Re: Win95 vs Lose95

>>Chris wrote:

>>I think the point of it is, The Market didn't choose.
>>The whole point of the DOJ case is that the market is manipulated by a
>>monopoly which controls the distribution channels. As a result, there is
no
>>way the market can choose.
>>SNIP<
>>After all, if Microsoft is the only deliverer of Java applets then what
>>would be their incentive to make Java perform better than ActiveX?
>>Chris Rehm
John wrote:

>Thanks Chris;
>That was my point.  If everyone had knowledge of the contract agreements
>the hardware/software providers were under by M$ (Either sell 100% of our
>OS or none at all, etc)  from the late 80's thru the early/mid 90's they
>would understand the market didn't 'Choose' anything.
>
>"It doesn't seem too bad so far, said the lobster in a pan of cool water
>sitting on a stove that was just turned on"
>
>How warm is the water so far everybody?

Believe it or not I was trying to be nice but you guys are nice.  I am
fairly
militant in my attitude towards M$ and the DOJ case so I was trying to
notch
it down for the list.

I'm not so sure if things would have turned out different but M$'s tacticts
were extremely effective and IMHO undoubtedly anti-competitive.  If anyone
is interested I think Glen or someone posted a URL that actually has
some fairly balanced and representative information on the issue.  I've
looked
at it and really enjoyed just can't find it......

I should retract my statement about the market deciding.  I wonder if most
people don't know what M$ did or what was the basis of the DOJ consent
decree:

1.) Most contracts that HDW vendors for M$ pre-installs required the HDW
vendor to pay per processor.  That is no matter if you wanted to ship OS/2
or something else you had to pay M$ for that machine.  60+% of all MS-DOS
and over 40% Windows contracts were of that form.  How many vendors
would ship anything else?

2.) Non-disclosure agreements for developers who were involved in the pre-
release of WIN95 (still like that LOSE95) legally obligated them to not
develop
software on a competative OS.  Hmmmm.

3.) Then there was the issue of M$ application developers having access
to certain functions within the OS that were not made openly available.

Now, these are my interpretations of the basis for the DOJ consent decree.
I highly suggest anyone interested do some more investigating.  If I can
find
the URL for the site I spoke of I will let you know.

Based on items 1 and 2 it's a small wonder we are where we are.  These
'business practices' practically guaranteed the fate of OS/2 and Apple.
After reading some very balanced opinions on this case I have come to
the conclusion that the FTC has no xxxxx, the DOJ consent decree is a
 slap on the wrist, and M$ should not be the most admired corporation in
the U.S. as I read somewhere once.

I know this has no direct technical relevance to the list but I do believe
it affects us all and also is great material for discussion.  Chris and
John,
thanks for your input.

Michael Crump
Technical Project Leader
Ball-Foster Glass Container Corp.

AKA Mr. Three Finger Salure followed by One Finger Salute




+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---