|
|
Archive of shame. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Home PagePhoto LinksFavorite Links
|
by David Ludlow, Network News It's
been a year since Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling that Microsoft
should be split up, and it's beginning to look like a wasted effort. The US Court of Appeals has overridden most of the original ruling, although it still finds Microsoft guilty of acting in an anti-competitive manner. With a retrial ordered, the company looks safe from any repercussions for at least a year. Microsoft intends to carry on the way it always has, as a statement issued after the appeals court verdict shows
Related articles:
|
Why? Everytime
you use a Microsoft product, you are contributing
to Microsoft doesn't innovate. When Microsoft sees a program it likes, (or sees it as a threat) it either buys out the company that owns the program or licenses the key underlying "technologies" of the program. It then "integrates" this program into Windows, thus completely bulldozing the original program from the market. This happens beacause Microsoft has a monopoly over the PC operating system. If Microsoft can't buy out the company or license the program, it copies and markets other people's and company's ideas as its own. As the competition is squeezed by Microsoft's monopoly, the innovation dissapears. In similar vein to IBM in 1970s, Microsoft (or more importantly, Bill Gates) has become arrogant, spoiled and known to use strong-arm tactics when it doesn't get its way. The latest scuffle with the Justice Department only serves as a prime example. Microsoft's corporate personality mirrors that of its co-founder. People who deal with Microsoft are struck by the way its executives seem unable to imagine a scenario in which they do not have a controlling interest. In that respect they are clones of their master, for Gates is almost hysterically competitive. He cannot conceive of a game in which he is not the winner, or an argument in which he cannot prevail. Many people seem to use Microsoft products like Word just because "everybody else is using it", while at the same time not asking themselves how Word got onto other people's machines. In many cases it came pre-installed by their OEM, or their company bought it as a "part" of the Windows package. In one case, a computer manufacturer was strong-armed with threats of repercussion by Microsoft if it did not drop a deal where a competitor's office suite, instead of Microsoft's, was going to be pre-installed on the manufacturer's computers. (see the July 1998 news section below about Acer). There are alternate office packages which are better in many respects, but are overshadowed by the muscle and size of Microsoft. One example is the Corel Word Perfect Office 2000 (which can read and write Word documents). The hype surrounding Windows NT can be blinding. IT managers believing the Microsoft buy NT servers only to discover that their systems run slower with lower reliability than a UNIX solution. John Kirch, a networking consultant and Microsoft Certified Professional (Windows NT) has written a thought provoking article about the "NT is better than UNIX" myth. It is quite possible for a UNIX variant, running on a single CPU to outperform a Windows NT 4.0 server running on a twin-CPU machine. It is also quite possible for a UNIX server to go without reboots for an entire year, while an NT machine is recommended to be rebooted "once a week". There is a fact that Microsoft doesn't advertise the severe security problems with ActiveX, which is an intergral part of Internet Explorer. If you let a ActiveX control, downloaded anywhere from the Internet, to be run on your system, it is free to do whatever it wants - it has full access to read and write your hard drive. There are good alternatives to Internet Explorer which are just as good or even better, without its problems. What does Microsoft do to squeeze out rivals and competitors ? It employs anti-competitive tactics, such as predatory actions and bully agreements. When Microsoft realized that Netscape is a threat, it gave an ultimatum to OEMs: pay an extra $3 for each copy of Windows 95 or pre-install Internet Explorer. May not sound much, but in the cut-throat business of selling hardware, the slightest price increase has detrimental effects to a business. Want
to know more ? |
"Here you have a company that's just come out and now they're making it sound like we're going to force you accept whatever standard we put up," ... we believe that time is now running short for Microsoft as the price it now charges for the Windows license is excessive compared to all the other components of a PC. A long and rather linux-centric text, but the first part of the essay shows the difference between doing things the Microsoft-way and the Open Source-way, as well as some of the motivations behind the things Microsoft does. Highlights: When Windows 95 came out, Microsoft pulled off an amazing triumph of public relations buffoonery (...) Neither Windows 95 nor Windows 98 is stable, nor will either one run reliably for more than a few days. (In many business situations, they won't run reliably for more than a single day between reboots.) Now that we clearly have a choice, the flaws in Windows take on a new dimension: They are unacceptable, and they make Windows look like exactly what it is, tired and old and clunky and stuck together with baling wire and chewing gum. ... calculations include the cost of support, which is very high for NT and quite low for Linux, and the cost of what is called "down time" -- periods when a computer is not working because it crashed or failed in some other way. Linux PCs have almost no down time, whereas Windows NT is notorious for crashing under heavy loads. The Unix vs.
NT war is getting old! (OS Opinion, 7 July 1999)
(news.com, 30 June 1999) the SEC is looking into allegations concerning Microsoft's accounting practices made by a former executive during a lawsuit against the company. The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache: Microsoft's Web Server
Strategy (hive, 29 June 1999) IE browser called
removable (CNN, 10 June 1999) Witness says software firm tied discounts to IBM
dumping Netscape (CNN, 8 June 1999) A Linux oriented article, but it provides a good insight
into what Microsoft does and why: When
the system is free, Microsoft can't win (Linux World, June 1999)
Witness blasts
Microsoft (CNN, 2 June 1999) Memorandum to Microsoft: What
They Forgot to Tell You (ProComp, 1 June 1999) Excerpt: ... the journey served to make naked (again) Microsoft's dirty tricks...
Microsoft on the war path: IBM
exec describes Microsoft retaliation (news.com, 27 May 1999) Lobbyist: Restrictions
won't tame Microsoft (news.com, 27 May 1999) IBM exec: Microsoft
threatened to withhold Windows (news.com, 26 May 1999) Army doesn't trust Windows NT: Microsoft
to develop a Unix-based e-mail client (Federal Computer Week, 10
May 1999) |
Microsoft keeping cost of Windows
artificially high: While
components drop, Windows stay up (news.com,
30 April 1999) Caldera lawsuit surfaces: Papers:
Microsoft discussed hampering foes (news.com, 28 April 1999) Microsoft
trial: Packard Bell execs say software giant ruled (Seattle Times,
27 April 1999) Man accuses Microsoft of patent violation (news.com, 7 April 1999) s Microsoft
foot-dragging? (CNNfn, 2 April 1999) March 1999 Campus Fallout
Continues from 1997 Change in Microsoft's Licensing Rules (Chronicle
of Higher Education, 26 March 1999) Massive Rally Against
Microsoft Due Today (KoreaTimes, 23 March 1999) Microsoft is upto its old tricks, yet again: Microsoft
drops bomb... (PC Week Online, 22 March 1999) Microsoft
should be more concerned with its own OS design problems than with Linux
(LinuxWorld, March 1999)
(news.com, 23 Feb 1999) Another
blow to Microsoft's defense (news.com, 23 Feb 1999) OEMs
challenged to pre-load Be, Linux (ZD Net news, 19 Feb 1999) The
end of the Microsoft Age (San Jose Mercury News, 21 Feb 1999) Even
Compaq Worried By Microsoft Monopoly Power (Time, 18 Feb 1999) Microsoft
stumbling, lawyers say (news.com, 13 Feb 1999) Microsoft witness: We
wanted to limit browser choice (news.com, 10 Feb 1999) Microsoft's
browser tactics revealed (news.com, 8 Feb 1999)
Microsoft witnesss lends weight to government case: PC makers lack Windows alternatives (news.com, 13 Jan 1999) Finally - proof that Microsoft's monopoly is bad for consumers:
Some experts
blame rising software prices on Microsoft (CNN, 11 Jan 1999) Feds claim Microsoft prices different for friends and foes (CNN, 11 Jan 1999) Consumers ripped off: Microsoft overcharged by $10 billion (news.com, 8 Jan 1999) Professor warns courtroom of a future dominated by Microsoft products: A Microsoft world (CNN, 7 Jan 1999) Yet another lawsuit: MS bugged by century's end (Fairfax, 5 Jan 1999) Witness: Rein in Microsoft's browser (news.com, 5 Jan 1999)
local links: |
|||||||
