In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-7?B?IlBob2VidXMgUi4gRG9rb3MgKNbv3+Lv8iDRLiDN9Pzq7/IpIg==?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writesYes it is ridiculous reasoning because killing someone is morally unjustified and making a profit is not.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 :-)
Making a profit isn't of course morally unjustified but making a profit by drowning all competition, establishing a monopoly and kill all market laws is.
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.
Hmmm, Mr. Rockafeller could have used you in the United States vs. Standard Oil Corporation :-) hehe
Antitrust laws exist for the sole purpose of allowing competition to flourish. Without them capitalism becomes the exact opposite of communism. Of course if this is your political view you are entitled to have it however you will allow me to disagree with you (We can have this conversation however at the US Show ;-)
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.
Exactly my point, why in a "consumer software product" (notice the difference between that and a regular consumer product should I have to try at all? It should be there.
<snip>
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.
See my other email. No matter how you think you removed the "references" to it, access to it is firstly there, second is being redirected by hard coded references in other software (ie Internet Explorer or some of its clones... the supposedly "small" browsers that still use IE DLL files (which are huge anyway) and intercepts codec usage and messes up your software by introducing latencies in playback that are really not only annoying (if you are for example doing sequencing and mixing MIDI data with Sampled Audio Data) but also disruptive (crashes etc in REALLY demanding software)
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.
LOCAL SUPPORT? That's what you call the two "trouble tickets" (that's how Microsoft calls it) for the price you paid already? (See below
)
As for not having to remove it? OF COURSE I HAVE to remove it... why? because it's a patchwork of stolen software anyway (Say all the courts Microsoft has been taken to ... and lost)
<snip>
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.
I can show you what I mean at the US show ;-)
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.
Again you miss the point. I WANT it out. I am paying a lot of money and do not want all that crap in there at all! :-) (It's the way I am, can't blame me for that... many people don't want them either)
As for the Mac alternative it is unfortunately even more expensive than Windows, however Mac OS (especially X) is a superb OS based on rock solid technology. I will be getting one however pretty soon (as I can finally afford one)
Disk space is not precious it is cheap.
I am sorry but it's not about NOT using something. Not if it takes my precious disk space.
For you maybe, but not for me. I want all the space I can get.
Most people are like that, else for example in Europe they would buy say American versions of their cars which don't squeeze every little bit of performance out of the same engine (to go back to a car example). Instead you would buff up the engine for the next model ;-) (Just what M$ does anyway)
<snip>
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.
Yes and as I said I want 80 Gb minus 350 Meg instead of 80 Gib minus 1 Gig. Its 650 More Megs that I can use
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.'
Yes because monopoly does this thing. Ie my University is contracted with M$ and MAKES us buy their software. Isn't that forceful? You can't do anything about it either. Same thing with market domination in the rest of the world (not academia that is)
And the news?
I watch BBC America ;-) hehe
No you don't.
Again removing the "reference" to rocks, doesn't make your backpack lighter... Maybe if we drone a bit and repeat a 100,000 times "The rocks do not exist" ... they would eventually disappear? ;-)
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 it
I will answer this on a separate email ;-)
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.
Which is still about 100 USD and you probably mean an Upgrade edition of XP Home which is NOT XP Pro I was talking about.
(And you can get that for about 60 bucks here however you DO need a previous OS)
_______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
