software, not government attornys.

[neofied]

Originally posted by nilodor
I think the problem people have with microsoft stems from them not allowing other companies to see necessary source code so they can make a bug free product. This gives microsoft a big advantage. Just look at how unstable netscape is compared to explorer. Than look at what could be with linex, where it is incredibly stable, mainly because of open source.

However microsoft are not creating a monopoly. The do however have a serious leg up on the competition.

I don't think any company should have to reveal their source code. To me this is like telling Coke and Pepsi to reveal their forumla to each other.

And telling Microsoft how to bundle their software, is like telling Pepsi to include three cans of Coke or Coke to include three cans of Pepsi in every six pack.

I do agree that the consumer should easily be able to disable software they don't want, but even than it's also the consumers choice to buy the software to begin with.

If AOL Time Warner and others stopped wasting money on lawsuits and trying to be Microsoft on the store shelf, things would be different. What these companies are asking Microsoft to do is build it for them.

The problem with competing operating systems is that you create compatibility issues. There has to be an abolute. Windows is that absolute.

Apple could have let the Macintosh take off had they been more open like IBM was in the late 70s/early 80s. Instead, the waited too long to allow clones and the endeavor failed.

As for Linux, there's truth to stability. But it still is difficult to use and not for the casual user. While programs like Lindows are working to fix the learning curve, it's still a ways off from wide acceptance.

However, I believe Linux has a future and I believe Microsoft will eventually have a part in it. Why else would they participate in Linux World?

[Happy29]

This is the stepping stone to Microsoft's domination of the entire market (like they already dont). Whatever happened to that antitrust lawsuit anyways ?

[neofied]

The pro-business Bush administration basically gave Bill Gates a slap on the wrist. I can't remember the exact punishment. But if you have downloaded the latest XP Service Pack, you'll see some of the changes in the control panel.

[Happy29]

Just like he gave Enron a break. Difference between Enron and Microsoft was that Enron was already screwed.

[neofied]

The real question now is, will Bush give Martha Stewart a slap on the wrist? They had a show about her on A&E tonight and it sounds like they are out to get her.

[Mac Howard]

The argument is that Microsoft use their ownership and monopoly of the operating system to ensure the success of their other products:

1) because they know the code of the operating system they have an advantage over competitors who don't - they can optimise the code of the new product to work with the OS code. That's why they're instructed to share the code with competitors so that they too can optimise their code and produce a competitive product. Allowing MS to use the information while denying it to their competitors would put the competitor at a considerable, unfair disadvantage.

2) If they include the new product in with the OS then they wipe out the opposition immediately. Even if their product is inferior many users will use it because it's free. They will not buy the competitor's product. That's how Netscape were wiped out.

If MS produced a football text sim and included it in Windows free of charge then Jim and FOF would be wiped out. It wouldn't have to be better, the mere fact that it was reasonable and free would be enough. And when you consider that in the development of that game the designers would use much of the work that Jim has put into FOF in designing their own - at the very least seeing what works and what doesn't - then that would clearly be unfair. You even use his previous work against him (MS's IE very much reproduced the operational features of Netscape).

Having a virtual monopoly gives a business considerable advantages over competition - having a monopoly over something (in this case the OS) which is essential for the operation of the competitor's products is an enormous advantage.

That's what the anti-trust people are getting at. MS should allow the competitor equal access to the information needed to produce the best product and they should not be allowed to bury the price of a product in with that of another product (OS in this case) that is essentail to the running of that product when the competitor can't.

[neofied]

However, I don't think that Microsoft has to reveal the entire source code for Windows, only portions of it. Had they released the entire source code, that would basically make it open source and you'd be seeing free, customized versions all over the Web.

I do believe that Windows eventually will be open source, in an effort to keep it as the OS of choice. The idea will be to keep the basic structure the same and reduce fears of compatibility issues.

As for bundling and giving stuff away. You can't punish a company for giving something away.

[Mac Howard]

They don't give it away, neofid. The price is buried in the price of Windows. But as you can't buy Windows without IE, at least not a lower price, then no one can compete. You have to buy Windows and therefore pay for IE so why is anyone going to buy Netscape? Netscape, who had a perfectly respectable business and had spent a great deal developing their product before MS included IE in Windows, are wiped out.

Because of their monopoly over the OS, MS could wipe out virtually any software company currently producing software for Windows in this manner. That's an abuse of monopoly. They've shown that they will do that. They need to be stopped from doing it again. That is what the anti-trust people are trying to do.

[neofied]

When Internet Explorer first came out it wasn't bundled with Windows yet. It was a standalone product you could get from the Web.

True, Netscape was selling its browser, but I've yet to meet anyone who actually paid for it. Netscape allowed certain people to download a free copy and that is what just about everyone ended up doing.

As for being included in the price, it would be interesting to get the street date prices for Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows Me, and Windows XP. I've purchased each of these, except 3.11, and don't remember paying too much different each time.

[Mac Howard]

Netscape had to give away the browser because IE was free and that was the only way they could get users to see their product. But you can't run a business giving away your product.

IE is a sophisticated product. It's taken a lot of man hours of development time to produce. That is a cost to MS. They have to recover that cost in something they sell. If they had not produced that product then their costs would have been less and the cost of one or more of their products would have been less.

I doubt very much that they would bury that cost in a product that has to compete on price - say Office. That would not be sensible. They bury it in a product that doesn't have to compete - Windows.

The fact that you can't identify the cost specifically doesn't mean a thing. You can't identify the cost of any individual part of Windows but it's all there.

[neofied]

Anyone on the Internet prior to IE, used Netscape or to a lesser extent Mosaic.

Microsoft's advantage is they control the operating system. What Microsoft does it attempts to put the essential products a computer buyer would need to get started.

If you buy a new computer, you have everything you need out of the box and don't need to buy other software.

IE wasn't the first thing Microsoft has bundled. It has long bundled a very basic text editor/word processer, a paint program, some games, and some type of media player. Today you get a watered down version of MS Word, a few more games, and a much better media player, plus IE.

Windows 1.0 was released for $100 in 1983. You can buy the upgrade to XP today for under $100. The full version is under $200, but most people don't need to buy it.

Given inflation and in reality, the price of Microsoft Windows has dropped since Windows 1.0. Windows is now up to 5.1 (that's the latest version of XP). It's been 20 years since the first version and the price hasn't changed.

The government and anti-MS crowd argues that Microsoft would eventually raise prices. They haven't.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Bah this news doesnt interest me . The sooner Microsoft comes out with a micro chip implant for all of us the better .

[Airhog]

Originally posted by neofied
Windows 1.0 was released for $100 in 1983. You can buy the upgrade to XP today for under $100. The full version is under $200, but most people don't need to buy it.

Given inflation and in reality, the price of Microsoft Windows has dropped since Windows 1.0. Windows is now up to 5.1 (that's the latest version of XP). It's been 20 years since the first version and the price hasn't changed.



Ahh, but the price has changed. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

The original price of windows 1.0 was 99$
The price of windows XP home version is 199$

Just because people can choose the upgrade product, doesnt mean you can use that as the basis that the price hasnt changed.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by Airhog
Ahh, but the price has changed. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

The original price of windows 1.0 was 99$
The price of windows XP home version is 199$

Just because people can choose the upgrade product, doesnt mean you can use that as the basis that the price hasnt changed.

Forget apples and oranges, we're talking 1983 and 2003..


You'd have a hard time finding any technological product that cost the same as it did in 83 as it does now. The products are more advanced, and the economy is stronger. Hell, food cost alot more then it did, but I don't think they've bundled anything extra with it.

It's common sense to change your prices with the economy over time.

Just because the price has changed from 20 years ago doesn't mean they're charging more for IE and whatever else they choose to bundle...

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Bishop
Forget apples and oranges, we're talking 1983 and 2003..
You'd have a hard time finding any technological product that cost the same as it did in 83 as it does now. The products are more advanced, and the economy is stronger. Hell, food cost alot more then it did, but I don't think they've bundled anything extra with it.


The Intellivision retailed for around $200 back in the early 80's, comperable to what you could get a PS2 or X-Box today.

See, it's not that hard :)

edit: http://gamesmuseum.tripod.com/history/gen2/intell/mattel.txt

[sabotai]

"IE wasn't the first thing Microsoft has bundled. It has long bundled a very basic text editor/word processer, a paint program, some games, and some type of media player. Today you get a watered down version of MS Word, a few more games, and a much better media player, plus IE."

It seems like people are confusing what Microsoft "bundles" into Windows and what a computer seller bundles into Windows.

Word, the games, and in a time long ago, IE were bundled by a computer seller, like Dell and Compaq. It was in the cost of the computer that these things went into, not Windows.

Since then, Microsoft has integrate IE into their operating system. Whenever you open "My Computer" in XP, you are using IE. It was THIS that caused for the Anti-Trust lawsuits. Not just that Microsoft was shipping Windows with IE, it was that it integrated the two, so that Windows COULD NOT be sold without IE. That's the whole difference. (could not vs. would not). That is what wiped out Netscape.

As for the source code, I think some small, but cruicla, parts of the source code should be availbe to windows programmers. It is the only way for certain applications to be made without any bugs and with optimization. But it should be be available for the public.

[neofied]

Word, the games, and in a time long ago, IE were bundled by a computer seller, like Dell and Compaq. It was in the cost of the computer that these things went into, not Windows.

Notepad and Wordpad were installed by Microsoft. So was solitaire, free cell, and that bomb game. I wasn't referring to the full word processors and commercial games.

Ahh, but the price has changed. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

The original price of windows 1.0 was 99$
The price of windows XP home version is 199$

Yes, but how many people actually buy the $199 version of Windows XP? The only people who buy it are the people building a new PC on their own or one of those PCs without an OS they sometimes sell.

If you factor in inflation, that $99 copy of Windows 1 would cost you about $177.16 today based on inflation. Given that the full version of XP often sells for less than the $199, I'd say there hasn't been
much of a change.

By a reverse calculation, $199 was the same as $111 in 1983.

[Airhog]

I would never buy the upgrade version unless it allows me to clean install XP without win98 on my machine already. That being said, I didnt account for inflation.

On another topic closely related to this, what stops Microsoft from raising their prices? They have no competitor right now, and it is unlikely they will have any competitor over the next few years. I would assume the worry of having another anti-trust lawsuit filed against them would be one reason.

[neofied]

You can buy WinXP and do a clean install. That's been the case with every upgrade. The catch is you have to have the disc and that can be a problem for some since, the PC makers don't give you a disc anymore. However, if you call Microsoft there is a workaround to get a clean install regardless.

I don't see Microsoft raising the price for Windows, except for the purpose of inflation. By my estimates that's the line they've held for 20 years.

I just wish that instead of filing lawsuits, the brains behind the competitors would try to make a better OS. They don't need Windows to do that.

[Airhog]

I just know that the upgrade version of Win95 required more than just the disc. I have stayed away from the upgrade version since.


I think it would be very hard to make inroads into the windows market. For starters you need to design an OS that will run 99.99% of the software available for XP. Its taken years for products like XP, The mac Os, and even software like linux to rise to where they are. I just dont see most companies thinking that they can make some money on a first generation OS.

[rexallllsc]

After Netscape 3, it became a steaming pile. Simple as that. It was no longer the dominant browser. IE is now better. Period.

[neofied]

Originally posted by Airhog
I just know that the upgrade version of Win95 required more than just the disc. I have stayed away from the upgrade version since.

Actually, you're right. Win95 was a bitch to install. I haven't had many problems since, but that's because I typically end up using the technical service to get it installed.


I think it would be very hard to make inroads into the windows market. For starters you need to design an OS that will run 99.99% of the software available for XP. Its taken years for products like XP, The mac Os, and even software like linux to rise to where they are. I just dont see most companies thinking that they can make some money on a first generation OS.

That is the key reason why we only have a single OS. People want stuff to be compatible. This is why people don't run out and buy OS2, Max OS, Linux, etc.

I liken computing to a science experiment and Windows is the absolute.

[neofied]

Originally posted by rexallllsc
After Netscape 3, it became a steaming pile. Simple as that. It was no longer the dominant browser. IE is now better. Period.

AOL killed Netscape, not Microsoft.

[Brillig]

Nope.

AOL was only able to buy Netscape becuase they had been destroyed by Microsoft. And why did AOL buy Netscape? To try to defend themselves from Microsoft's browser monopoly.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by neofied
Actually, you're right. Win95 was a bitch to install. I haven't had many problems since, but that's because I typically end up using the technical service to get it installed.

[b]

That is the key reason why we only have a single OS. People want stuff to be compatible. This is why people don't run out and buy OS2, Max OS, Linux, etc.

I liken computing to a science experiment and Windows is the absolute.


True. Linux has become easier to use, but no means easy enough for your average joe to use. Its too bad most software will not run in linux, otherwise I wouldnt use windows.

[Solecismic]

Back when I worked for a living, I was with a company called Wall Data (long since out of business) that provided connectivity solutions back in the days when connectivity was a software market.

One of my projects there was to write a program that would allow, for example, Excel to browse a file system on a mainframe, then open and edit a spreadsheet.

In order to do this, I had to write what's known as a vxd library.

Basically, a vxd layer of this type takes input from an operating system in the form of interrupts, and converts it into signals to another operating system.

So, what I was doing was stepping in at the operating system level and, in a sense, hacking the input the operating system received from applications.

Microsoft publishes a list of the interrupts the operating system recognizes. For instance, one interrupt might signal a keystroke, another a control-character sequence.

After spending some time with the Microsoft list, I reached a point where our company's software worked through the vxd.

However, Excel and Word didn't. Spreadsheets wouldn't open, word documents wouldn't save properly. So, I bought a book called Undocumented DOS (Windows, still, for the most part, sits on DOS code). This was written by a vxd veteran who explains Microsoft's use of undocumented interrupts to speed the performance of its in-house applications.

After trapping many of the interrupts Excel and Word sent and reviewing their usage in the Undocumented DOS book, I was able to complete the project.

Now, Microsoft advises against using undocumented interrupts in software development. The reason being they can change from one version of Windows to the next (even within a patch). That's the same reason I don't tell people what's going on inside FOF files - I don't want to limit myself to a particular format for an internal data file.

Yet obviously, the developers of Word and Excel know about interrupts that don't change from one version to the next.

Is it wrong for Microsoft's operating system division to give itself a competitive advantage in the word processor division by documenting what's not documented to other companies?

Well, the Sherman Anti-trust Act makes it illegal to leverage power gained from one monopoly in order to drive out competition in another market. Presumably, Microsoft wouldn't have been able to make I.E. free if it didn't have the profits from the operating system monopoly supporting it.

And similarly, they wouldn't have been able to build a better spreadsheet and word processor without knowledge of those special interrupts. Excel is lightning fast, and this is part of the reason for it.

Does releasing source code mean anything? Of course not. Source code out of context is useless (here's a piece of FOF

if ( rd[5] == 0 && ( rd[10] > 5 && rd[10] < 1 ) ) { temp2 = 0; rd[7] = 0;}

that makes no sense without understanding how those variables are used in other pieces of the code. In this case, what it says is that if an offensive lineman finds a fumble, in most instances, he falls on the ball rather than making an attempt to advance it). And source code can change in a patch, or in a new version of the product.

Microsoft releasing source code without good documentation and promises not to change it doesn't do any developer one bit of good.

So, is Microsoft the Evil Empire deserving of destruction? It depends on whether you believe the Sherman Anti-trust Act is warranted or unenforceable.

Microsoft is ruthless, and doesn't hesitate to leverage its operating system success. But the definition of a software market changes so rapidly, I'm not sure they've done anything wrong.

Personally, I feel that if Netscape had such a wonderful, innovative product, it wouldn't have been cheaper for Microsoft to buy the rights than develop its own. A browser is simply a word processor on steroids that lacks many editing functions. Microsoft was already building full Active-X support into Word, I'm sure I.E. was relatively trivial for that division.

Microsoft can be what we might call evil, though. They have done everything possible to destroy Java, thus denying developers a true cross-platform solution to many problems. They've done so by refusing to properly support Java within their browser. And unfortunately, Sun has been unable to convince the world that Java is innovative enough that it's worth public outcry to enforce compatibility.

It's hard to consider refusal to add a feature to I.E. (proper Java) a crime. So again, Microsoft seems to be on decent legal footing, despite the lawsuits.

I really don't know many of the answers here. There are many incredibly complex legal and economic issues brought up by the Microsoft anti-trust suits, and whatever happens, my only hope is that the government doesn't enforce a solution making life harder for software developers (something along the lines of every developer must live in a cubicle).

[WussGawd]

Nice post, Jim.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by neofied
Well, it looks like Microsoft is back to its old ways. This time its buying the backbone for a future antivirus product. No word on whether Microsoft will bundle virus protection with a future Windows release. But what do you bet that they do? I'm sure Symantec and McAfee are getting their antitrust lawyers ready.

Microsoft enters antivirus business (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/06/11/microsoft.antivirus.ap/index.html)


Hehehe. My first thought on reading this is that with somebody discovering a new security bug in Microsloth's OS about once a week, and sending a new worm through the net about twice a month to exploit another hole in the email security Swiss Cheese known as Outlook, having Microsloth make Virus protection software would be a bit like having a force of blind, deaf, and mute people in charge of security at Fort Knox. :D

[neofied]

Originally posted by Airhog
True. Linux has become easier to use, but no means easy enough for your average joe to use. Its too bad most software will not run in linux, otherwise I wouldnt use windows.

Lindows and Lycoris are trying to close the gap. Wal-Mart sells systems with these two versions of Linux installed.

I've considered buying one of the Lindows systems just to mess around and see what it's capable of.

[neofied]

if ( rd[5] == 0 && ( rd[10] > 5 && rd[10] < 1 ) ) { temp2 = 0; rd[7] = 0;}

Thanks Jim, that's the last piece of code I needed. FOF: THSY will be released next week. :D

[Airhog]

Originally posted by neofied
Lindows and Lycoris are trying to close the gap. Wal-Mart sells systems with these two versions of Linux installed.

I've considered buying one of the Lindows systems just to mess around and see what it's capable of.

correct me if Im wrong here, but can ethier of these systems run applications and games made for the windows environment? The last I heard was that lindows could run office apps, but that was about it.

[neofied]

I've heard that there is software that can run some games, sort of like an emulator. It's something they are supposed to be working on. It might be fun to get a system just to toy with it though.

[Sharpieman]

I heard from somewhere that Microsoft is going to try to take over EA that would suck really bad I would have to rid of my PS 2 and get an HALO-box

[Airhog]

well, for a second system it wouldnt be bad, you could always install windows on it if you didnt like it.

I would rather use a full blow version of Linux. Really only one thing stops me.

I play to many games.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
I heard from somewhere that Microsoft is going to try to take over EA that would suck really bad I would have to rid of my PS 2 and get an HALO-box

That would be ironic considering EA is the Microsoft of the gaming software industry. I wouldn't put too much faith in that rumor...

[neofied]

Originally posted by Airhog
well, for a second system it wouldnt be bad, you could always install windows on it if you didnt like it.



That's the plan. That and a laptop. Yeah, I'm a computer junkie.