Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <jadedgamer at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ufyr1990k.fsf at hotmail.com...

> "David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> writes:

>>     How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you 
>> have
>> on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent 
>> upon
>> your choice of OS.

> Which cars let you install another engine as easily as you can install
> a new operating system? Admit the analogy sucks, like all car-computer
> analogies invariably do.

    What? If you install a new operating system, all your existing software 
stops working. You would encounter precisely analogous problems if you 
replaced your car's engine. The transmission might no longer fit, for 
example. I'm not sure why this analogy matters, but it does seem to be 
pretty accurate.

>>     I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has 
>> a
>> lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of 
>> deals
>> Microsoft offers.

> Microsoft apologists always assume that training cost for Windows
> users are zero, that people "know" Windows from the start. If that was
> true, there would not be a multi-million market in Windows user
> support.

    I neither said nor assumed that. The fact is, they have to support 
Windows because it's what most of their users want. So whatever that costs, 
they have to pay it. I think it's pretty low, actually, only because their 
solution to any problem is to reinstall. Yes, that works, but it does kind 
of screw over the user.

    On the other hand, supporting Linux is not something they have to do to 
stay competitive. The market for Linux desktops is small. It's better served 
by niche companies that can grab a larger share of the smaller market.

>>     The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
>> problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the
>> total package price, buy elsewhere.

> But when Microsoft were doing their illegal arm-wringing of dealers,
> there was no "elsewhere" to go.

    There were always other places to go. There was never a time in this 
story when you couldn't buy computer components, without an OS, and put 
together your own computer.

    As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft 
doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car 
without an engine. And the only reason it was illegal for Microsoft was 
because Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly, and the only reason they 
were deemed to have a monopoly (well, not the only, but a major reason) was 
that the market was defined as "desktop operating systems for x86 
computers".

    DS