# Microsoft as a scapegoat for other software developers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176 "2004-03-24T19:49:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Planet\_of\_the\_Shapes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b77776/32.png) [@Planet\_of\_the\_Shapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Planet_of_the_Shapes)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/21 "2004-03-25T00:01:43Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > I see what you mean by this, and see how a monopoly would affect all of these factors. In fact, I would like to see more competition (in some fields), so some of those benefits may be reaped. For example, my parents live in an area of St. Louis where only 1 cable company provides service. That company charges a _lot_, and provides service that is sub-par, compared to other cable companies in the surrounding area(s). I am sure that this would change, if competition came into the area. It seems you don’t fully understand how crucial competition is to a market based economy. It is the most important reason why capitalism is as successful as it is. > [@](#): > > I think I understand what you are meaning here. Do you think it would make a difference (to the EU et. al) if MS didn’t bundle things like Media Player with the OS, and just had people download the app(s) like the competition? I agree that that seems a little more “fair” on one level, but it also seems really “unfair” on another. First, it seems ridiculous to me that I would have to take the time/bandwidth/etc to download an application that was developed by the same company that developed my OS. It just seems counter-productive, and wasteful of consumers’ time. It also sounds to me like MS is getting the raw end of the deal, only because they have developed an OS. The bundling is exactly what the EU is unhappy about. The EU ruling fines Microsoft, and also requires them to stop bundling the player with the OS. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean you have to download it - system vendors like Dell are still free to bundle the MS media player, or Real player or whatever they chose with a new system. The point is that users, or system vendors, should chose, not MS. I don’t see how MS is getting a raw deal out of this, they are getting a fair deal. Imagine if government legislation required that Real player be included with all new computers. This legislation is then cancelled after five years. Would that mean Real were getting a raw deal? No, it would mean they used to have an unfair advantage, but that was being removed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/22 "2004-03-25T00:32:38Z")
> [@Planet of the Shapes](#): > > The bundling is exactly what the EU is unhappy about. The EU ruling fines Microsoft, and also requires them to stop bundling the player with the OS. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean you have to download it - system vendors like Dell are still free to bundle the MS media player, or Real player or whatever they chose with a new system. The point is that users, or system vendors, should chose, not MS. Not quite. MS is allowed to bundle the player, as long as they offer an alternative, uncrippled, version of Windows unbundled. I wonder if LilShieste has ever helped a novice computer user. Having to download is a big obstacle for most people, something they won’t do unless they’ve had someone holding their hands. It took over five years before my father-in-law was comfortable enough to download Mozilla by himself. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/23 "2004-03-25T01:26:17Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with bundling in and of itself; it’s a benefit. It’s when a monopolist bundles that there’s a problem, namely the anti-competitive effect of pre-empting the market that leads to a secondary monopoly. I see. That makes sense. But my question then is: wasn’t the whole “monopoly issue” taken care of already? I guess I’m not very familiar with what happened to MS after the anti-trust suit. I thought they were split up in a way, that would help eliminate the ways (or keep in check) MS conducted any monopolistic actions. Is this what happened, or were they simply fined? (I am asking this in all seriousness.) > [@Voyager](#): > > Have you read the EU decision? They require MS to offer a version of Windows without WMP bundled, and forbid them to force computer suppliers to take the version with WMP by direct or indirect incentives. This way the computer manufacturer, not Microsoft, gets to decide which media player gets bundled. MS’s argument was that Windows wouldn’t work without WMP, which, if you know anything at all about OS’s, is total crap. Ok, well I definitely have to say “WTF was MS thinking with that last comment?!” I have a B.S. in Computer Science, so I do know the general workings of an operating system (or rather, how they _should_ be). I would certainly have a hard time believing MS made Media Player a center-piece for its OS. If they did… \ good Christ. > [@Voyager](#): > > As for consumer value, ever wonder why IE is the only browser without built-in pop-up blocking? Maybe because after they wiped out Netscape they don’t give a crap? I won’t touch IE (not the least from the many security holes) but I understand it is slow and feature-free. You and I might be comfortable downloading good browsers, but Joe or Jane computer user, who are scared of doing anything except sticking a CD in, won’t. I guess I had just been looking at it a little differently. I figured that IE was feature-less because all people generally need out of a browser is the bare essentials. I would agree that a lot of people like to play around with other browsers (but like you said, not your average Joe or Jane), and see what different types of options are available. > [@Planet of the Shapes](#): > > It seems you don’t fully understand how crucial competition is to a market based economy. It is the most important reason why capitalism is as successful as it is. Well, I thought I _had_ understood how crucial competition is to a market based economy. Could you please enlighten me on what was wrong with my example involving the cable company? > [@Voyager](#): > > I wonder if LilShieste has ever helped a novice computer user. Having to download is a big obstacle for most people, something they won’t do unless they’ve had someone holding their hands. It took over five years before my father-in-law was comfortable enough to download Mozilla by himself. Well, my parents - with all due respect - are among the most computer illiterate people on the planet (especially my dad). So I definitely have been in _that_ boat. It is people like this that I am primarily thinking about, though, with all of this (or rather, I would like to think so). If what **Planet of the Shapes** was describing is true (about PC distributors being able to bundle the software), then that’s fine by me. Sounds perfectly reasonable. I am just worried that things are going to get out of hand, with this bundling problem, and people like my parents are going to have to download applications, or ask for certain features to be explicitly placed on their computers (if they were to buy from a vendor). I’m just worried that all of this is going to backlash onto the consumers, in the end. Well, _that_, and the idea that Windows might be centered around Media Player. :eek: LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/24 "2004-03-25T02:05:25Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > I see. That makes sense. But my question then is: wasn’t the whole “monopoly issue” taken care of already? I guess I’m not very familiar with what happened to MS after the anti-trust suit. I thought they were split up in a way, that would help eliminate the ways (or keep in check) MS conducted any monopolistic actions. Is this what happened, or were they simply fined? (I am asking this in all seriousness.) First of all, the anti-trust suit only applied in the US, and the remedies got eviscerated by the appeals court. So, besides some fairly minor things about pricing by OEMs, not much happened. Even the court is now beginning to wonder if MS is abidiing by the judgement, but I doubt anything is going to happen - certainly not under the current administration. > [@](#): > > Ok, well I definitely have to say “WTF was MS thinking with that last comment?!” I have a B.S. in Computer Science, so I do know the general workings of an operating system (or rather, how they _should_ be). I would certainly have a hard time believing MS made Media Player a center-piece for its OS. If they did… \ good Christ. You must not have been following the US trial then, when MS claimed that IE was an integral part of the OS. There is a book on the trial based on a long account in Wired (where I read it.) Take a look. It is fascinating. But MS making this claim is an indication of their arrogance, not their technical ignorance. They are not dumb. Maybe not smart enough to overcome the fundamentally broken architecture of Windows, but not dumb. > [@](#): > > I guess I had just been looking at it a little differently. I figured that IE was feature-less because all people generally need out of a browser is the bare essentials. I would agree that a lot of people like to play around with other browsers (but like you said, not your average Joe or Jane), and see what different types of options are available. Pop-ups are a big deal to a lot of people, and AOL now is making pop-up blocking an advertised feature. When I was using an old Netscape I downloaded a standalong blocker, which was a pain. Adding it is not that difficult - any company with real competition would do it. I worked for the Bell System before the breakup in 1984. Though everyone I knew was committed to the public interest, the very fact that we were a monopoly hurt innovation. Forcing people to lease phones made it very simple, but it also meant that there was a disincentive to churn the installed base. Microsoft makes money from upgrades and new PCs. Why improve IE when you can try to get people to sign up for MSN, or perhaps put the feature in Windows - next as an incentive to upgrade? > [@](#): > > Well, my parents - with all due respect - are among the most computer illiterate people on the planet (especially my dad). So I definitely have been in _that_ boat. It is people like this that I am primarily thinking about, though, with all of this (or rather, I would like to think so). If what **Planet of the Shapes** was describing is true (about PC distributors being able to bundle the software), then that’s fine by me. Sounds perfectly reasonable. I am just worried that things are going to get out of hand, with this bundling problem, and people like my parents are going to have to download applications, or ask for certain features to be explicitly placed on their computers (if they were to buy from a vendor). Just like with cars, vendors would sell PCs with bundles of apps to maximize sales, all pre-installed and pre-tested for compatibility. Chances are the market would soon find a set that would minimize the need for downloading. I doubt many people really care about WMP vs. Real, as long as it works. Competition would minimize cost also. (Windows is darn expensive, though you don’t have much of a choice. A Linux box can be much cheaper.) Won’t happen here, though. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/25 "2004-03-25T02:13:02Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > I see. That makes sense. But my question then is: wasn’t the whole “monopoly issue” taken care of already? I guess I’m not very familiar with what happened to MS after the anti-trust suit. I thought they were split up in a way, that would help eliminate the ways (or keep in check) MS conducted any monopolistic actions. Is this what happened, or were they simply fined? (I am asking this in all seriousness.) Eric? Eric Rudolph? This is a thumbnail sketch, but it goes like this: in the trial, Penfield threw the book at them: ordered them broken up into multiple entities. The appeals court overturned several of his findings of law (the equivalent of saying not guilty’ on several counts), but fundamentally allowed the finding of ‘abusive monopolist’ to stand, and turned it over to another judge for new penalties. Then Bush got elected, and the Justice Department settled with a set of ridiculously ineffectual oversight requirements that amounted to a presidential pardon (referred to by some as a “Seattlement”). > [@LilShieste](#): > > Well, I thought I _had_ understood how crucial competition is to a market based economy. Could you please enlighten me on what was wrong with my example involving the cable company? There was nothing wrong with the example, but the degree to which real competition is crucial to capitalism is pretty strong. ---
**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/26 "2004-03-25T03:00:45Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > You can argue the logic of bundling all you want, but you’re missing the point. There’s nothing wrong with bundling in and of itself; it’s a benefit. It’s when a **monopolist** bundles that there’s a problem, namely the anti-competitive effect of _pre-empting_ the market that leads to a secondary monopoly. > > Get it? It’s not the bundling, it’s the leveraging that’s a problem to the EU (and to American) anti-trust officials. Exactly, and that’s why the proposed original remedy (breaking them into an OS and apps or an OS, Office and apps company) would have made so much sense and avoided all the ugliness that has transpired since the court’s ruling. Instead, nothing has really changed. ---
**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/27 "2004-03-25T03:28:20Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > First, it seems ridiculous to me that I would have to take the time/bandwidth/etc to download an application that was developed by the same company that developed my OS. It just seems counter-productive, and wasteful of consumers’ time. It also sounds to me like MS is getting the raw end of the deal, only because they have developed an OS. It’s only wasteful of time if you assume the consumer _wants_ WMP in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@Bob\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/28 "2004-03-25T04:17:58Z")
> [@Inoshiro](#): > > Now you’re making the EU’s case for them. That’s part of the point. WMP is already there and you have to download the other programs. This is an advantage for MS, which controls most of the desktops. MS has used this strategy before to destroy competition as with Explorer. But its _free_. Windows Media Player is free. Reduced-feature versions of Quicktime and Real Player are also free (it bears repeating: Reduced feature. You do not get as much functionality out of the free versions of Real Player and Quicktime as you do from Media Player.) This is annoyingly like the Netscape issue some years back: Company A is taking Company B to task for…giving away _free_ stuff. Trick is, Company A is also giving away products for free! > [@](#): > > If you don’t like downloading updates you shouldn’t be using an OS that requires constant “security” updates to keep it from being turned into a zombie for use by spammers and hackers. I would be quite interested in a update-free secure OS; Which one are you talking about? > [@](#): > > Sure, it’s all their fault that they can’t compete properly with a company that has 90+% market share in the desktop and has used techniques to exclude competition that have been found illegal and criminal in the US. Again the issue of _free_ rises up. Anyone can get Linux, free as can possibly be. But still, they pay whatever the OEM cost is (when buying a bundled PC) and get the MS product. If the competition cannot even give away their product to beat their competitor, well, it’s a lost cause. > [@scotandrsn](#): > > …In recent versions of Windows, IE was so tightly bound to the operating system that it was really difficult to even run competitors browsers on Windows. Is this anecdotal, or are there demonstrable cases showing that a browser could not be run? (or be difficult to run; Need to triple-click it? :)) > [@](#): > > Rumors also abound that the source code for Microsoft Word contains several hundred thousand lines of code that don’t seem to have any function at all, but can’t be removed because removal causes the program to crash. And I truly mean no offense, but this is a very typical and telling statement. Anti-MS sentiment is now repleat with its own urban legends about functionless code? I don’t doubt that many believe it, but look at it logically: If the code truely did nothing, it would be removable. If application stability suffers from the removal of the code, then the code serves a purpose. > [@](#): > > One must wonder if Microsoft products would maintain their dominance if subjected to a fair playing field. As I addressed above, (some of) the competion _gives away_ its product, and they still ‘cannot compete’. I am firmly in the ‘MS makes a superior desktop product’ camp (though OSX would have some potentional if only Apple ported to x86). Still, the competetion is out there. Their own inability to make a comparable product can hardly be Microsofts fault. > [@](#): > > About 6 years ago, I met a programmer who used to work for a company that created PC software. After several problems occurred, they paid Microsoft a hefty fee to improve their interoperability. It turned out that their code lacked a command called “stacks”. "Stacks didn’t actually do anything, but that version of DOS was built in such a way that if “stacks” wasn’t there, the program would not function correctly, and might not even start at all. It was Microsoft’s way of ensuring that anyone who wanted to put quality software in their OS was in their pocket. ‘Stacks’ are most certainly **not** useless little widgets; they are method of handling dataflow from memory. One cannot load a ‘stack’ as they would load a program, it is part of the logic of the OS. > [@Inoshiro](#): > > You had to reboot, huh? Again, you’re making my arguments for me. Windows is the only widely used OS that requires all that stupid rebooting. I update software on my Linux machines all the time. A reboot is never necessary. **Never** , eh? 🙂 > [@](#): > > Per the above, I do not consider waiting around for the OS to reboot because I updated some trivial program to be time-efficient. How many dollars spiral down the toilet every year thanks to this? At the user level, perhaps. But when you look at it in terms of ‘percent uptime’, even an hour a week lost to reboots (an absurdly high number I just threw in there), you are still over 99.9 uptime. To the IT Manager, that is generally considered acceptable. I would wager that _far_ more time is lost from workers surfing the web, or engaging in otherwise unproductive behavior, then it is from applying the occassional patch. > [@Voyager](#): > > As for consumer value, ever wonder why IE is the only browser without built-in pop-up blocking? Maybe because after they wiped out Netscape they don’t give a crap? I won’t touch IE (not the least from the many security holes) but I understand it is slow and feature-free. Well, a few seconds at [Google.com](http://Google.com) gets you all the pop-up blocking you would ever need, and MS can avoid yet another ‘bundled feature’ lawsuit! I prefer IE on my eMac (as well as PC). I don’t really understand what features you would expect a browser to have, but IE can…display web pages! Not bad for a browser, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/29 "2004-03-25T05:30:19Z")
> [@Bob!](#): > > But its _free_. Windows Media Player is free. Reduced-feature versions of Quicktime and Real Player are also free (it bears repeating: Reduced feature. You do not get as much functionality out of the free versions of Real Player and Quicktime as you do from Media Player.) This is annoyingly like the Netscape issue some years back: Company A is taking Company B to task for…giving away _free_ stuff. Trick is, Company A is also giving away products for free! As I recall the Netscape issue arose initially when Netscape was charging for their browser. Then MS came in and bundled Explorer with Windows, thus destroying Netscape’s business. You can say Explorer was “free” if you want. In reality it was just something they tacked on that you had to buy along with Windows. Monopoly leverage, just as the other posters have said. > [@](#): > > I would be quite interested in a update-free secure OS; Which one are you talking about? Strawman. Windows is notorious for security holes, viruses, trojans and so on that need frequent updates. **LilShieste** understood what I was talking about. Linux, Mac, well hell _anything_ else doesn’t need nearly as much attention. > [@](#): > > Again the issue of _free_ rises up. Anyone can get Linux, free as can possibly be. But still, they pay whatever the OEM cost is (when buying a bundled PC) and get the MS product. If the competition cannot even give away their product to beat their competitor, well, it’s a lost cause. Since most of the software people need to run is only for Windows you do not have much of a choice. That’s sort of what “monopoly” means. In cases where there is a choice (OpenOffice) most people are unaware of its existence. But you knew this. > [@](#): > > **Never** , eh? 🙂 No, never. User space program installation does not need a reboot on Linux. If you change the kernel or modify the system config you might want to reboot to make sure the system comes back up alright but that’s it. > [@](#): > > At the user level, perhaps. But when you look at it in terms of ‘percent uptime’, even an hour a week lost to reboots (an absurdly high number I just threw in there), you are still over 99.9 uptime. To the IT Manager, that is generally considered acceptable. I would wager that _far_ more time is lost from workers surfing the web, or engaging in otherwise unproductive behavior, then it is from applying the occassional patch. Totally irrelevant. Sort of like saying “I’m going to shoot this guy because after all cancer kills millions a year and it won’t raise the death rate”. Another poster also mentioned viruses and trojans. That’s another vast sinkhole of wasted time and money we can thank the Redmond monopolists for. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/30 "2004-03-25T07:08:12Z")
> [@Bob!](#): > > I would be quite interested in a update-free secure OS; Which one are you talking about? How about Linux and Solaris? Not that they are patch-free, no software that complex is, but they are far more secure. That someone getting into a system who is not me (or root) and being able to delete my files is just stupid. Insecurity in 'nixes almost always came from idiot admins not changing passwords, that is pretty much taken care of these days. No OS, is perfect, but some are more perfect than others. > [@](#): > > Again the issue of _free_ rises up. Anyone can get Linux, free as can possibly be. But still, they pay whatever the OEM cost is (when buying a bundled PC) and get the MS product. If the competition cannot even give away their product to beat their competitor, well, it’s a lost cause. Never read the Halloween memo then. Did you know that MS has a big slush fund in Europe, used to cut the prices of their systems when up against Linus and Star Office? Can you guess why you can get Office now at a much reduced “student” price? Even a little bit of competition is good for consumers. > [@](#): > > And I truly mean no offense, but this is a very typical and telling statement. Anti-MS sentiment is now repleat with its own urban legends about functionless code? I don’t doubt that many believe it, but look at it logically: If the code truely did nothing, it would be removable. If application stability suffers from the removal of the code, then the code serves a purpose. I don’t know about this case, but there are documented instances of Microsoft putting code into Windows to break competing applications. > [@](#): > > As I addressed above, (some of) the competion _gives away_ its product, and they still ‘cannot compete’. I am firmly in the ‘MS makes a superior desktop product’ camp (though OSX would have some potentional if only Apple ported to x86). Still, the competetion is out there. Their own inability to make a comparable product can hardly be Microsofts fault. _snort_ Does DLL hell mean anything to you at all? I’ll ask you - can you guess how much money is spent dealing with Microsoft’s security holes? > [@](#): > > **Never** , eh? 🙂 I’ve patched my Solaris machine without rebooting. I don’t remember ever rebooting it. I’ve had to rlogin sometime to kill runaway apps in an old version of Solaris, but that doesn’t even happen any more. Having to reboot to install a consumer program is just dumb. > [@](#): > > At the user level, perhaps. But when you look at it in terms of ‘percent uptime’, even an hour a week lost to reboots (an absurdly high number I just threw in there), you are still over 99.9 uptime. To the IT Manager, that is generally considered acceptable. I would wager that _far_ more time is lost from workers surfing the web, or engaging in otherwise unproductive behavior, then it is from applying the occassional patch. 1 / 168 \> 1/1000 guy. And 99.9% is not acceptable these days. Reboots are not the only uptime killer - app crashes, BSODs, virus stuff, etc. etc. When you reboot a desktop, only one person loses, rebooting a server kills uptime for lots more people. > [@](#): > > Well, a few seconds at [Google.com](http://Google.com) gets you all the pop-up blocking you would ever need, and MS can avoid yet another ‘bundled feature’ lawsuit! I prefer IE on my eMac (as well as PC). I don’t really understand what features you would expect a browser to have, but IE can…display web pages! Not bad for a browser, eh? Perhaps you didn’t notice me saying that I had a pop-up blocker, free. It was not nearly as good as the one built into Mozilla, since I had to turn it off for sites that legitimately opened new windows. The point is that consumers actually want this, and MS felt they didn’t need to provide it. I rather think that is more useful than the incredible amount of bloat going into Office, but I learned to program when memory and efficiency meant something. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/31 "2004-03-25T10:56:02Z")
> [@Inoshiro](#): > > You had to reboot, huh? Again, you’re making my arguments for me. Windows is the only widely used OS that requires all that stupid rebooting. I update software on my Linux machines all the time. A reboot is never necessary. I’ve installed XP and a full stack of software from scratch - and the only reboot that was necessary was during the windows update process. Which is comparable to a kernel patch in Linux. Nothing else NEEDED rebooting, even though it tells you so. Virus software, Office, Acrobat, Photoshop, Mozilla, various peripherals, printer - all worked perfectly without a reboot. ---
**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/32 "2004-03-25T14:42:06Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > I’ve installed XP and a full stack of software from scratch - and the only reboot that was necessary was during the windows update process. Which is comparable to a kernel patch in Linux. Nothing else NEEDED rebooting, even though it tells you so. Virus software, Office, Acrobat, Photoshop, Mozilla, various peripherals, printer - all worked perfectly without a reboot. Glad that works for you. The fact is that most people, including even me, are VERY reluctant to ignore Windows when it tells you “we really think you should reboot now” from past instances of being burned when we strayed off the beaten path. Linux installers do not even suggest that a reboot is needed. I will grant that XP is quite an improvement over the 95/98/Me series. They are still playing catch-up in a lot of areas though. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/33 "2004-03-25T18:45:16Z")
To address the OP, a big reason why various developers keep blaming Microsoft for strongarm and/or illegal tactics is because Microsoft does stoop to those levels. Heck, just cdheck out this headline from today’s paper: > [@](#): > > [**Newly Released Documents Shed Light on Microsoft Tactics**](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/technology/24soft.html) > > Among the documents introduced in court this week was a letter from June 1990 in which Bill Gates, Microsoft’s chairman, told Andrew S. Grove, the chief executive of Intel at the time, that any support given to the Go Corporation, a Silicon Valley software company, **would be considered an aggressive move against Microsoft.** > > Other evidence presented by the plaintiffs’ lawyers at trial yesterday gave an account of how **Microsoft violated a signed secrecy agreement with Go** and showed that Microsoft possessed technical documents from Go that **it should not have had access to.** > > _…snip…_ > > The first witness appearing at the trial yesterday was Jerry Kaplan, the co-founder of Go. Mr. Kaplan, who was a software developer at the Lotus Development Corporation before he started Go, has been a longtime opponent of Microsoft. > > Yet he said he was surprised by what was revealed about Microsoft’s activities in the documents. “I was shocked,” Mr. Kaplan said in a telephone interview. **"This was a corporate mugging that went uncorrected and unknown."** > > Shortly after the letter was written, according to Mr. Kaplan, **Intel reduced its planned investment in Go** from $10 million to $2 million, and stipulated the investment be kept a secret. > > _…snip…_ > > In 1996, Mr. Kaplan wrote a book, “Start-Up: A Silicon Valley Adventure” (Penguin USA), in which he blamed Microsoft, in part, for the demise of Go. Two years later, Marlin Eller, a former Microsoft programmer who was part of the PenWindows project, wrote in “Barbarians Led by Bill Gates” (Owl Books) that **the intent of the PenWindows project had been primarily to undermine Go.** I’ve read _Barbarians Led by Bill Gates,_ and found it a little dry, myself. If you want juicy, behind-the-scenes dirt of Microsoft’s assorted shenanagans, the best book on the subject seems to be [_The Microsoft File: The Secret Case against Bill Gates_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812927168/qid=1080240020/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/102-1625071-4040921?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) And regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case from the late '90s, try [_U.S. v. Microsoft: The Inside Story of the Landmark Case_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007135588X/qid=1080240115/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1625071-4040921?v=glance&s=books), which reprints every column covering the case from the New York Times, with additional analysis after-the-fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@Bob\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/34 "2004-03-25T19:04:16Z")
Well, a good nights sleep later and I can see that my post may be read as total and unapologetic defense of MS. It wasn’t intended as such; I am a Windows 2000/Exchange 2000 admin, and believe you me, I am intimately aware of various flaws with MS products. Though I still believe that many overstate those flaws or ignore various flaws in their own favorite OS’s. But that is neither here nor now; Maybe we can start a ‘Best OS’ thread. (I bet that has never been done! :)) Back to the EU decision: 1. We have a 497 million euro fine. Billy can cut a check for this. 2. If I understand correctly, Microsoft will now have _offer_ a non-WMP version of Windows to vendors. This one is a bit more interesting, as I would love to see how many vendors actually distribute a non-wmp version of windows. How will they advertise it to their customers? 3. > [@](#): > > Microsoft was also given 120 days to give programming codes to rivals in the server market, so their products can have “full interoperability” with desktop computers running Windows. This is the real news item in the story, IMO. What code, specifically, will they be giving up? I am also curious what oversight is in place to monitor the process. How will the EU be able to determine if MS is giving the needed code, or if the code that is being asked for is truly needed? I suppose this is much ado about nothing, as the appeals process has begun, and we will likely be old and grey before final decisions are handed down, but point three is the most interesting to me. If MS has to share bits of code, then Linux _may_ (or may [not](http://www.theregister.com/content/4/36520.html); Who knows?) get the potential to play the latest and greatest games. The only thing that stops a lot of us from running Linux at home is stunted gaming capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/35 "2004-03-25T22:45:49Z")
Software is like no previous product. Once produced it lasts forever, never wears out and costs next to nothing to produce more copies and the customers can do that. Also millions of ways to write other software to do the same thing. Microsoft has the money to buy advertising to keep the consumers brainwashed. How many competitors can do that? The economy has changed since the invention of television. Our concept of monopoly may need to change but the technology of the internet may change things again. I keep telling people to standardize on LINUX. The city of Munich did. What will that do to the so called Microsoft monopoly. I am waiting to see what cyber saturation does to the computer industry. What a person can do with a computer is limited by their wetware. 300 MHz is good enough for data processing and 1.5 GHz is probably enough for media processing. When you can get these computers used for less than $300 and slap LINUX on as many as you want, why care about MacroScam. OH! The poor stockholders. Oh well. Dal Timgar > [@LilShieste](#): > > [http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/index.html) > > So now Microsoft is “abusing their near-monopoly?” The main thing I got out of this article (and similar ones on Fox, MSNBC, etc) was that Microsoft is getting fined for bundling certain software with Windows. Am I mistaken, or is this what the fine is for? > > So _Real_ and _Apple_ are complaining that bundling Media Player with Windows prevents this “nice and healthy competition” from prospering, and- in turn- they are being hurt by this action. > > **EU Regulators** said: > > How about this: _making crummy software_ deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in the technology market. Having Media Player doesn’t prevent computer users from using _QuickTime_ or _RealPlayer_ for their media. Having to download _QuickTime_ or _RealPlayer_, along with 20 different updates prevents users (or me, at least) from using the applications extensively. > > So, my point is-- are a lot of software companies pointing fingers, and shoving blame onto Microsoft for problems that have more to do with the way they create software, than with Microsoft being a “big bad corporation?” > LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/36 "2004-03-25T23:20:28Z")
I just want to add a post to mention that I believe I am going to have to side with the arguments against Microsoft for these anti-trust cases. The main reason for this, is because it seems I was a little misinformed/naive about the punishment that Mircosoft had received regarding their past anti-trust suit (i.e. I thought a valid action was taken against them, to keep some of their actions “in check”; instead it appears that a fine was the only punishment. I still don’t get how that was supposed to “help” things). That being said… good God. I sure hope that MS starts getting some of their stuff together, and makes some big changes before the debut of Longhorn (that is-- I hope they don’t screw us Windows-users over by centering an OS around IE and WMP even more. I still shudder at the possibility of this.) I have to say-- usually I am pretty quick to jump to the defense of MS, when accusations start flying (mainly because the accusations I hear are pretty empty, and seem to only come from people with a “blind rage” against MS). But after some of the information provided by **Voyager** , **Inoshiro** , et. al, it seems I need to rethink some things. I appreciate the contributions so far to this thread. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/37 "2004-03-26T02:52:23Z")
Interesting thread. One common thing I notice in these types of threads is that Microsoft gets pilloried for everything they’ve ever done (or at least in the past 15 years or so), and the software flaws generally focus on win98 and not the latest versions. How many times do you see “the blue screen of death” quoted, which hasn’t shown up since what win98? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/38 "2004-03-26T04:35:59Z")
> [@Bob!](#): > > Is this anecdotal, or are there demonstrable cases showing that a browser could not be run? (or be difficult to run; Need to triple-click it? :)) I did some searching to back up my own experience that Netscape failed to operate correctly in the presence of MS, but their initial complaints were mainly of broken proimises and monopolistic market leverage: [1996](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october96/net_war_10-4.html#allegations) > [@](#): > > In 1994, Microsoft signed a consent decree with the Justice Department saying that it wouldn’t use its Windows operating system to break into the Web browser market. Netscape says Microsoft violated that agreement by selling reduced-priced versions of its Windows operating system to computer manufactures if they feature its Explorer Web browser. Microsoft denies the charges and says they have done nothing to violate the consent decree. > [@Bob!](#): > > As I addressed above, (some of) the competion _gives away_ its product, and they still ‘cannot compete’. I am firmly in the ‘MS makes a superior desktop product’ camp (though OSX would have some potentional if only Apple ported to x86). Still, the competetion is out there. Their own inability to make a comparable product can hardly be Microsofts fault. Why Bob, you’re right! How could I have been so foolish? It’s all always been a fair playing field for inclusion on the world’s most widely used OS, and the better product has simply won out every time. And the fact that the dominant products and the dominant OS are made by one and the same company is cause to raise a cheer for convenience instead of suspicions of monoploy! Because after all, Microsoft has shown a clear desire all along to keep their OS and their software separate, and never to use their home field advantage to unfairly undermine the competition through technical manipulation, haven’t they? [Haven’t they (1998)?](http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,7523,00.asp) > [@](#): > > “…Specifically, Microsoft recently released a new product called the Windows Media Player that, in many cases, breaks RealNetworks’ products,” said RealNetworks Chief Executive Officer Rob Glaser Thursday at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Competition in the Digital Age. > > During Glaser’s hour-long testimony, which opened today’s hearings, he demonstrated his point by installing Microsoft’s new Windows Media Player version 5.2 on a PC that was already running the latest version of RealNetworks’ player. After installing the Windows Media Player, Glaser showed how accessing RealAudio and RealVideo clips generated cryptic error messages–clips that had played back just fine using RealNetworks’ player before. > > News Radio verified this claim on Thursday. Installing the Windows Media Player disabled both the G2 beta and RealSystem 5 players on a Windows 98 system. RealNetworks has posted a white paper at its site describing the issue. > [@Bob!](#): > > ‘Stacks’ are most certainly **not** useless little widgets; they are method of handling dataflow from memory. One cannot load a ‘stack’ as they would load a program, it is part of the logic of the OS. Thanks for the Computers 101 course, Bob, but my BSCS took care of that, pal. ‘stacks’ in this case referrred to a batch file command that had to be present for less faulty (fault-free? we are talking about MS here) operation of the program, rather than the useful ADTs and memory structures. ‘stacks’ itself in the .bat file did nothing. It was simply scanned when run, and resources were made available or not based on its presence or absence. If you didn’t manage to hack this out for yourself, you had to pay Microsoft to find out why your software wouldn’t run well. Yes, it’s third party anecdotal, and my Word rumor is just that. But then I admitted as much when I posted. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@Bob\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_1)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/39 "2004-03-26T06:39:04Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > I did some searching to back up my own experience that Netscape failed to operate correctly in the presence of MS, but their initial complaints were mainly of broken proimises and monopolistic market leverage: > > [1996](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october96/net_war_10-4.html#allegations) But that doesn’t actually address your assertion that non-MS browsers were ‘difficult’ to run under _recent_ versions of Windows. > [@](#): > > Why Bob, you’re right! How could I have been so foolish? It’s all always been a fair playing field for inclusion on the world’s most widely used OS, and the better product has simply won out every time. And the fact that the dominant products and the dominant OS are made by one and the same company is cause to raise a cheer for convenience instead of suspicions of monoploy! And the unanswered point remains: Why doesn’t a _absolutely free_ OS (Linux), along with its _absolutely free_ partners in crime (Open Office, etc) take over the market from non-free MS operating systems and products? Open Source really can’t reduce costs past free, unless Linus and RMS are going to start cutting checks for home users to switch over, can it? But still, people prefer to pay whatever amount (fairly low amount, when you spread the cost out over the life of the OS/program) for the MS product. Why is that? > [@](#): > > Because after all, Microsoft has shown a clear desire all along to keep their OS and their software separate, and never to use their home field advantage to unfairly undermine the competition through technical manipulation, haven’t they? It is _Microsoft’s_ product, not yours. It is not open source. MS does not provide a public service; It provides a product in exchange for some money. If you do not like that product, or wish to use another product that is not compatible with Microsoft, then you are obviously free to use alternative operating systems, no? Nobody complains that they cannot use Ford parts on their Chevy cars or Sun server bits on IBM servers; why the difference with software? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/40 "2004-03-26T07:08:34Z")
> [@Bob!](#): > > And the unanswered point remains: Why doesn’t a _absolutely free_ OS (Linux), along with its _absolutely free_ partners in crime (Open Office, etc) take over the market from non-free MS operating systems and products? Open Source really can’t reduce costs past free, unless Linus and RMS are going to start cutting checks for home users to switch over, can it? But still, people prefer to pay whatever amount (fairly low amount, when you spread the cost out over the life of the OS/program) for the MS product. Why is that? You really, really need to read some of the books coming out of the trial. Read what MS did to IBM when IBM got uppity. Just think what would have happened to a PC vendor offering a real Linux release. Fianlly, after the acceptance of Linux, and after the trial has stopped some of the more blatant anti-competitive acts, some companies are offering Linux based desktops. But go to your local computer store, and try to find a Linux box. Good luck. > [@](#): > > It is _Microsoft’s_ product, not yours. It is not open source. MS does not provide a public service; It provides a product in exchange for some money. If you do not like that product, or wish to use another product that is not compatible with Microsoft, then you are obviously free to use alternative operating systems, no? Nobody complains that they cannot use Ford parts on their Chevy cars or Sun server bits on IBM servers; why the difference with software? You also need to read about some of the obligations of a monopoly. It’s more like GM owning 90% of the car market, also opening gas stations, and designing their cars so that gas from other stations cut mileage in half. It is illegal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176.md?page=3)