Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Steven D'Aprano" <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.10.16.03.01.20.667844 at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au...

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:48:18 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>> "Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message
>> news:86ll0vs1sw.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

>>> What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
>>> practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
>>> PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
>>> Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
>>> didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.
>>
>>     Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car
>> without an engine.

> That's a false analogy. A better analogy is, "go to your local car dealer
> and see if you can buy a new car with the tyres of your choice."

    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.

> Even non-technical types can choose to run a non-Windows operating system
> on an Intel-compatible PC. So why do the tier-one vendors and all laptop
> manufacturers make their machines available only with Windows? Or on the
> very few occasions they will offer a naked PC, the price is the same as
> for PC + Windows.

    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.

    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.

    DS