quote:
Hey guyes...i've got new sub for conversation...do you really think M$ has monopoly over computer market? and what do you think opver M$ was sued...dudes..i am serious sop give me real ans...
With a market share of over 90%, there is no question but that M$ does, indeed, have a monopoly. Having a monopoly, in and of itself, is NBD, nor something that's not permitted.
After all, His Gatesness got real lucky in a couple of regards. M$ was basically a garage outfit, known for just one single product: a BASIC interpreter. They had
no great reputation other than as a supplier to the hobbyists. However, his mother knew someone high up in the executive ranks of IBM, and was able to convince IBM to talk to him about an op-sys for the IBM PC. Basically, His Gatesness lied like a rug, telling IBM that he had an op-sys. Luckily for Gates, he was then able to buy Q-DOS. Again, he got lucky, and IBM didn't demand an exclusive contract. Anyone could buy what then became MS-DOS. Once Phoenix found a way to legally "pirate" the IBM BIOS, other companies could put together their own IBM "compatables" or "clones", and sell them for a lot less than IBM as they didn't have the R & D overhead to pay off. And they could buy the same exact MS-DOS to run on them. Despite the fact that IBM PCs were technically inferior and pretty much a joke, by the early 1980s, they took over. The compatibles were cheap, the platform relatively uniform, so the coders wrote mainly for this platform. More soft to run on them led to even more sales, leading to more soft being written, and thus a self-feeding loop started that put M$ over the top. There is nothing wrong with any of this,
per se.
Where M$ ran into trouble was in the dirty dealings that were meant to perpetuate the monopoly by inflicting injuries on potential competitors. These being, amoung others, Spyglass: from whom His Gatesness stole the technology for Internet Explorer. (M$ promised royalties on sales, then went and gave IE away for free, thus: no sales, no royalties. :mad: ) Next came Netscape. M$ integrated IE tightly into the Win 95 OS, so it couldn't easily be removed, and gave it away, doing great harm to Netscape. Win 95 users already had a free browser; they weren't going to pay for Netscape. Other companies would end up getting screwed: Stac Electronics, Digital Research, Blue Mountain, Borland, Be Inc., and others as well. This behavior definitely wasn't legit, and resulted in the anti-trust suit.
The M$ monopoly had one other side-effect: they took the easy way out. Since they had a huge market share, they never bothered to put out a quality product. It was easier to use marketing to convince a largely atechnological public that OS crashes -- the infamous BSOD -- were
normal, that the proliferation of all those worms, Trojans, and virii were due to the evil genius of "hackers" and that there wasn't much that could be done about it, that slimey EULAs, WPA, intrusive "update" services are necessary to fight "pirates" and protect "intellectual property". What did the atechnological masses know? How many of them had ever had any experience with computers until they bought their first "Wintel" rig? Given the strangle-hold on the OEMs, how would they ever see a system running something other than Winderz? For a long time, they never did. Be Inc. couldn't do anything about it, even though the "Be Box" was such a cool system: there just wasn't any soft to run on it as no one would write for any platform other than Winderz.
However, the public can't be kept st00pid forever. There's only so much that they'll take, and they're rapidly reaching their tolerance. Also, the open source model adopted by Linux couldn't be stopped by M$. You can't kill a competitor that's not a company.
The chickens are starting to return to Redmond to roost.
______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
Their fundamental design flaws are completely concealed by their superficial design flaws.
