Well, if Microsoft owned the ENTIRE market, I wouldn't so "blindly" follow
them. Heh.... :) There are other choices out there (as you have chosen a
Mac).
In the case of Bill Gates, I would just say to him, go for it. I think it's
really great that someone can start out making nothing and 20 years later be
the richest person in the US. I'm not jealous of him...BTW...what would you
do if you were in his shoes? It's easy to critisize (sp) him, I agree (it's
even easier to critisize our great President).
I'm really not hot about this issue myself, and I really don't see the
reason people get all tore up over this stuff. Hey, it's free! :) We've
got more important things to discuss like...what can we do with our cats,
what's MOWOG stand for, how do I get this windsheild off. :P heheheh
BTW...why don't people get this tore up over the issue of an immoral
President? I don't mean to offend anyone...I just don't understand it all. :\
Anyway...have a great day! :) And keep them MGs runnin!
Blake Wylie
1970 MGB
At 05:43 PM 2/11/98 -0500, John McEwen wrote:
>If Microsoft provided all the operating systems there might be some
>validity in this but that isn't true, and what happened to the good ol'
>Yankee sense of fair play and competition? As a Mac user, I am not
>interested in hearing about bundled software. I use what I need and what
>works best for me.
>
>Furthermore, I am angry that so many computer users seem to blithely accept
>the Microsoft-driven planned obsolescence which is keeping Bill Gates rich
>and the rest of us poor. This kind of forced selling because of
>market-driven redundancy, and the deliberate attempt to prevent newer
>levels of applications from accessing earlier levels, is worse than the
>cartels of the Victorian era which controlled the economy. The giants of
>those times would certainly know and admire Gates. They were shut down by
>government action which proved to be for the best for all the people.
>
>For all of you that own parts of Microsoft this may be a wonderful
>situation. However, it's the not-so-thin edge of the wedge which is
>severing economies and their citizens from their rightful control over
>their lives and their countries.
>
>John McEwen
>
>
>
>>Well...seeing that the Internet is really the "future" of computing, the
>>next logical step in the evolution of operating systems is to have the web
>>browser integrated into the OS. Seeing that it IS Microsoft's OS, then
>>they really should have say what is integrated and what is not. :) Any
>>efforts by the government to impede this "evolution" of sorts will only
>>result in the slowing down of the world getting online, and further
>>"evolutions" that will make the web and internet more efficient. I say
>>that because every time the government steps into these situations, it
>>only hurts the overall industry. :\
>>
>>With car radios, you have a nice little scenario. Looking at it from that
>>standpoint, I guess I would get mad if a radio were "integrated" into the
>>car. If I don't like a radio, I'll replace it. However, the integration
>>of a radio into a car really doesn't help the efficiency of the car
>>getting on the road. :P
>>
>>So...go ahead...flame away. :P
>>
>>Just more IMHO comments. :P
>>
>>Blake Wylie
>>1970 MGB
>>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Scott Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> No LBC content here, but this is the biggest group of intelligent,
>>> insightful and opinionated people I can reach on a short notice, and
>>> I need to bounce something off of y'all.
>>> If you haven't been following the story, the government has accused
>>> Microsoft of unfair business practices by "bundling" their new
>>> Internet Explorer 4.0 web browser with Windows 98. The claim is that
>>> the web browser is NOT an integral part of the operating system, but
>>> rather is an application program, and that by making it difficult for
>>> the end user to uninstall IE 4.0, that this will hurt companies such
>>> as Netscape that make a living selling web browsers, since most users
>>> will just blindly go with the Microsoft web browser that comes with
>>> the operating system.
>>> My question is, how does this differ from auto makers putting radios
>>> in new cars? No one could argue that a stereo is essential or
>>> integral to the operation of an automobile. While some car companies
>>> will offer a "radio delete" option allowing you to purchase a new car
>>> without a radio, many others do not. Some of the companies that DO
>>> offer the "radio delete" force you to buy the stereo anyway by making
>>> it part of an "option package" along with other options such as power
>>> windows or a sunroof. You can get the radio deleted, but that breaks
>>> up the "option package", and you lose the discount for buying the
>>> options as a package, thus spending more money than if you had gone
>>> ahead and kept the radio in the car in the first place.
>>> There are many car audio companies that would presumably make more
>>> money if new cars didn't come with radios already equipped, so why
>>> haven't they cried foul yet? While car owners CAN remove the
>>> factory radio and replace it with an aftermarket radio, this is very
>>> difficult on some cars due to switch location/integrated dashboards,
>>> etc., and many owners are just going to stick with the radio that
>>> came with the car, since it's already there.
>>> I'm sure there are other products and companies that have similar
>>> practices, but this was the first one that popped to mind. Any
>>> opinions?
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
|