Microsoft trying to squeeze others out?

I don't think so. People just don't understand the position of accesories bundled with OS. But from what i see they obviosuly prefer just kernel without anything around it. Also let's get rid of the nice GUI because this way MS is trying to squeez out TGTSoft and Stardock. MS Paint is most obviosly squezing out Adobe Photoshop and Jasc Paintshop Pro, not to mention Wordpad squeezing out OpenOffice. Disk cleanup tool is also squeezing out System Mechanic/Norton SystemWorks and not to mention Disk Defragmenter!
Ahead also cannot live well since Windows XP integrated CD burning is eating their market share. C'mon get real. If people can't find all the goodies in these days then they shouldn't use PC's at all. Sorry but thats my point.
Search engines usage is the base to even use internet properly
There is no other way to find other things.

Here are pure examples that ANYONE could search for them.

Google:
You search for other browsers? Type "browser" in it and press ENTER.
Well well well. First link is Mozilla, second is Netscape and third is Opera.
MS Internet Explorer is only 6th!
Really hard i must say...

Wanna find other media players? Type "player"...
First result is RealPlayer,QuickTime is third and WinAMP is 4th.
Windows Media Player is 5th!

Need new antivirus? Type in "antivirus". Tada!
First result is Symantec, second is McAfee, third is AVG, 4th Trend Micro and 5th Panda. avast! and AntiVir are 6th and 7th.

Need firewall? Type "firewall".
First is ZoneAlarm, second is Symantec, 3rd Sygate and then 4th Checkpoint and 5th Tiny.

ANd i can go the same for anything else people want to complain.

Now look back and you'll see i used the most basic terms.
I could use "audio player" instead of just "player" to get even precise results.
Same could do to dig out just video players. You don't need any complex syntaxes to search, just the most basic terms we use every day.
Thats why i'm so pissed of when people start to compalin about it instead actually typing those god damn few letters in any search engine.
I'm sure Yahoo and lets say Altavista would produce quiet similar results.
But no it's easier to fill a lawsuit against MS than just TRY to type those terms in search engine. God, where is this world going!?
Sue anyone just to satisfy our ego and feeling we did something for the "majority"? Damn majority doesn't complain about integrated media players and instant messagers...

 

I guess they did to PsP...it`s now owned by Corel. Oh oh they`re next.

 

I have to agree with RejZoR, his points prove there's no real argument

 

What ever Microsoft and Bill Gates are "supposed" to have done one thing should be remembered...someone had the vision,determination and courage to go out there and give the world the means to use computers,something that was once the preserve of the "gifted" few.

Millions of people now have access to information,help,health and wealth that they could never have dreamed of.People aged 2 to 102 can use these things now and plenty of others have jumped on the wagon and made fortunes that without BG and MS they would never have seen.

I am not the biggest fan of MS or BG but prople love to knock those that succeed,.would they be complaining if they had found a cure for all major illnesses? Would they say that this is unfair,probably they would get accused of exploiting the sick!

 

There is only one thing stopping that from becoming a reality.....the lawsuits from the EU and elsewhere.

 

To everyone who doesn't believe that Microsoft are abusing their power/position, get real.
To everyone who believes that the result of this pursuit is a better deal for consumers, get real.

 

The fact is that Windows is by far the most used OS.
and there is no real competition left in this end-user OS market part.
All other OS-es (payed or unpayed) can't be compared on that.
So therefor it must be clear that MS has a monopoly.
It is very naive to think that Internet Explorer,
wasn't built-in the OS since v4.0 without an uninstall option
without a reason, ask the people who worked at Netscape that time
what happened.

The same for the other apps that are mentioned in this thread.

I've been around for a very long time here, and i have seen companies come and go.
Nice companies taken over, and products stopped that way.
the speed that this industry was developing, has dramatically slowed down
because of this monopoly.

And lot's of new idea's and applications have died out because of the larger companies that killed those.

You can't go to the shop and say give me the other OS on the shelf,
and have just as much software available for it.
or that has about the same market share.

So yes, competition has died out.
----------------------------------------------
That is why it can take 6 years before a new OS comes out
that will have a market share > 30%
Let's be honest, XP needs 20 Security programs, for it can be used
in a safe way, and there is no other OS that the end-user can buy.

That is like having one brand of car that has a market share of
90% with enormous safety problems.
And you need to take 20 sets of tools every day for each trip you
make otherwise it will brake down.

6 years for a new OS, just think what would have happened if there
were just 5 companies like MS, that where competing in a normal way,
trying to bring out new products, for other would do.

There is a story that if MS would decide to go sell Televisions,
with their PR /marketing budget they could give every one in the US
a Television set for 5$, and if all other brands are dead,
sell them for a very high price.

What is the price of XP PROF with Office ?
I don't think that if so many copies are sold this is a normal price.

and i know that there are people that think that MS is very clever
to come so far with this monopoly

For those be happy, and donate some more money to the richest
company of the world.

for me, i live of computer support, and with MS, there is a lot of work
to do.
But i would have had a better feeling, if end-users could
choose which brand of OS they wanted.
Again, in the end the all have to select the same one.

Except a few insiders, or people with more OS-es knowledge.

I understand that if you choose a product, and go for it,
then you don't like others being negative about it.

But working with computers for more then 30 years now,
and working with lots of OS-es all those years.
I am not happy with this monopoly.

Hewlett Packard and Sun Microsystems etc. had REAL FULL 64bits OS-es
Fiber-optic disks,already 8 years ago, multi-threading, multi-tasking.

but how long, before we see this at MS?

 

...And for the new computer users that haven't gotten that far, that don't yet know how to download and install a program, they have the bundled apps to start them off, to whet their appetites for more. Then they're free to find alternatives, and usually do, or continue using the bundled apps at least knowing of alternatives.

Bundled software provides a baseline. It gives the new users what they need to get started. It frees up resources (think tech support), for MS and for companies that provide services (like ISPs), for other things.

I ask again, how you appease literally billions of people all at once? Make sure to include the brand new users for whom downloading and installing may not be an option, as well as all of the business customers and developing countries? You'll also need to keep tech support in mind, both for your own as well as other companies. Sorry, but we techy types are the minority. Anyone that's dealt with the masses (offline) knows how irrational they can be about computer stuff, and knows about the hand-holding that's required, and how much of a pain it can be to try to get them to install stuff and get it set up. That's not always a bad thing, there are lots of people that legitimately do not have time to learn all that we know about computers, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the same resources that we do.. in some cases, they may even have more legitimate needs for such communication and convenience without spending as much time as we do learning.

I partially agree with the idea of having a separate CD full of other apps, but then you run into issues of what to include without crushing out even more small guys in favor of a few select companies, as it would effectively be advertisement. Maybe if they had a one-click software store along the lines of what Linspire does, but then you'll still have plenty of companies crying foul, and it would incur more costs to build and maintain.. and guess who that buck would be passed down to. Sounds to me like that's a better job for the OEMs, leave the basics in the OS itself.. just enough to do everything you need without a lot of perks

nLite is free, and XPLite has a limited freeware version. If MS let you remove everything, like they did in 9x, their support lines get clogged with people needing help when things don't work right because they removed the necessary components. Reduce support costs and you can reduce prices (or make more free offerings). An advanced user that wants to remove things that shouldn't be removed in the first place, cognizant of the fact that MS won't help them, can hunt down apps like nLite or XPLite.

It seems to me that this illustrates how rediculous our society has become about needing the media to guide them, more than it says anything about MS at all. It's just a fact of life that without advertising, most people will never know a product exists, and the more advertising a company does, the more likely they are to succeed, regardless of the product's own merits (or lack thereof).

By this reasoning, DRM should have never entered this thread in the first place.. the thread is about MS trying to crush security software vendors by making their AV incompatible with other AVs. Again, my point was not to jusify MS' actions, but rather to illustrate that they do not have a monopoly on DRM, and do not deserve 100% blame. As far as that goes, companies like Sony and Universal have done worse with their rootkit that reports what you're playing when you play it, makes it so you can ONLY use their player to listen to the CD, serves up ads, potentially disables your CDROM from being used any other way, and made it impossible to remove (before Mark Russinovich found it). There are more productive ways to approach these issues that could stop this kind of behavior across the board, than just pointing the finger at MS. I'm sure they will happen, but it's going to take some technically saavy politicians to come up with some sound laws on the matter, and it will require a greater overall view of the issue.

I'm not going to argue that MS didn't do some pretty sleazy things in the past, but MS has been cleaning up their act. Yes, it has taken some lawsuits, but very few corporations are intrinsically altruistic.. that's the nature of business to begin with (that's not a justification either, it's a fact of life). Lets not loose the forest for the trees here (which is starting to happen), the point being made is that MS bashing has become popular for nearly anything anyone is unhappy about regarding computers, and a lot of the MS bashing is not justified, necessary, balanced, or productive, and you don't see the same kind of bashing elsewhere, even when another company does the same things or worse. MS had reasons for bundling in these things, and it wasn't just greed - neither is OneCare - it's a response to criticizm that they don't care about customers' security. They didn't just bundle in this stuff because they wanted to kill off everyone else, otherwise they would have done a lot more. I used to be an MS basher as well, then I learned a little more about business, and one day I tried to look at it from their view; being responsible for the computing experience of literally billions of people and the foundation for millions of other software apps. When you do that, it's not that hard to see why some of this stuff is the way it is.

Conclusion: Past behavior, and behavior in other markets, aside, it is not correct, fair, justified, balanced, or productive to claim that MS is trying to kill off other AV companies just because their AV isn't compatible with a handful of others. That's just the way antivirus programs are. Past behavior in other markets, real or percieved, does not justify that claim.

 

.
I think your are correct, IF microsoft releases it's AntiVirus separate from the OS, and makes a normal deinstall possible.
And would sell it as an extra product in another box on the shelf.
That would be a honest way to do business.

If it is built in the future in Service Packs, or the OS,
and can't be De-installed like other progs or AV's can,
then of course you also must conclude that they are trying to kill
other AV's of the market.

We'll wait and see, i hope you are correct,
and that MS learned about the fact that they have lost to many
cases in court regarding their monopoly.

It is not only about winning or not, and is also about doing business in
a decent, fair way.

I still think it is strange that AT&T had to split up in the 70's-80's because of their monopoly, and that MS doesn't have to do that.

 

MS Antivirus WILL be sold separetelly. But sometimes they're forced to do that step. Anyone remeber windows without firewall? Most of people didn't even know what firewall is and so milions of Windows OS were unprotected.
Sure XP's have the firewall but it's very very basic. Even if they'd add simple outbound program control that would just check if app wants to connect regardless of what it will be sent (packets) and that would be still ok.
This is still very limited compared to advanced features of other firewalls.
But on other hand there are some users taht actually prefer simplicity over advanced stuff. I know there are loads of firewalls, yet i prefer WinXP SP2 firewall. It does it job well and doesn't slow down anything or bug me for each packet i get/send.

 

Conclusion: Past behavior, and behavior in other markets, aside, it is not correct, fair, justified, balanced, or productive to claim that MS is trying to kill off other AV companies just because their AV isn't compatible with a handful of others. That's just the way antivirus programs are. Past behavior in other markets, real or percieved, does not justify that claim.[/QUOTE]

Pardon me while I wet myself laughing...past behaviour
Microsoft will be in court again before long, and for people saying that it's easier to make lawsuits well that's nonsense.
Microsoft have the resourses to buy the best legal team to represent themselves in the courts, yet they still lose.

 

Nonsense? How come thats happening over and over again?
I have nothing against true lawsuites ut not garbage ones like this crap regarding integrated media player, IM's and other software.
Why no one complains because some car manufacturers integrate stereo players, air conditioning, electric driven windows, car alarm and extra winter tyres for same price like others offer just plain car without extra goodies? No lawsuites. Isn't that weird? But they are pushing away possible competition from competitive audio manufacturers, tyre copmpanies, alarm vendors and air conditioning companies? This example might have nothing in common but describes it the best. Just don't say you can always change tyres, car stereo, alarm and other stuff, coz you CAN do the same in Windows.

 

If you can change the tyres of your car, your old tyres are gone and replaced by new ones.
If you install another browser under Windows, your old browser (MSIE) is still there, because you can't remove it.

 

Why would you want to? To get your Windows Update broken maybe? Sure go for it. I always god damn wonder why people want to remove everything if other programs will work EXACTLY the same whether that app is somewhere on the HDD or not. It's just a matter of dumb principals and i hate that.

 

IMHO your conclusion is right

 

In earlier days i was thinking exact the same direction.

Now not anymore.

At this time i have a more balanced opinion then before, i admit, M$ concerning i was always thinking black-white, but in fact it wasn't fair to think that way.

And for those people who are thinking the way i did before what concerns M$: there is no law which tell us to buy M$-products, when the people don't like M$ why not a switch to f.e. Linux?

 

Please don't get angry because others have a different opinion.
Complete wars have started that way.

I respect your feelings and idea's about this, but for me there is
a logical reason for this.

I've been working with Internet browsers since Mosaic, on several
platforms.
And have the worst experiences with IE.
without talking about security issues, which is for me the main
reason not to want IE, it is also regarding performance.

If you visit a lot of websites and built up the diskcache this way, this will slow down your complete system, because of the intergration with the OS.

Also the idea that a webbrowser is used to update your system,
is really a nighmare for me.

And the fact that IE is not w3c compatible (only) is a thing
what i also dislike.

The fact that your startpages is altered by MS itself and can be done by others, etc. etc. also are make me prefer others.

But the main reason, to get back on topic here, is that others (platforms/browsers) have better browser implementations, and experiences with those make me unhappy with IE.

I think that is the reason why some of us here are not so positive
regarding MS, not only their indecent way to do business only
(fact: lost many court cases regarding this.)
but the experience with other OS-es en software, and know who they work under de hood, and how they are designed, against the poor implementation of MS.
And the fact that every new OS version or product version is the same as the previous one,
plus 10 times extra overhead and diskspace

Instead of selling a Antivirus product, it would be better that they really would improve their OS-design regarding security.

Like using a MMU, use multiple authorisation levels for applications.
and processe,so they can't harm each other.
Dump the whole idea of a (very unsafe) registry.
Dump the idea that applications can write in system directories,
or even worse overwrite systemfiles. etc. etc.

And the strange part of it all, this all has been done lots of times,
there are lots of OS-es that have solved this problems.
So they really don't have to re-invent the wheel.

I hope that MS gets a normal marketshare with their AV,
and that it will not squeeze out the others.
But history proofs that people not always buy the best, but
prefer to buy well-known.

 

I am sure most of you by now have tried Knoppix's CD. There is way more apps on that cd then you ever would need. I mean it includes two browsers, StarOffice, GAIM for instant messenging, Ethereal, ect ect ect.
Almost every good program built today includes a version for Linux.
I am just not so sure Linux can be sold to the normal household user at this time.

One thing to remember!!!
If those of that frequent this forum were to stop using Windows, would we be happy? I think we are addicted to testing software and finding bugs and know it helps the world in some small way. WOuld we still do this if we completly switched to Linux? LOL

controler

 

you are correct, that is why i run more os-es
and XP included ( a few pc's with a KVM switch)

Windows Security is still work and hobby for me,
and i think there is no end in sight yet.

lol

 

They have just lost another case, this time in South Korea.

 

Tuatara hit the nail on the head with the most important point in the whole debate...

"Instead of selling a Antivirus product, it would be better that they really would improve their OS-design regarding security."

Instead, Microsoft, are going to charge US money to secure THEIR poorly designed OS (which we also pay for).
If this fact alone doesn't alert you to Microsoft's priorities (profit and not customer safety) then nothing will.

 

And you people think something as complex as OS can be re-build over night!?
Just see how much developement requres one simple thing like antivirus (ALONE!). And you dare (yes dare) to say they should fix the OS?
Sure no problem just replace few lines of code. Sure
OS consists thousand of thousands lines of code, very low level, high level, incredible amounts of dependencies on subsystems, strandards that MUST be followed, maintaining user friendlyness, speed and compatibility.
I'm not saying it will never be done but you can't say they should do it in few days. It's impossible. It may take years to rebuild the core and everything around it, send all software and hardware vendors the specs, SDK's etc to recode their drivers, send all of them back to MS to verify them etc etc etc...
The list is just going on and on...
And all this involves massive amounts of resources ($$$), manpower and time.
As you know Vista will be significanzly improved but who knows more...
Also MS is building OS from scratch if you don't know yet, but thats probably still years away...

 

I have read this thread and understand the frustration with Microsofts business practices. I have read where a lot of you think Microsoft is a monoply. MS is not a monoply, not with dozens of other operating systems available. Many of them free, although the Linux Os's aren't anywhere as user friendly they are out there to use which lets MS off the hook as a monoply.

I am still in the mindset that if you don't like Microsofts way of doing business or you have issues with their OS you don't have to use it. But to be able to do the things on your computer with Linux that you take for granted with windows you had better be a decent programer to get linux to do anything near what a six year old can do with windows. Even though you might not like the way MS conducts itself there is no equal alternative available.

 

Not to mention all the other programmers that will be mad because they will have to start everything over from scratch. Like you say, there's a lot that goes into it. One thing they are doing, that I forgot to mention, is implementing a lot of new standards with the 64bit operating system. They've basically said that from here on forward, we are all going to be more security conscious about our programming. They are making steps, but as you say; it's not going to happen overnight.

 

No, the don't have to rebuild is in a day.

But 6 years !!!! for a new OS, for the richest company in the world,
who can pay more porgrammers and have more resources then there
where ever available for any computer company in the last 20 years.

Yes, they had to decide not to built further on the old design,
but completely built a new OS.

There are lots of other OS-es that are built with less man-hours.

So it is not a matter of time, or manpower, it is about
do they have the guts to make a new OS, which is perhaps
not downwards compatible, but works better and safer.

Or are they working for 6 years now, on a os that
is based on XP plus 10 times more program-lines ?

You are totally right Bigc, and there is not another company left,
that is able to create a OS that is just as simple for a six years old.

So sadly for simple users, there is no alternative because of their monopoly.
Again it was better, if you could choose between 5 other companies that
where making a simular OS.
But those companies are gone, died out and have completely lost
market share on this field.