Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[Matthew J Hughes <mhughes@students.depaul.edu>]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, David Ogg wrote:

> In article <6EG+ci0efUZ7Ew70@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>,
> james@zephyr.org.uk says...
> > In message <MPG.15cede648df0ba4c9896a6@news-server.nc.rr.com>, David Ogg
> > <davidogg@nc.rr.com> writes
> > >> Monopoly does *not* mean that *everyone* uses your product. AT&T was a monopoly, even
> > >> though there were several other competitors (GT&T, IT&T, here in eastern Nebraska
> > >> there was LT&T, and so on), AT&T was a monopoly because they had a super majority of
> > >> the business, and there was no way that any of the competitors could take the monopoly
> > >> away from them.
> > >
> > >A monopoly means the consumer has no choice.
> >
> > Not in the real world.
> >
> > A choice can still be available when a company is monopolistic - like
> > Microsoft, for instance.
>
> :) We're talking about Microsoft, and you can use Microsoft as your
> example of precidence? "Microsoft can be a monopololy even though there
> are choices, take Microsoft for instance?"
>
> > And most users *didn't* get a choice, because
> > of the licensing agreements with major PC manufacturers which is how a
> > lot of people buy hardware.
>
> They chose to buy a PC with Windows on it, they had a choice. If anyone
> here can find me a PC they want, and they don't want Windows on it, I
> guarantee I can find it somewhere else, with the same warranty, support,
> and hardware, at the same price, with another OS on it.
>
That is a pretty strong guarantee. could you make the other OS 'geos'? And
no that is _not_ a typo. or hey let's call dell and see if they will
preload QNX?

> Even during the time when Microsoft had exclusive licensing clauses
> (ended around 1993) there were options. I mean, heck, look at this
> newsgroup.
>
And that is another point. every so often a newbie comes in and asks about
this newsgroup(writting from alt.amiga.*), should they get interested in
Amiga and the answer is invarible, not unless your in it for nostalgia.
The stopped making them because they could not sell enough units. although
my personal feeling is that M$ did not kill the Amiga but only handed them
the knife.

 > Do you really think that everyone with windows on their computer
was
> forced to use it? I guarantee if you take a poll and ask people buying
> new machines, and ask them what OS they want on their new PC, it will be
> Windows. The people who want something else will buy a machine without
> Windows. (Personally I've never purchased Windows, but I get developer
> versions via MSDN, and beta versions like the XP I'm using now)
>
I think if you take a poll on new PC owners they would not know what an OS
was you would be more likely to get the answer Word.
As far as experienced PC owners, what non-commercial OS are they going to
ask for? I mean Really, Red-hat is not yet buying ad space in Time,
newsweek, or insert-your-favorite-non-Linux-publication-here.

>  Here's the real world situation. Microsoft can't touch Apache with IIS
> in any of it's incarnations, and it doesn't look like that will change,
> despite the fact they'll give it to you FREE with Server, and Mindcraft
> say's it's faster and scales better.
They seem to be doing a pretty good job, and 'Code Red' virus seems to be
proving it. But with several companies buying into the 'technology
partner' status, and '.net' strategy, it seems to be Microsoft || die.

>  On top of that, after stating "opensource is a virus" Microsoft has egg
> on their face because they just cant for the life of them get hotmail to
> work without good old BSD holding the fort, and this is at a time when
> they're pimping their platform for .Net.
Last time I checked(recently), hotmail was running windows 2000 on IIS.
Yeah shocked me too. I was doublechecking it for accuracy and according to
the website I used(I think it was netcraft) they were no longer FreeBSD.
Which the NT-vs-Linux.org site needs to be updated cause that is the link
I _was_ referencing in conversations.

>  There are Free alternatives to all of Microsoft's products, and ones in
> developement for products Microsoft hasn't even released yet! Miguel's
> already pimpin' Mono to work with .Net.
>  Microsoft's days are numbered, they see the writing on the wall, they
> know they can't compete with a competitor that they can't buy,
> undersell, influence, or lock out of the market. The government stepping
> in right now, would just stop the inertia at a time when they're not
> needed anyway, they'd take the credit for the inevitable.
>
Microsoft is not dead, possibly dying but I don't think so. They have very
low overhead for the units they sell. Nobody is going to unseat them, I
offer the following quote from an advert in the paper..."Please send your
resume in word doc format." When your the standard the other guy has to be
twice as good to unseat you.

>  Monopoly or not aside, the governments role is to protect the consumer
> and ensure the consumer has choice. The government's role is NOT to
> leverage consumer choice for the benefit of Microsoft's competitors. If
> competitors are cutting each others throats giving away free software,
> and as the dust settles, the consumer has free software, and netscape's
> dead, the consumer has benefitted. What then, would the consumer benefit
> from the government flexing its arms at Microsoft on behalf of these
> businesses who lost the war to the benefit of the consumer? That's
> supposed to be how the Monopoly law works, to benefit, for, and ONLY,
> the consumer.
>
See comment about Geos above. When I was consulting, 10 years ago, Geos
was considered by some to be "better" than windows. For 3.10 that was not
a huge challenge. But it's dead now and the company's only claim to fame is
a (silly)patent on WAP. Is the consumer protected by geos' inexistance?
Was Microsoft the first company to produce a software product called
internet explorer? what happened to that company?
Was the lesson of geos, and the company who originally owned the
copyright to the name to "internet explorer" as a program a benefit to the
consumer?

>  So where has the consumer lost? The consumer has both Netscape, AND IE,
> both free, and without the government stepping in where it would have
> hurt the consumer to do so.
>
Without AOL would netscape 6 even exist?

>  The fact remains, Netscape is just as available as it's always been, if
> not more so. From the consumers point of view, the consumer has won.
> From Netscapes point of view, they are legally entitled to financial
> damages, but they are NOT entitled to having the customers choice
> overruled by the government on Netscapes behalf.
>
It wasn't that MSIE was free, it was that you couldn't get windows without
it. It would be like firestone striking a deal with Ford that you couldn't
get a shiny new (ford)SUV without firestone tires on it.

>  This isn't really anything more than a political issue I believe, I
> think this discussion is between the chairs on the left and the chairs
> on the right. :)
>
I guess you must be sitting on the right, because I know I am on the left.
oddly enough I am a Microsoft user, but only the OS. You see I bought the
OS because it came preinstalled on my machine before I knew about your
gaurantee. I don't have the office suite because I don't have the $450 to
buy the non-upgrade copy. (oddly enough though the Corel office competing
product is only $100, why is that?) I am writing this from a Linux box on
a telnet session because the emulation is better.<rant />   Matt