Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Peter T. Breuer]

In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb at oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message news:b94533-nu5.ln1 at news.it.uc3m.es...
>> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:
>     That doesn't at all address my point. The point is, there are large 
> numbers of people looking for computers with Windows installed on them. If 
> you sell this type of computer, this type of person will come to you.

That is an item of data which is largely true - it's not totally true,
because most people could not care less what operating system  is on
their computer so long as it is one which causes them no trouble and
which doesn't get in the way (uh, fail to MS win there, twice) and
which in general is a plus for them rather than a minus (porbably true
for MS windows and most of the hoi poloi, not me). But it's not a
POINT, at least not the intended conclusion of an argument or
subargument, which is what I understand a point to be. The type you
score, that is.

>> No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
>> computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
>> RAM", etc. etc.

>     And you will also see "Designed for Windows XP" or a Microsoft logo in 
> the ad.

If they said that, that would be an actionable statement, because it
isn't, if it is a PC clone - PC's have defined standard interfaces,
that's the idea and design of a PC. Therefore a PC cannot be designed
for an operating system, just as a wall switch cannot be designed for
a lampshade. A PC is designed without reference to an operating
system, just as a lightswitch is designed withut reference to a
particular lampshade.

Will you PLEASE stop these nonsense detours! You know perfectly well
that there is no "windows franchise" in the sense that there is a
MacDonalds franchise.  Shops which sell computers do not have
(metaphorical) MS arches over the door.  They say "get your compyutas
'ere", not "welcome to the Microsoftiland total experience.  Enjoy".
And MS in particular has no hardware side (modulo the mouse and matching
mat).  They tried to rig the market in operating systems for the IBM PC,
not get a monopoloy on PC manufacture.

>     No, my point is that this specific Microsoft tactic was a *lesser* 
> tactic than offering only exclusive wholesale deals and there's nothing 
> wrong with a company that only offers exclusive wholesale deals.

That is not a point, it is an incomplete claim of fact plus a judgment
(first half-sentence), and a hypohetical case plus judgment (second
half-sentence).

  claim     1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please)
  judgment  1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering
                "exclusive wholesale deals" (please define)

  hypothesis 2a) Company Z (arbitrary) offers exclusive wholesale deal.
  judgment  2b) Company Z does no wrong in doing so.

I presume your argument then goes via 1b and 2b to conclude that there is
nothing wrong with Microsofts tactic X. The logic is fine - it remains
to dispute your claims and judgments.


>     What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a PC with 
> Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper.

Tough - that's what salespeople are for (notionally, in a shop you
trust).


Peter