[Kosh]

http://news.com.com/Did+Microsoft+want+to+whack+Dell+over+its+Linux+dealings/2100-1014_3-6153904.html?tag=nefd.top


The link speaks for itself.

[kode]

well, as far as I'm concerned, ms is a lesser evil than dell.

[Janos]

http://news.com.com/Did+Microsoft+want+to+whack+Dell+over+its+Linux+dealings/2100-1014_3-6153904.html?tag=nefd.top


The link speaks for itself.

I am a corperate shill [sic, transit gloria mundi] for thinking that MS (Jesus Christ, M$ is as juvenile as Bu$h or Amerikkka) is not a monopoly because they are trying to hurt their competition. I mean, you could look at your own article:

Veghte and others went on to express concern about the competitive threat potentially posed by Linux and Red Hat.

"We should whack them, we should make sure they understand our value," wrote Paul Flessner, a senior vice president in Microsoft's server applications unit.

and

Participants in the same e-mail thread also sought confidential legal advice about how to proceed in such situations where competitive threats existed, given the limits imposed by Microsoft's antitrust agreements, Evans added.

[karajorma]

From the sounds of it the MS emails discussed the possibility of engaging in antitrust activities against Dell. I'd want to see proof that they actually did so before the emails mean anything.

[Rictor]

"Whack them?"

What were they going to do, send Steve Balmer over to beat them up? Hell, just the threat of that would be enough to scare anyone into compliance.

[Centrixo]

dell is **** because they use funny wires for thier machines, thats why dell wont let you repair it and also why you cant put stuff in that dont blong in a dell machine. so either way its a massive money making scheme.

linux, is open source, you can configure everything you like as opposed to windows where your given choises and windows makes the choises for you.

this is a stupid case started by a nutcase with no brain. next you will be seeing propaganda in every windows vista upgrade intergrated to your machine, looking for your support.

[Turambar]

if microsoft wants people to stop using linux, they should make their OS better and sell it for less money.

since they dont want to play by the rules of capitalism though, they resort to being sneaky bastards

[Descenterace]

What Microsoft has to realise is that they do not singlehandedly control the IT market. They are heavily dependant on the hardware vendors and the requirements of their customers. If they really want to harm one of the major Windows PC sellers, they'll pay the price later on.

It's a similar situation with this DRM in Vista. MS think they can tell ATI, nVidia, etc what their new hardware must be able to do wrt. DRM. Those companies know that if they go along with MS' ultimatum it's going to be them who suffer. DRM increases the hardware vendors' costs while decreasing their profit margins and it definitely has a huge impact on performance. For high-end gaming equipment, that kind of tradeoff is downright unacceptable, especially since a lot of ATI and nVidia's profits come from their flagship cards.
It's a lose-lose situation for the hardware vendors. The only sensible thing they can do is tell MS and the film industry where to shove their DRM. If they do that, and the MPAA still insists on Vista protecting premium content played through insecure channels, MS will be caught in the middle. If there is no hardware that runs Vista, it doesn't matter how much marketing and bull**** MS spews; Vista will die.

MS is definitely not an untouchable monopoly. They control a large amount of the market, but these days they're competing with previous versions of their own software. I think it'll be very difficult for them to roll out Vista when WinXP is basically the same minus all the content protection.

[MarkN]

I would just like to point out a few things.
DRM in the current implementation was force on MS by the hardware vendors and on the hardware vendors by those who stand to gain from DRM (in other words the music and film producers who will get more money if you lose your unarchived media and have to replace it).

As for the application of DRM to gamaing equipment, I do not see where this performance drop comes from, as games are not generated from DRM protected video (DRM in games comes from a check done at startup.).

Remeber also that if equipment does not have the DRM hardware, what would actually happen is that DRM protected content will not be usable.

Finally as for harming one of the major windows PC sellers, Dell was one of the major windows PC sellers, they are now a dying company, desperate to get money off MS to try to stay out afloat.

As for Vista only being a slight improvement over XP, well from some points of veiw that is true, but  it is what will be available, and as windows on a computer provided by a reseller is locked to that motherboard, any replacement for that computer would have to have a new copy of windows. So any replacment for a Dell would have to have a new OS, and if Windows is chosen over Linux, then Windows Vista will be the operating system.

[SadisticSid]

I would just like to point out a few things.
DRM in the current implementation was force on MS by the hardware vendors and on the hardware vendors by those who stand to gain from DRM (in other words the music and film producers who will get more money if you lose your unarchived media and have to replace it).

And I'd like to point out that nothing was 'forced' on Microsoft; there was no legal requirement for Vista to contain or support those various DRM technologies, and if Microsoft wanted to take a principled stand against it then it could have done so. And naturally, it chose to be responsive to all the lobbying and bribery. All the other players in the computer industry that have chosen to support DRM have no doubt had the same treatment.

[Taristin]

As for Vista only being a slight improvement over XP, well from some points of veiw that is true,

Im willing to bet that the majority of the people flapping their gums saying this have not tried vista for more than a few minutes before finding a single incompatability and runing with their tail between their legs.

[Centrixo]

yep. i have tasted vista on a friends machine earlier today, and no games work, its all bull crap so far, windows is clearly living up to its reputation for being crap as usual.

[MarkN]

I'm just wondering how your freind managed to get hold of Windows Vista before it's release.

Unless of course they were using the volume-licenced version which isn't exactly known for supporting games in any  version of windows.

Of course, Centrixo, you are showing exactly the problem that Taristin is complaining about.

[Centrixo]

im not talking about screw ups here, im talking about windows, its a beta release if you thought about it, now get back ot.

[Taristin]

You cant expect 100% backwards compatability on every new windows version. It didnt happen when dos went to 3.1, nor 3.1 to 95, nor 95 to 98, nor 98 to 2k, nor 2k to xp. But yet everyone complains that their game from 1997 doesnt run on their modern pc, and its the developers fault for making the OS so much more advanced and different than the older version the game was made to run on.


Also; Vista was released on Beta. Thats the copy I have until I can buy it either tomorrow or shortly thereafter...

[Centrixo]

You cant expect 100% backwards compatability on every new windows version. It didnt happen when dos went to 3.1, nor 3.1 to 95, nor 95 to 98, nor 98 to 2k, nor 2k to xp. But yet everyone complains that their game from 1997 doesnt run on their modern pc, and its the developers fault for making the OS so much more advanced and different than the older version the game was made to run on.


Also; Vista was released on Beta. Thats the copy I have until I can buy it either tomorrow or shortly thereafter...

the only major leap in advancements ive seen from windows is dos to 3.1 or 3.11 . then you got 3.1 to 95 and from there to vista is basically just a few added files rereleased and is expensive. unless i see something completly different from windows like open source, then its just a few more files and im not even contemplating vista until the price lowers significantally, given take 2 years to slash atleast quid/dollars100 off.

i wouldnt be suprised if vista wouldnt run any problem except the OS its based on.

[aldo_14]

To be fair, even the 'best' OS needent necessarily have backwards compatibility - OS X in particular, after they re-wrote it for the 64 bit (IIRC) chips.

[karajorma]

the only major leap in advancements ive seen from windows is dos to 3.1 or 3.11 . then you got 3.1 to 95 and from there to vista is basically just a few added files rereleased and is expensive.

If you didn't see a difference between win9x and NT based windows you simply haven't been looking very hard.

[Centrixo]

karajorma the only difference is one is built on networks and is no different anywhere else. btw i never said nt so what ever that was about hope you got a reason to start that.

[aldo_14]

karajorma the only difference is one is built on networks and is no different anywhere else. btw i never said nt so what ever that was about hope you got a reason to start that.

NT was the first solely 32-bit Windows OS.  2000, XP and Vista are based off of (in effect types of) NT; 3.1, 95, 98 and ME (16/32 bit) were based off of MS DOS.  The NT 'lines' will have a significantly different set of APIs and kernel and, I believe, use the proprietary NTFS file system (rather than just FAT).  That's rather a hefty difference.