On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:06:11 +0100, Erik Funkenbusch wrote
(in article <1f2pgjs8m01c4.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
> On 4 Sep 2006 02:12:57 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>>> By that time it was pretty clear to everyone, I think, that OS/2 was never
>>> going to be much of a success. It had already been out for about 7 years,
>>> and still was only a niche player. The introduction of Dimdows 95 was final
>>> proof, if any was needed, that OS/2 was irrelevant.
>>
>> Actually, that wasn't all that clear in early 1995. Windows 3.1 was
>> very long in the tooth, crashed or hung 3-5 times per day, and could
>> barely support a 9600 baud modem even though 56kb modems were available
>> and functional. Windows NT 3.x was a dismal flop, selling less than
>> 10% of expected sales, prompting Microsoft to repackage it as a server.
>
> No, Rex. The first 56Kb modem was released in 1997. The USR X2 and
> Rockwell K56Flex. Stop making shit up.
>
> http://ittimes.ucdavis.edu/v6n5feb98/cait.html
Rex sometimes has total recall of events that never happened...
<...>
>> Competition is when you offer a selection of products and your buyer
>> selects those products which it actually desires. The Vendor provides
>> only those products and make no restrictions on those products. For
>> example, if the OEMs decided that they could, and wanted to, put Linux
>> and Windows on the same hard drive, and let the end user choose which
>> system would be started at boot-up, that would be competition.
>
> No, that would not be competition. "Competition" is the act of competing.
> It has nothing to do with whether or not any of the participants even
> finish the "race", much less whether they make it to the customers
> doorstep.
The "finding of facts" in the earlier DoJ case denies that.
>> When a supplier "Makes you an offer you can't refuse" and demands that
>> you stop doing business with other competitors, and stop making
>> announcements that are "upsetting to the boss", and threatens dire but
>> unspecified consequences if you do not cooperate completely with the
>> wishes of "the boss", that's called extortion!
>
> You really need to look up the meanings of these words you use. They don't
> mean what you think they do. You use the word "ironically" wrong all the
> time, you don't seem to know what competition means, and you claim that a
> company that freely agrees to a licensing agreement is being "extorted"
> because they can't break the terms of the license they agreed to.
You need to look up the meaning of the word "freely".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/05/24/unsealed_caldera_documents_expose_ms/
"Joachim Kempin (in charge of Microsoft OEM Sales) to Mike Hallman (Microsoft
President). "I took the opportunity to negotiate with him [Lieven] in German,
sign our offer as is... Second option - scratch the DOS clause [refuse
Microsoft's demand that Vobis sign a per processor license for MS-DOS]; and
pay $35 for Windows instead of $15..."
Of course Vobis chose to drop DR-DOS. Anything else, given those terms, was
commercial suicide.
There's no "freedom" under these circumstances. There are striking parallels
with Rockefeller's oil wars at the turn of the last century. Standard Oil was
broken up as a result, and if the US government had had the cojones Microsoft
would have been broken up also.
Had they been broken up we'd have seen a more robust software market today,
benefitting everyone, the various "baby Bills" included. As it is, Microsoft
is entering a period of decline, and the success or otherwise of Vista will
determine if that decline is terminal.
<snip>
--
Peter
|
|
