Yes it is ridiculous reasoning because killing someone is morally unjustified and making a profit is not. I have never really understood the concept of antitrust laws but then they are passed by governments that protect their secrets and deny others the opportunity to do the same. When it comes down to it, no matter how you all shout about it, nothing is actually stifled. There is software out there and, if you look hard enough, you can find out how to remove any part of windows you want.Why is it unethical. It is what most manufacturers do. It is business. They copyright parts of their products and sell the spares. I cannot see where these artificial barriers are. I can run any software written for Windows on a Windows machine.
I beg to differ. You mean that it is ok to stifle all competition just because you can? So for example it's okay to kill somebody just because I have a gun! Of course the answer to my question is that it is a ridiculous reasoning. Why should companies be any different and in any case that's why there are antitrust laws :-)
As for copyrighting parts of products, that's why technology licensing exists (and that's exactly why you can have aftermarket parts for your car for example). Monopolies are bad as they restrict your choices. What you are saying (and to retain my car example from previously) is that you'd like to have only one brand of car (say Volvo.. hi Tony ;-) and that Volvo puts your car stereo in that can only play 8 track tapes BUT it is wired in such a way that if you want to put a decent 6 cd changer the car will not start unless you take the car apart and put a new harness in!Rubbish! I have not removed Media played but I have changed all the references to it to point at other programs. This is why this argument is so flawed.
Microsoft does the exact same thing. What's more dangerous is that they MAKE it appear as if everything is tied to the Operating System itself and cannot be changed. And although (as mentioned by me and others previously) you really CAN remove the part that you want, you have to go through so many hoops that it becomes unpractical to do so.
For example it is possible to COMPLETELY remove Internet Explorer from Windows XP however Microsoft employs a special lock mechanism (which cannot be removed by the usual utilities that you described) that it is a REAL pain in the you-know-what to remove. I did it because I wanted (And I know how to) but the average user will NEVER have the choice. It is ALL about choice in the end you know...But you do not have to remove it and the average user is probably quite happy with I.E. with the added bonus that, since everyone he knows uses it he has local support.
Now this is sheer bias. I have never found any software that fails to work for these reasons and I use a lot of shareware. I have had programs that did not work because their authors failed to understand the problem they had but these mostly got fixed.
As for running ANY SOFTWARE written for Windows on a Windows machine... well I don't think so... 1000's of examples of software that doesn't run properly not because it is badly written but because one Windows to another can be so far apart as installations as day and night. Any DECENT Operating System would not have these problems (ie BeOS/Zeta, BSD, MacOS (even on compatible machines... ie before OS X), AmigaOS etc).
Disk space is not precious it is cheap.
Then don't complain just don't use it. The problem with all this discussion is that people could do just that. If they all used an alternative O/S then Windows would sink. Maybe that will happen with LINDOWS or whatever it is called now but they have had the MAC alternative for years and few have budged.
I have NO problem whatsoever with Microsoft putting everything (and the kitchen sink) in an OS, however I do want the choice to remove it when and HOW I please.
I am sorry but it's not about NOT using something. Not if it takes my precious disk space.
Unlike the fancy TV that has 5 dozen features you will never use that sit in the same box size, additional preinstalled (and not removable) software takes up space which I can use more productively. Why for example should I spend 60 Megabytes or so for the extremely slow IE while I could the 1/12th of the space to use the much faster and reliable Opera. now I havd to use the 60 Megs AND the 5 Megs that Opera will take up. Same thing with other software. I find iTunes for example much more user friendly than WMPlayer which is installed thrice in my system. First Mplayer2, then WMPlayer 8 and then WMPlayer 9 (The Windows Media Player installer forgets to remove version 8!). So instead of using 8.91 Megabytes only for iTunes (or even a couple of hundred Ks for some MP3 players out there plus a separate Video Player App) I have to use 20 for all the Microsoft players (that btw hang whenever you play some MP3s not to mention that its codecs suck so bad they should be vacuum cleaners)80 Gb drives cost around 35 pounds. I paid that for 500Mb only a short time ago. This is a silly argument which goes nowhere.
No you can remove them if you want. It is all out there on the Internet look it up.Microsoft implies that Windoze cannot operate without their packaged software (which is a blatant lie as proved by many researchers and companies of course)No, they have only said that it would not operate as they wanted it to without I.E. and I know that you can remove this after a fashion.
You haven't got your facts straight. Microsoft has said the same thing for Messenger, IE, Media Player and their MSJVM (all suits that they lost btw ;-) And by the "after a fashion" that you mention, you probably mean the "Set Program Access and Defaults" which by no means removes anything :-)
Ridiculous, again this is sheer prejudice. You all have the choice to do as you wish. By your example you throw yourself off the cliff, by buying into the M$ product, and then shout 'It's not fair they made me do it.'
and they have used their dominant position in the market to reinforce their client "conditioning" having as a result firm supporters of their software packages like many people on this list :-) (hehe).This is called marketing and every large firm does it. I agree that I do not like it and I also hate McDonalds, IKEA, large supermarket chains and all of this globalised homogenised world that we have allowed the big boys to create by our own basic laziness.
That is not marketing, not by the modern sense. That's more like Goebels tactics. Moreover I will use the centuries old example...
"If your friend throws himself off a cliff should you follow him?"
And the news?
The problem is that they use lies and at least I for one do not like to be lied to...
I'd much rather hear from M$: "That's the way we want to sell it, take it or leave it" instead of lame excuses regarding "necessity" and (blah-blah-blah)... We (As humans) do not like to be lied to right? We should we give a company the right to lie to us?I suppose you never turn the TV on in the US then.
Hehe I do, however I kill all advertising (ahh the wonders of Commercial Advance Gold (TM)
No you don't.
Why is that they are different (and better) than the rest of us anyway? Yes, I know it sounds like a philosophical more than practical reasoning for rejecting Microsoft practices, but isn't ethics what separates us from the beasts?As I said so many times no one forces anyone to use it.
And I repeat that at least IMHO, it is the wrong way to see it. Just because our brand new backpack came with a wonderful load of rocks in it we shouldn't have to carry them if we don't like that exercise ;-) Unfortunately with M$ you HAVE to carry the rocks whether you like it or not!
No, I mean the actual press invented by Caxton. My point is that, to go back to your car analogy, The original 'car' was a slow, open topped, vehicle with no heating, no real lights and certainly no entertainment console. This is different now because technology has advanced. If we applied your logic people would say that modern vehicles were no cars because they had all these extras. Everything evolves and the concept of the O/S should evolve too. The original O/S's had nothing in them except an interface which would accept code programming by punched cards. Should we go back to that then or is there some point in time in which you froze the O/S to be how you want to see itNo, I do not confuse them. I say that the concept of a bare bones O/S is as out of date as a Caxton printing press and should be laid to rest. It is only purists who think it is valid.
Truth is in the final analysis (like Roy has done) that we tend to mix the definition of an OS with an integrated Operating Environment. These are TWO different and completely separate things.
I really don't understand what your point is here. We have already established that everything included is only software that has NOTHING to do with the definition of an Operating System and is only MADE to look like a part of it. As for a Caxton-style printing presses (I assume you mean the calligraphic typography of the end of the 1400s) you may be surprised to learn that they are still in widespread use and many times in extremely luxurius publications; indispensable :-)
For the $199 that Windows XP costs, I can get another "non-free" OS (Zeta to be exact) that is 10 times cooler looking than WinXP, works as fast at lesser machines and has 10 times more software installed plus have some money left over to upgrade my memory and maybe pay for an EasyJet ticket from London to Athens ;-) And before you ask me why do I use XP? Simply because my Uni requires me to do so (and since I am graduating finally this year) it will be removed immediately come my last due project ;-)You pay $199 for XP ? you are really being ripped off. I see your problem. We pay under 50 pounds.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030 fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
_______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
