
Microsoft Hoist by its Own Anti-Anti-Competitive Petard - monkeygrinder
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2817&blogid=14
======
lutorm
But since the ruling showed Microsoft that they were wrong, maybe they've just
come around... ;-)

~~~
jamesbritt
Doubtful. But there's some logic to arguing, "Hey, we don't quite agree with
the DOJ's ruling about us, but given how that went it seems it would also
apply to Google."

If a court of law finds you guilty of dong something you think should be
allowed, and later you see a competitor doing more or less the same thing, why
not argue that such judgments should be applied equally?

------
nazgulnarsil
has google been making the same mistake of not making enough _ahem_ political
contributions?

------
zackattack
"which is largely why the GNU/Linux desktop just can't get a foothold, despite
its quality"

lol

~~~
rbanffy
Care to explain why is it funny?

If you remove network effects from the equation, do you still believe Windows
would have its current market share?

I believe quite the contrary - if network effects played no role in the
availability and usefulness of a computer, we would have a far more diverse
ecosystem than we have now. I am not talking Unix-like OSs (subject to their
own network effects) but really wild things all the way from the Ataris and
Amigas and Smalltalk-as-the-OS machines to desktop Connection Machines (I
would love to have one) and Plan 9 desktops.

It would be a far more interesting world.

~~~
assemble
Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so
they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. Consumers wouldn't know
which platform to buy to run program X, and when that platform goes away, how
will they keep mission critical program Y.

Two or three major OSes is more than enough of a headache for software
companies and consumers alike. The world may be more interesting, but I have a
feeling we would be at least 10-20 years behind where we are now with
computing.

~~~
rbanffy
I distinctively remember customers in the mid-80's knew what software was
available to the computer platform they chose to use. They used to base their
choices on that.

Machine-readable data exchange was not as important as it is today, but market
pressures would, probably, influence software writers to both write more
portable software (in order to sell to larger markets) and to use
interchangeable data formats (something educated customers would see as added
value).

The whole idea of "major software vendors" would also be very different, as
the market would be much more fragmented.

And no. We wouldn't be behind what we have today. We still have files in
folders, windows and mice. The coolest OSs available today are flavors of Unix
and a rehash of VMS with roots on a rehash of CP/M. Most Windows users still
believe files must have a 3-letter suffix. Windows users still endure drive
letters. Unix users frequently endure differences between local and remote
files. Most computers have two processors and most programs can't figure out
what to do with one of them.

No. We have had pretty little progress during this period. We had more of the
same - faster boxes with more storage, more colors, more pixels and more
GFLOPS doing more or less what we used to do in the mid-80's and 90's. It's
really hard to imagine an environment that would result in even less progress.

~~~
assemble
Consumers of computers in the mid-80s didn't consist of nearly the range and
variety of consumers as it does now. The people who had computers in the 80s
were computer geeks and engineers.

What we have accomplished in the last 20 years is the mainstream acceptance of
computers. We have managed to get users familiar enough with them that they
are comfortable doing things.

My grandparents no longer feel that they have to call me when they go to the
store and buy a computer. They can get their email working without having to
call me. They can upload their pictures and edit the documents without many
issues.

Yes, there are still files and folders--but honestly: what is wrong with that?
It fits how most people think. I can't name a single person I know who has a
problem understanding the concept of folders and files on their computer.
People don't -need- their desktop machines to do much more than they did in
the 80s. And what people actually do has been streamlined and made easier.
(And one could argue significant progress has been made, for example: entire
airplanes are designed on computer before ever being built now. That was
impossible in the 80s.)

The other stuff such as suffixes, drive letters, etc: I agree.

~~~
rbanffy
> The people who had computers in the 80s were computer geeks and engineers

Computer geeks are not super-smart. It's wrong to assume they can master
something other people can't. Most people didn't have computers not because
they were too complicated but because they weren't useful enough. A diverse
ecosystem of useful computers would attract as a diverse user base as we have
now, perhaps more, if we accounted for a more diverse set of available
computer platforms.

What's wrong with files? What's wrong with clicking a button with a floppy on
it to save a document to a network-mounted disk array? My son never used a
floppy to store his data on. He never owned a floppy. And he's 14.

