Jack Stein wrote:

On 5/13/2011 7:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.

How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?

The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as one
of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer with
being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating system,
or whistling Dixie.

The result of this corrupt bull**** is the world is stuck with the
worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
system.

The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this
week from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they
can, most often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their
wallets and the vote is 90% for Microsoft.

I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
"willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
something like Unix. My wife gets ****ed when Firefox upgrades itself
because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.

Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
allows competition to wither on the vine.

You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !

You're right, explain it to me.

An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up
with a new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would
pay for, it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still
making money.

Microsoft has NOT come up with a new operating system since he bought
DOS from Patterson. The system was garbage then, and still is. The
unknowing public thinks they are getting viruses when 99% of the time it
is simply an operating system that does not work. The reason they, and
I, am using this piece of **** is because MicroSoft totally controls the
market. They control the market because of past illegal marketing
practices. I was in the market at the time, and experienced what was
going on.

When federal anti-trust Judge Stanley Sporkin heard the case against
Microsoft in 1994-95 he was appalled, and found for himself what I and
many already knew just from being in the game.

I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
you want, as long as it's black.

I don't know what the big deal is. I've been running linux since 2001 and
haven't looked back. I have no worries about getting a virus and haven't
since 2001. There has been times when I got frustrated with software
developers not porting to linux but I lived with it. Most everything is
covered today. I am ****ed that google doesn't build a Sketchup for linux
but I just use my wives Apple. Haven't run windblows in over 10 years and
haven't seen a blue screen for the same amount of time.


--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"

Man. 2010.1 Spring
KDE4.4
2.6.33.5-desktop-2mnb