MS Monopoly

[tinman0]

Mr Whippy said:

Haha, so now M$ are made to provide Wget, and make sure it works, auto-updates and all other manner of things it will need to do, to provide a service for people to download internet browsers?
This is M$ who are not apparently not allowed to provide a browser as it is not part of the operating system, but have to provide Wget, a limited internet downloading tool? Why should they bother, that is no more a part of an operating system as an internet browser.


IE hasn't really infested Windows at all. I never see it unless I run it.


I'm really don't get what the fundamental problem is. Why is the browser a big issue, and EVERY other product in there not?

Why not sell Windows with nothing on it, having to download a media player from someone, a calculator, a firewall, an internet browser, a paint program, an ftp app, an email program, an internet chat program!?

What defines an operating system? Why don't we just go back to DOS, and have to load hundreds of apps/modules to get a nice UI, decent graphics drivers, no DirectX, no nothing. Everything has to be downloaded and no one knows which bits to get, taking days to setup a system with random apps that might not work with each other.
It's nice to put M$ Windows down on the browser, an easy target, but no one is whinging about all the other standards that it has put in place that has allowed IT to leap forward massively over the last two decades!

And as much as anything, M$ have just allowed things to focus where they naturally need to, but in a standardised manner. Ie, DirectX has allowed manufacturers to build to one standard a great deal for lots of applications (DirectPlay, Sound etc), while also being driven as much by the manufacturers of the hardware and users of the software! They don't stamp their feet and say 'no' to anyone, the stuff they offer is shaped by others, by the industry generally!


I see them far from the dinosaur of monopolies many do. They have, imho, helped the lot get off the ground twice as quickly as it would have done!
They don't limit any installations. If Windows forced it's own internet browser, fine, we have a problem, but it doesn't, it just comes in the box as a handy tool, just like the list of 50 other handy apps that it comes with that make life easy for 95% of people who don't give a crap about the latest whizz bang geeky crap, and want a product that does everything they want out of the box! (like my dad)

Dave

I fear that I am arguing with someone who:

a) doesn't understand the concept of a monopoly
b) doesn't understand that MS has already been pursued by the US Govt as a monopoly - eg MS has history of acting like a monopoly
c) doesn't understand the concept of free competition and what results from it, eg innovation
d) your aspersions that MS is somehow driving the market at twice the speed, when MS is constantly lagging behind the market
e) doesn't understand that many of the features that we are seeing today in modern browsers were available in Opera (for instance) years ago
f) doesn't understand that simply putting material on a Windows install cripples the competition
g) doesn't understand that if IE has been a problem on the Internet for years - not a solution - because MS broke quite a few rules regarding the use of internet information and how it could drive your machine (virus makers did well out of that one). (information from the internet was always untrustworthy, and should never be let out of the box, be it email or web - MS broke that rule early on)

And so forth.

MS are not some benevolent corporation that are doing good for the user, they are a corporation motivated first and foremost with riffling through your pockets. They don't build good products (Vista being a good example), they don't build reliable products (IE being a good example), they don't lead innovation (the way they slavishly copy Apple for instance - wanna buy a Zune?), the way they look at other markets and try and subsidise their way to market leader (Xbox, Zune, etc).

If you look at the DoJ case against MS, this is how they settled:

interweb said:

The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.

What does that say about their behaviour when they weren't sharing their APIs? Far from your aspersion that MS were allowing third party apps to run on the platform - Microsoft has history of trying to PREVENT third party apps from using the platform.

So please, off the old high horse that MS are some how being penalised for being successful. They need slapping down occasionally.

[miniman]

Mr Whippy said:

IE hasn't really infested Windows at all. I never see it unless I run it.

You don't use Outlook, then? Or Windows Explorer? Or Word?

[Mr Whippy]

tinman0 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Haha, so now M$ are made to provide Wget, and make sure it works, auto-updates and all other manner of things it will need to do, to provide a service for people to download internet browsers?
This is M$ who are not apparently not allowed to provide a browser as it is not part of the operating system, but have to provide Wget, a limited internet downloading tool? Why should they bother, that is no more a part of an operating system as an internet browser.


IE hasn't really infested Windows at all. I never see it unless I run it.


I'm really don't get what the fundamental problem is. Why is the browser a big issue, and EVERY other product in there not?

Why not sell Windows with nothing on it, having to download a media player from someone, a calculator, a firewall, an internet browser, a paint program, an ftp app, an email program, an internet chat program!?

What defines an operating system? Why don't we just go back to DOS, and have to load hundreds of apps/modules to get a nice UI, decent graphics drivers, no DirectX, no nothing. Everything has to be downloaded and no one knows which bits to get, taking days to setup a system with random apps that might not work with each other.
It's nice to put M$ Windows down on the browser, an easy target, but no one is whinging about all the other standards that it has put in place that has allowed IT to leap forward massively over the last two decades!

And as much as anything, M$ have just allowed things to focus where they naturally need to, but in a standardised manner. Ie, DirectX has allowed manufacturers to build to one standard a great deal for lots of applications (DirectPlay, Sound etc), while also being driven as much by the manufacturers of the hardware and users of the software! They don't stamp their feet and say 'no' to anyone, the stuff they offer is shaped by others, by the industry generally!


I see them far from the dinosaur of monopolies many do. They have, imho, helped the lot get off the ground twice as quickly as it would have done!
They don't limit any installations. If Windows forced it's own internet browser, fine, we have a problem, but it doesn't, it just comes in the box as a handy tool, just like the list of 50 other handy apps that it comes with that make life easy for 95% of people who don't give a crap about the latest whizz bang geeky crap, and want a product that does everything they want out of the box! (like my dad)

Dave

I fear that I am arguing with someone who:

a) doesn't understand the concept of a monopoly
b) doesn't understand that MS has already been pursued by the US Govt as a monopoly - eg MS has history of acting like a monopoly
c) doesn't understand the concept of free competition and what results from it, eg innovation
d) your aspersions that MS is somehow driving the market at twice the speed, when MS is constantly lagging behind the market
e) doesn't understand that many of the features that we are seeing today in modern browsers were available in Opera (for instance) years ago
f) doesn't understand that simply putting material on a Windows install cripples the competition
g) doesn't understand that if IE has been a problem on the Internet for years - not a solution - because MS broke quite a few rules regarding the use of internet information and how it could drive your machine (virus makers did well out of that one). (information from the internet was always untrustworthy, and should never be let out of the box, be it email or web - MS broke that rule early on)

And so forth.

MS are not some benevolent corporation that are doing good for the user, they are a corporation motivated first and foremost with riffling through your pockets. They don't build good products (Vista being a good example), they don't build reliable products (IE being a good example), they don't lead innovation (the way they slavishly copy Apple for instance - wanna buy a Zune?), the way they look at other markets and try and subsidise their way to market leader (Xbox, Zune, etc).

If you look at the DoJ case against MS, this is how they settled:

interweb said:

The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.

What does that say about their behaviour when they weren't sharing their APIs? Far from your aspersion that MS were allowing third party apps to run on the platform - Microsoft has history of trying to PREVENT third party apps from using the platform.

So please, off the old high horse that MS are some how being penalised for being successful. They need slapping down occasionally.

a, they are classified as a monopoly, but that doesn't make them evil or wrong.

b, yes, I understand they have been pursued, again, that is only because they were believed to be in the wrong.

c, free competition is there, that is why I run TONS of free open source apps in preference to M$ ones... my browser right now is FF, and I have Chrome at work, and I use all of them for checking rendering performance of my html or css when needed.
M$ haven't forced any app on anyone, they just provided a free one with THEIR operating system.

d, M$ lags the market, and so is driven by it. Because developers cannot invest to develop apps for a whole range of platforms, without making their software very expensive, it would cause them to reduce innovation and distribution of their products.
M$ seem to be targeted for being good at what they do. If Linux and and Apple OS's are so much better, why is M$ still on the majority of systems? Because they can offer what most people want in one package!
Would you buy a car with no radio or wheels, because Sony and BBS were angry that the manufacturers were taking business away from them? Some people just don't care about the latest flash bang version of a browser for the internet, just as they don't care Notepad is rather limited, and Media player is a bit st. M$ never offered ANY of their apps as they best out there, they just came with the OS to make it a product that works out of the box for users needs of the day!

e, So what? Users can download Opera, and have been able to for years. Notepad ++ has LOADS more features than Notepad, but my mum wouldn't care.
The built-in calculator is crap too, beyond a certain point, but it does the job. Why are you not fighting for the calculators and notepads developed by independents that are better than Windows ones?

f, And? Where will it end? Take out everything, right back to DOS. Make Windows a shell that is no use to anyone.
Compatibility issues arise. M$ get slated for adding standards into their shell OS to make compatibility work, and then people get on their high horses about that. M$ are stuck between a hard place and a rock. They offer a FULLY open OS, that you can install whatever you want on to, and they offer a few goodies that are not the best, but they never said they were, to get you going with! When did they EVER promise anything more?

g, Yep, IE was a bit pants at first, and still is. But it's just the one that comes in the box. Was anyone forced to use it? M$ paint is crap, with a lack of decent functionality vs Gimp which is free. Thats why you get Gimp.


I won't get into M$ and what they do too much, because I haven't read up on it all too much wrt legal issues etc. BUT, they offer a standardised platform for developers, and by and large it seems to work VERY well. At work we have an equal number of Mac, Windows PC, Linux and Unix boxes, and they are all massively useful for what they all specialise in. People DO know which to get to suit their needs where it matters. People who don't know what they need, will not even notice how Windows is inferior in certain regards vs the other OS's...

I used Windows XP and Vista and they do everything I need them to, with other apps installed from OTHER providers than just M$. If I needed to do things that a Mac was better at, I'd buy one. If I needed to run some services for a network, I might build a Linux box up. Great. Everyone has the bits they need.


I'm just glad we have M$ and standards, because the way web-geekery exists these days, NO one would force a standard that lasted two minutes and it would stifle software development for end users imho! M$ might get it wrong, but at least everyone can work around it together and make decent programs.
Imagine having to target about 10 operating systems to cover the full market, with large differences across them all. Which would you develop for? Would you cover them all and double your product price, or target the 5 OS's that cover 75% of the market?
You just end up elevating a few OS's near the top, and that is better business for the likes of Adobe and Autodesk etc... They LIKE standards to work to! I like standards to work to as well! It makes us all more productive, even if for now, the standards are not perfect!


I'm not on any high horse, I'm just trying to explain that they are not all bad. Were Apple at the top of the pile today we would all be ranting at them for their generic software taking away business from smaller companies trying to sell email tools or calendars or whatever else operating systems come with.



What do you want from an OS? A shell that you plug hundreds of components into, from GUI ones, to interface ones, to file system management ones?

Is that what the customer wants? What is the perfect balance to strike?

What should an OS come with, and what shouldn't it come with?

What are your views on the built in Notepad, Calculator, Outlook Express, Firewall/Virus protection, MSN messenger, Media player, Paint, visual themes?

I'd happily give them all up for better programs, I already have. I don't use a single one. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be there for those that don't care though, like my parents, and probably 90% of the population who don't either. If they are not looking for something else, then they clearly think it is good enough. Those who want better can find it, and DO use it

Dave

[tinman0]

Mr Whippy said:

I'm just glad we have M$ and standards

Yeah, whatever you say.

[Mr Whippy]

tinman0 said:

Mr Whippy said:

I'm just glad we have M$ and standards

Yeah, whatever you say.

Go open source, it's fantastic. Ignore Windows even exists. What is your problem with a product you simply do not have to buy if you don't want to?

Just because almost everyone else finds it perfectly good doesn't mean you have to use it. Yes, that gives M$ a commanding position because developers make their software for M$ OS only, or primarily, which the means people are even LESS likely to choose an alternative OS.
That market doesn't care though, you could serve them poo on a plate and they will be happy if it goes on Facebook, writes their CV, and does emails.

• BUT** you can still be totally productive and go totally open source if you want. You can run open source on windows. I run lots of open source games and enjoy them more than the 'big name' games.

Grumbling about market leaders is just so boring. You get the same about Adobe soaking up everything in it's path, and then you have Autodesk doing similar, and reducing choice yadda yadda. But whats this, alternatives that you can buy and use from other companies, or even free ones that do the same job!


M$ in my view should do what the hell they like. If they had just shut up shop at *any* point in their history, we would be further behind in the world of computing, with Apple being the 'hated' leader doing evil things like writing their own internet browser, and the Linux lot spending weeks of their free time, for fun, configuring their install



PS, you didn't answer my question about Outlook Express, Calculator, Paint, Media Player and the virus/firewall software that we get, amongst other tools/trinkets. Why are they ok, but a browser not? ALL software that you could ALWAYS have found and used good alternatives to if you had wanted!

Dave

[Alfa_75_Steve]

Mr Whippy said:

M$ in my view should do what the hell they like. If they had just shut up shop at *any* point in their history, we would be further behind in the world of computing,

I suspect the opposite would be true, actually.

The fact that MS Windows was only available on a very clunky and bodged Intel 80x86 platform has held back computing for years.

I'm still not convinced by Apple's move to Intel architecture.

[scorp]

Alfa_75_Steve said:

Mr Whippy said:

M$ in my view should do what the hell they like. If they had just shut up shop at *any* point in their history, we would be further behind in the world of computing,

I suspect the opposite would be true, actually.

The fact that MS Windows was only available on a very clunky and bodged Intel 80x86 platform has held back computing for years.

I'm still not convinced by Apple's move to Intel architecture.

MS's inefficient software (mostly windows itself) pushed intel to develop faster technology, pushed cheaper ram, etc. So by being a bit bloated it did help hardware development i suppose

They deserve some credit for directX which pushed a lot of technology in graphics processors, althought you might say the same could have happened without windows, but we can only guess at that.

Anyway, as Linus or Microsoft would say, writing operating systems is hard. Not something a lot of companies can pull off well.

Edited by scorp on Sunday 5th July 05:27

[Einion Yrth]

scorp said:

MS's inefficient software (mostly windows itself) pushed intel to develop faster technology, pushed cheaper ram, etc. So by being a bit bloated it did help hardware development i suppose

There is some truth in this, but unfortunately if you're running an M$ platform it's really only a theoretical improvement. M$ can develop slower, buggier software faster than the hardware manufacturers can improve their products' speed to cope.

[Mr Whippy]

Einion Yrth said:

scorp said:

MS's inefficient software (mostly windows itself) pushed intel to develop faster technology, pushed cheaper ram, etc. So by being a bit bloated it did help hardware development i suppose

There is some truth in this, but unfortunately if you're running an M$ platform it's really only a theoretical improvement. M$ can develop slower, buggier software faster than the hardware manufacturers can improve their products' speed to cope.

It's not that bad at all.

I've always spent about £1000 on parts to build my own computers (the box basically), and they have always been and felt faster each time.

I will agree, Vista seems a bit bloated vs Xp for what it needs to be, but it's still fast on a decent machine.
XP64 would probably be ideal for my use, but Vista makes more sense.

I can't grumble, everything works. Our faster dual quad core machines are as fast in the same Adobe apps as our dual quad core Macs... ie, AE and PS etc

Dave

[scorp]

Mr Whippy said:

It's not that bad at all.

I've always spent about £1000 on parts to build my own computers (the box basically), and they have always been and felt faster each time.

I will agree, Vista seems a bit bloated vs Xp for what it needs to be, but it's still fast on a decent machine.
XP64 would probably be ideal for my use, but Vista makes more sense.

I can't grumble, everything works. Our faster dual quad core machines are as fast in the same Adobe apps as our dual quad core Macs... ie, AE and PS etc

Dave

In my experience windows gets progressively slower (particularly the shell / windows explorer) the longer you use it, like after a couple of years, some basic operations like simply bringing up file properties takes tens of seconds. I suppose i could avoid that 'rot' by never installing anything or using the machine much, but that's not very practical. Doing stuff which doesnt rely on the OS so much, like a game, or photoshop or some other heavy app isn't too bad like you say, namely because those programs aren't hitting windows hard (with the exception of directx maybe, which isn't bad at all). I find the hdds are the biggest bottleneck inside PCs, usually made worse with a fragmented filesystem, which for me, is hard to avoid (I write software = lots of short-lived files being made constantly).

Edited by scorp on Monday 6th July 11:26

[HundredthIdiot]

scorp said:

I find the hdds are the biggest bottleneck inside PCs, usually made worse with a fragmented filesystem, which for me, is hard to avoid (I write software = lots of short-lived files being made constantly).

This is a good example of slightly mystifying Microsoft design.

Building a filesystem that doesn't get badly fragmented isn't particularly hard. Why have Microsoft never (AFAIK) bothered doing this? Is there some good reason, or is it just monopoly-induced laziness?

[TeamD]

scorp said:

In my experience windows gets progressively slower (particularly the shell / windows explorer) the longer you use it, like after a couple of years, some basic operations like simply bringing up file properties takes tens of seconds.

I've often wondered whether one would find an inordinate amount of no ops being shunted into the instruction stream if one cared to look hard enough.

[grumbledoak]

Ooh, ooh, a Geeky bandwagon!

File system fragmentation under DOS was a real performance issue. With NTFS, it isn't so pronounced. It does happen, and you can run a defragmentor. But any perceived improvement is rather like the improvement in CD playback you get if you use a green marker pen around the edge!

[Mr Whippy]

scorp said:

Mr Whippy said:

It's not that bad at all.

I've always spent about £1000 on parts to build my own computers (the box basically), and they have always been and felt faster each time.

I will agree, Vista seems a bit bloated vs Xp for what it needs to be, but it's still fast on a decent machine.
XP64 would probably be ideal for my use, but Vista makes more sense.

I can't grumble, everything works. Our faster dual quad core machines are as fast in the same Adobe apps as our dual quad core Macs... ie, AE and PS etc

Dave

In my experience windows gets progressively slower (particularly the shell / windows explorer) the longer you use it, like after a couple of years, some basic operations like simply bringing up file properties takes tens of seconds. I suppose i could avoid that 'rot' by never installing anything or using the machine much, but that's not very practical. Doing stuff which doesnt rely on the OS so much, like a game, or photoshop or some other heavy app isn't too bad like you say, namely because those programs aren't hitting windows hard (with the exception of directx maybe, which isn't bad at all). I find the hdds are the biggest bottleneck inside PCs, usually made worse with a fragmented filesystem, which for me, is hard to avoid (I write software = lots of short-lived files being made constantly).

Yep, HDD's seem to be a bottleneck.

Vista seems better than XP in that respect, but is still very stupid. We've had some gigabit network issues with Vista optimising for the 'multimedia' experience rather than running the gigabit at full speed. Any audio going and network would go down to about 100mbit rather than 1000mbit... so hard to work out what was causing it... grrr!

Lots of little settings you want to tinker with as a more power user. THEN, on our network we are not all admin, which is very frustrating when on Vista I need one of the two admins to install a font for me, or change a registry key, or whatever else.
Vista could do with better user profile rights settings. For now it's easier for them to just lock it all down and open up what you need, but you don't know what you might need until it's a problem... grrr more!


So I have plenty of gripes with Windows, BUT, I can't see what could allow me to do it better right now, and I doubt any other solution right now would be much better irrespective of whether M$ had stuffed IE in with Win95/98/XP

Dave

[scorp]

HundredthIdiot said:

This is a good example of slightly mystifying Microsoft design.

Building a filesystem that doesn't get badly fragmented isn't particularly hard. Why have Microsoft never (AFAIK) bothered doing this? Is there some good reason, or is it just monopoly-induced laziness?

I guess windows likes reading files, for no good reason, all the time. I can hear my laptop hdd quietly grinding away every other second even when i'm sat around not doing anything.. god only knows what it's doing.

I would say filesystem design takes some effort, you would need atleast some guys working on that stuff for a few years. Some of the filesystems used in linux are the product of tens of man-years of development. Shouldn't be prob for a big company like Microsoft though.

Edited by scorp on Monday 6th July 13:59

[tinman0]

scorp said:

I guess windows likes reading files, for no good reason, all the time. I can hear my laptop hdd quietly grinding away every other second even when i'm sat around not doing anything.. god only knows what it's doing.

I would say filesystem design takes some effort, you would need atleast some guys working on that stuff for a few years. Some of the filesystems used in linux are the product of tens of man-years of development. Shouldn't be prob for a big company like Microsoft though.

Sounds like a lack of memory on your machine if it swapping.

There are plenty of filesystems that Microsoft could bolt into Windows if they wanted, but not sure why they would. Also, if they are allowed to seal themselves away as a monopoly, why would they need to make Windows better? They have you all by the balls, many of you want to be had by the balls, so why should MS spend time and money making a better product for you to use?

[Mr Whippy]

tinman0 said:

scorp said:

I guess windows likes reading files, for no good reason, all the time. I can hear my laptop hdd quietly grinding away every other second even when i'm sat around not doing anything.. god only knows what it's doing.

I would say filesystem design takes some effort, you would need atleast some guys working on that stuff for a few years. Some of the filesystems used in linux are the product of tens of man-years of development. Shouldn't be prob for a big company like Microsoft though.

Sounds like a lack of memory on your machine if it swapping.

There are plenty of filesystems that Microsoft could bolt into Windows if they wanted, but not sure why they would. Also, if they are allowed to seal themselves away as a monopoly, why would they need to make Windows better? They have you all by the balls, many of you want to be had by the balls, so why should MS spend time and money making a better product for you to use?

Why are we had by the balls? We can use Mac and Linux for starters... or just not use a computer at all.

It's like saying petrol stations have you by the balls because you own a car, but you don't HAVE to use a car.


As per the swapping thing above, what if it's been sat 15 mins and it's still swapping/grinding away. My HDD activity light is flashing now and again all the time on XP. God knows why.
Solid state memory will be nice when it arrives mainstream. Nice quiet and faster HDD's to munch up the M$ mud

Dave

[HundredthIdiot]

Mr Whippy said:

As per the swapping thing above, what if it's been sat 15 mins and it's still swapping/grinding away. My HDD activity light is flashing now and again all the time on XP. God knows why.

It's probably paging, which ISTR you can prevent by disabling the paging file (if you have enough memory).

Mr Whippy said:

Solid state memory will be nice when it arrives mainstream. Nice quiet and faster HDD's to munch up the M$ mud

Continual paging + SSD = problem, as flash memory has a write limit. This partly explains the initial popularity of Linux on netbooks.

That said, I run an XP laptop with a 120GB SSD and it's fine so far. Wear levelling will probably get me as far as the next disk upgrade.

[Mr Whippy]

HundredthIdiot said:

Mr Whippy said:

As per the swapping thing above, what if it's been sat 15 mins and it's still swapping/grinding away. My HDD activity light is flashing now and again all the time on XP. God knows why.

It's probably paging, which ISTR you can prevent by disabling the paging file (if you have enough memory).

Mr Whippy said:

Solid state memory will be nice when it arrives mainstream. Nice quiet and faster HDD's to munch up the M$ mud

Continual paging + SSD = problem, as flash memory has a write limit. This partly explains the initial popularity of Linux on netbooks.

That said, I run an XP laptop with a 120GB SSD and it's fine so far. Wear levelling will probably get me as far as the next disk upgrade.

But I just don't get it paging when I have 2gig of ram and it's sat idling over night, no apps running at all. Can't it just run in ram as I'm not doing anything with any new data...!?

Yeah, good fast flash memory that won't fail is still pretty expensive. The P2 cards for our Panasonic cameras are pretty steep, but you can write 32 gig and know it's all 100% and will be a month down the line etc... (well, more than normal solid state memory apparently, though I've never had issues with 'cheap' solid state memory)

All changing though, which is good news. HDD's have had massive capacity leaps, almost mid boggling ones really, but the speeds have stayed nowhere near CPU/RAM speeds etc etc... quite looking forward to uber fast solid state 'raptor' style HDD's (guess it's almost getting to be more 'slow' ram, than fast hdd now )

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 6th July 17:01

[cottonfoo]

Alfa_75_Steve said:

The fact that MS Windows was only available on a very clunky and bodged Intel 80x86 platform has held back computing for years.

NT was available for Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC as well as a few others.