Why is every move Microsoft does construed as some sort of world conquering bid for power? Google is just as powerful a corporation as Microsoft, but if it were google buying out Yahoo, no one would bat an eye.because google don't have a $ in their name like Micro$oft!
People are very retarded over the whole issue. Microsft is the DEMON. Like they do ONE mistake or thier program has ONE fault and people are saying they are satan and they never do anything good.Puh-leeze. Spare me the "you're just jealous of their success" Libertarian nonsense. Can you even name one program of theirs that has only "ONE fault"? Heck, I'll make it easier on you. Can you name one program of theirs that has only one MAJOR fault?
This is of course based on the fact that they have money. And people are stupid and assume that people having money = people murdering and eating babies.
Puh-leeze. Spare me the "you're just jealous of their success" Libertarian nonsense. Can you even name one program of theirs that has only "ONE fault"? Heck, I'll make it easier on you. Can you name one program of theirs that has only one MAJOR fault?
I couldn't care less who does and doesn't have money. What I don't like is them 1) breaking the law, 2) selling buggy crap that doesn't work, and 3) destroying good software by either buying it out and breaking it or driving its developers out of business. Microsoft has been doing all three of these things for decades, and now they're after my email. Everyone here understands what a fundamental part of one's online identity an email address is. I have several years of my life invested in Yahoo!Mail. To have a company with a long and consistent track record of buying out and breaking good software eyeing my email provider is a nightmare come true!
To have a company with a long and consistent track record of buying out and breaking good software eyeing my email provider is a nightmare come true!
We all know Microsoft is the only company who can make buggy software. :fingerwag:more than that it's just ridiculous to say their software DOESN'T WORK. ya, it's buggy for some people, ya, it may also stop working for some people, but it's not just buggy software that doesn't work. it works for the vast majority of people, but as we all kno those who are unhappy are much louder than those who aren't.
Why don't they just buy google?
(Hotmail), it quickly degenerated into a horrific, buggy mess. (Anyone remember the 30-copies-of-messages glitch that they kept fixing and re-fixing again and again every couple months?) Even today, more than a decade later, Hotmail's nowhere near as good as Yahoo!Mail or Gmail. I don't want to go through this all again. I don't think anyone who's been through it does...
Puh-leeze. Spare me the "you're just jealous of their success" Libertarian nonsense. Can you even name one program of theirs that has only "ONE fault"? Heck, I'll make it easier on you. Can you name one program of theirs that has only one MAJOR fault?Personally, I think Microsoft are targeting you. Specifically. They're walking around and deliberately going after email services that you use, and then the send in their army of techers and break them. Not that they need much help with Yahoo as it's annoying and akward to use compared to how easy Hotmail is. Maybe they're targeting you and going after programs that you like, and try to make them better just for you, but you're very ungratefull and ignore the good things inorder to just have something to moan about. But then maybe that is also intentional, they know you like to moan and so are providing the means for it.
I couldn't care less who does and doesn't have money. What I don't like is them 1) breaking the law, 2) selling buggy crap that doesn't work, and 3) destroying good software by either buying it out and breaking it or driving its developers out of business. Microsoft has been doing all three of these things for decades, and now they're after my email. Everyone here understands what a fundamental part of one's online identity an email address is. I have several years of my life invested in Yahoo!Mail. To have a company with a long and consistent track record of buying out and breaking good software eyeing my email provider is a nightmare come true!
I could say Vista because of compatability problems with older programs, but then that is also equally to blame with the makers of them programs...Wait a second. If someone writes a program that works just fine under the operating system it's written for, but then doesn't work on the updated version of that system, it's his fault? His fault for what? Failing to properly anticipate and plan for future changes to the operating system? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. Assuming something works in the first place, the blame for breaking backwards compatibility lies entirely on the shoulders of the creators of the new system.
Long term credibility exists if there is no way you can be driven out of business in the near term.This isn't an opinion or a hypothesis. This is straight from the horse's mouth, an inside view of how they look at the computer industry. From the publisher's commentary on the document:
Note the terminology used here "driven out of business." MS believes that putting other companies out of business is not merely "collateral damage" -- a byproduct of selling better stuff -- but rather, a direct business goal. To put this in perspective, economic theory and the typical honest, customer-oriented businessperson will think of business as a stock-car race -- the fastest car with the most skillful driver wins. Microsoft views business as a demolition derby -- you knock out as many competitors as possible, and try to maneuver things so that your competitors wipe each other out and thereby eliminate themselves. In a stock car race there are many finishers and thus many drivers get a paycheck. In a demolition derby there is just one survivor. Can you see why "Microsoft" and "freedom of choice" are absolutely in two different universes?
that being said are they going to change the mail client? google bought youtube and didn't change it to google vid.True, but that's because they're Google and that's how they do things. Has Microsoft ever bought something and not immediately started to tinker with it?
You know, that's one of the absolute best ways to spot an argument with nothing solid to support it: making fun of the other viewpoint in an attempt to distract the audience from an actual rational evaluation of its claims. "No, that idea's too silly to take seriously, so don't waste your time bothering. (I sure hope they buy it...)" It plays on the lower aspects of human nature and, unfortunately, is successful far too often. Shame on you, Emperor Kaworu. If you have some real clothes, let's see them.I don't have any real clothes, instead I wear concepts. at the moment, my tshirt is an idea, my trousers are but a mere notion. My socks... oh boy my socks are made of visions and dreams. And also I'm not making fun of you, I realy believe that Microsoft are targeting you.
Wait a second. If someone writes a program that works just fine under the operating system it's written for, but then doesn't work on the updated version of that system, it's his fault? His fault for what? Failing to properly anticipate and plan for future changes to the operating system? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. Assuming something works in the first place, the blame for breaking backwards compatibility lies entirely on the shoulders of the creators of the new system.
Microsoft broke Hotmail when they acquired it. I left after it started sending 30+ copies of all my mails to people. Only a few months after that, a friend of mine's Hotmail account got hacked. (This actually ended up happening to her 3 times, once by some random script kiddie and twice by a jealous ex-boyfriend whose mom worked at Microsoft.) She tried to reset her password and ended up unable to access her account at all, so she asked me to take a look at it. You know what I found? The new password it assigned to her wasn't an a valid password under MSN Hotmail's password policy, so it was being rejected even before it was checked to see if it was actually the password to her account. This is the sort of left-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-right-hand-is-doing idiocy we can expect from Microsoft.
And Hotmail still has serious problems. Ever try to use it under OSX? And its spam filter regularly throws away legitimate mail, especially registration emails from small communities. It's gotten so bad that some forums won't accept Hotmail addresses anymore. And it takes forever to load anything when I go in there, even on a broadband connection. (I still use the Hotmail account for a few minor things.) Yahoo!Mail, even the feature-rich Yahoo!Mail Beta, pulls things up almost as fast as I can click on them. I don't want to see that ruined.
What's Yahoo?
There's a thing with progression' date=' where if things get better and improve that requires serious reworking of the inards. This will reach the point where backwards compatability is impossible for some things.[/quote']
Do you actually believe that? You're not a progammer, are you?
Good API and toolkit designers handle this issue by deprecating things. That means they leave the old functionality in, working exactly as it worked before, but declare it to be deprecated. In plain English, that means, "this is left in for backwards compatibility, but you shouldn't use it for new code, because we've got this other feature that does the same thing, but better." You don't "rework" the innards; you provide an alternative.
And if the backwards-compatibility issues are the only major flaw you're aware of in Vista, you don't know enough about the OS to even be having this discussion. Just off the top of my head, the UAC is a mess whichever way you slice it, there's DRM that doesn't work built into the core of the OS, slowing everything down, and the Aero Glass interface, while pretty, comes with ridiculous amounts of system overhead and still isn't as user-friendly as the OSX Aqua interface it so transparently copies. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIUkwPybtM) (Which is not to say that Apple or OSX is perfect. Don't anyone try and pin that strawman on me. But one thing they've always been able to do better than anyone else is build a user interface.)
Xeno|Soft:
There are two ways to buy a publicly-traded company. The idea is, whoever owns the largest amount of shares is the de facto owner. If you want to become the owner, you can make an offer to the current owner to buy enough of their stock to gain a controlling interest and become the new owner. (This is what Microsoft's trying to do to Yahoo.)
The alternative is to attempt a "hostile takeover" by buying up enough of the shares that other people (not the owner) own. Let's say that the owner only holds 40% of the stock in his company, and the other 60% are scattered throughout various portfolios and mutual funds. If one company manages to buy up 41% out of that 60% floating around there, they're the new guys in charge.
There's a thing with progression, where if things get better and improve that requires serious reworking of the inards. This will reach the point where backwards compatability is impossible for some things.Not very often. It's true that sometimes programs need to be rewritten, but only if they're in a really bad shape. This mostly isn't the case. Rewriting parts of the program will usually be sufficient. Just think back of Netscape for a second; when they open-sourced their browser, people could see for themselves how utterly terrible the code base was. But they smacked it around and managed to create something usable, despite the fact that many people still complain that Firefox is difficult code to work with (or so I heard).
But code doesn't rust. Adding (radically) new features will hardly, if ever, warrant a complete rewrite. It's a poor business decision, too, since it takes a lot of time and resources for little result.That's exactly right. (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)
Besides, even when rewriting a program from scratch, you can still implement backwards compatibility. There's no reason not to.Precisely! This is a man (I assume) who understands programming. My TURBU project (http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=62639.0) is basically rewriting RPG Maker 2000/2003 from the ground up, with improvements. The #1 design goal is: everything that worked in RPG Maker must work in TURBU. If people can't use what they already have, they won't want to switch. (Granted, this is less of a consideration when you already have a monopolistic stranglehold on the market...)
That's exactly right. (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)Wow, this guy used the exact same metaphor as I just did.
Before Borland's new spreadsheet for Windows shipped' date=' Philippe Kahn, the colorful founder of Borland, was quoted a lot in the press bragging about how Quattro Pro would be much better than Microsoft Excel, because it was written from scratch. All new source code! As if source code rusted.[/quote']
Yeah, it would be kind of nice, for a CEO, to be able to brag about how your program is good because "it's rewritten entirely". That sure sounds very good. But in the end, it doesn't really get you all that much for a massive time investment.
I like how this article talks extensively about the disadvantages of rewriting old code. This argument in particular is very powerful:Quote from: 'tfaWhen you throw away code and start from scratch' date=' you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work.[/quote']
Very true.Precisely! This is a man (I assume) who understands programming. My TURBU project (http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=62639.0) is basically rewriting RPG Maker 2000/2003 from the ground up, with improvements. The #1 design goal is: everything that worked in RPG Maker must work in TURBU. If people can't use what they already have, they won't want to switch. (Granted, this is less of a consideration when you already have a monopolistic stranglehold on the market...)I'm actually not that much of a programmer. I do work as web programmer, but that mostly consists of rather simple ActionScript and PHP. I've never worked on a major software project, though right now I'm working on something more ambitious (a chess playing site that runs on Red5 (http://osflash.org/red5) and ActionScript 3.0 with some other fancy things thrown in, like PaperVision3D (http://blog.papervision3d.org/)).
It's pretty cool that you're making a new program that can replace RPG Maker 2003. Indeed, you wouldn't have much support if people couldn't use RPG Maker 2003 projects in your program. Are you planning on open-sourcing it?
(alsoyou say "If people can't use what they already have, they won't want to switch." about rpgmaker, as XP has less functions than 2k3 and the latest has even less, but people are switching over regardless. The RPGMaker world should noway be confused with the real world, more like a school playground.)Same principle, actually. A lot of people are switching to these newer makers for about the same reason the majority of people switch to Vista: "latest-and-greatest syndrome". It's newer, it's got a few flashy new features, so it must be better! And to be fair to Enterbrain, XP could do a ton of stuff that 2000/2003 couldn't. It was a true upgrade, even without the vehicles and all the other stuff they tossed out. Too early to tell for VX, seeing as how it's not even released in the US yet, but a lot of the early comments I've seen don't speak too highly of the new system...
Steve Ballmer has said he won't take no for an answer on this one.
Okay.Well, it shouldn't scare you, since you didn't read the topic, or did you?
Why the fuck should this scare me again?
Why should I be worried about Microsoft in the first place? Admittedly I really don't know their history or anything but uh, I really don't think they're a threat to anything other than their business rivals.Hoo boy. Where to begin? If you study their history a bit, a different pattern will emerge. And right now they're at the forefront of the development of one of the most dangerous technological "advances" of our age, called "trusted computing." It's being advertised as a way to make your computer more secure by using hardware-based strong encryption, but analysts who look at it say its most obvious uses are creating a truly secure DRM system that can't be cracked, promoting vendor lock-in, allowing programmers to remote-control their programs on your computer, and using a "trust certification" system to stifle the growth of open-source software.
Uh...The whole Iran thing was a bit of a far-fetched example, but you shouldn't dismiss masonwheeler's argument so easily. "Trusted Computing" (TC) could easily mean the end of your control over your computer, as you will no longer be the supreme authority on what happens to your computer. Should the RIAA ever decide, in collusion with Microsoft, that ripping CDs should no longer be allowed, then that would become possible with the help of TC.
Where in the fuck does the President of Iran even enter into this topic?
The whole Iran thing was a bit of a far-fetched example, but you shouldn't dismiss masonwheeler's argument so easily. "Trusted Computing" (TC) could easily mean the end of your control over your computer, as you will no longer be the supreme authority on what happens to your computer. Should the RIAA ever decide, in collusion with Microsoft, that ripping CDs should no longer be allowed, then that would become possible with the help of TC.Dada, I'm aware of the possibility of the consequences trusted computing presents in regards to censorship and restricted personal control. I was just pointing out masonwheeler's really, really large exaggeration. It's fine to talk about the likely dangers of TC, but when someone makes a statement like that it's time to help them back on board the logic train.
There's a bunch of other serious concerns on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing#Criticism_of_Trusted_Computing). One particularly interesting quote: "TC can support remote censorship [...] In general, digital objects created using TC systems remain under the control of their creators, rather than under the control of the person who owns the machine on which they happen to be stored (as at present) [...] So someone who writes a paper that a court decides is defamatory can be compelled to censor it — and the software company that wrote the word processor could be ordered to do the deletion if she refuses. Given such possibilities, we can expect TC to be used to suppress everything from pornography to writings that criticise political leaders."
Software blocks can be hacked around pretty easily, as we know by now, but hardware blocks might be a lot more difficult.
I was just pointing out masonwheeler's really, really large exaggeration.His arguements are ridicilous. It's pretty much "s-such possiblty.....life isn dangre...." all over again!
I mean, what does even TC have to do with the issue of Microsoft buying Yahoo!Nothing, really. That got off-topic. Someone said Microsoft isn't a threat to anyone but their own business rivals, and I explained why that's not true. But anyone who thinks that my statement regarding the potential that TC has to endanger us is a "crazy exaggeration" needs to spend a bit of time examining computer security reports. Look at what people are already starting to accomplish with ordinary, non-trusted viruses and worms that the user is still able to deal with relatively easily. Then just imagine the computer trusting the virus more than it trusts the user. That's what "trusted computing" does. It obeys the program instead of the owner. Once you let local control out of your hands, it's impossible to know whose hands it will end up in.
I mean, what does even TC have to do with the issue of Microsoft buying Yahoo!Microsoft is a gigantic convicted monopolist. Anything that extends their reach beyond reasonable limits is bad. TC itself doesn't really have anything to do with them buying Yahoo, but you should understand the consequences of a powerful Microsoft. It's for this reason that companies are required to abide extra rules that prevent them from misusing their position in the market.
Also like the only people that use yahoo now are old people and kids who know nothing about computers and the school library has it as the homepage.Yahoo.com is apparently the most visited site on the internet (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/yahoo.com).
Yahoo.com is apparently the most visited site on the internet (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/yahoo.com).Kids and old people are a very large demographic!
Yahoo.com is apparently the most visited site on the internet (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/yahoo.com).Alexa isn't the most accurate source for this kind of information. I actually don't know the details that well but apparently it gets its data from the people who have the Alexa toolbar installed.
I thought Alexa just infected you with a tracking cookie whenever you visit their site, that tells them where you are going.No, that would be impossible to do with a cookie. This kind of software does exist, though, it's called spyware.
Why is every move Microsoft does construed as some sort of world conquering bid for power? Google is just as powerful a corporation as Microsoft, but if it were google buying out Yahoo, no one would bat an eye.because Google is trendy.
hahaha I can't believe people are like WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT MICROSOFT'S POSSIBLE MONOPOLY.
Look/Feel was such big news back in the day :(
Yeah, Microsoft don't fit the economical definition of a monopoly, whatever accusations people make.Do you consider the economical definition of monopoly to be a useful definition?
Do you consider the economical definition of monopoly to be a useful definition?More useful than the alternative, "ugh stop trying to have a very successful business".
Why is it that everyone says "LOL MICROSOFT MONOPOLY!"? What exactly is microsoft monopolizing? They're just a big company, they don't prevent others from doing what they want. Do they prevent anyone else from making operating systems? No, therefore they do not monopolize that.
I want just one example of a real monopoly by microsoft.
Yeah, Microsoft don't fit the economical definition of a monopoly, whatever accusations people make.
Rockman:
Depends on how you define "successful business". If someone achieves dominance through competition and having a better product, that's true success in my book. (Google's a prime example.) But making your way to the top through a long string of broken laws and anticompetitive business practices, which has been Microsoft's way since they entered the operating system market if not longer (read up on the DOS licensing terms if you don't believe me) isn't successful business, it's successful thuggery.
why on earth should that scare me?
MICROSOFT MONOPOLY!I think I saw this in the board games section of Toys R Us.
It's kind of disturbing how many people think this is all no big deal! Then again I guess that many people just really don't have a clue about these things but still want to get that extra post count +1.
This sort of thing happens way too often for it to be a big deal.No, these gigantic takeovers of the most major companies in a major field do not happen all that often. This is Microsoft and Yahoo we're talking about here, not ZilchByte Internet Solutions and MegaSlice Inc.; it's certainly going to have a big effect, as these are big players.
No, it is a big deal, it's just not scary.Well, sure. I never really thought it was scary either, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But it's something worth noting and worrying over.
edit: I must be underestimating how frightening this is if people are pulling out their Orwell quotes, jesus christ.I agree with you there!
I know this might sound like a joke or trolling.... but I thought the "classical capitalist notion" was to drive everyone out of business and to strong arm their way into having the public depend on them? You know.... the days of the Robber Barons?
- They believe that the best way to "compete" in business is not through the classical capitalist notion of competition, (producing either a better or a more affordable product, which promotes innovation and benefits everyone) but by driving everyone else out of business.
XP was decentThat has nothing to do with the Web.
Wouldn't it be better it microsoft bought yahoo. then we would have wo good search enigines. and if google ever wne off for updating we woudn't die?!Not really. Neither have particularly good search technology, so I doubt that combining them would make the product better than Google. Besides, Google doesn't go down so easily. It has so many high-performance servers running constantly that it would take a worldwide disaster for them to simultaneously go down.
I know this might sound like a joke or trolling.... but I thought the "classical capitalist notion" was to drive everyone out of business and to strong arm their way into having the public depend on them? You know.... the days of the Robber Barons?Meh. That's mostly a socialist strawman, although it really doesn't help that a lot of highly visible corporations do in fact behave that way. But that's not what all businesses are like, and it's not how any of them are supposed to be.
When the rich wage war its the poor who die~... or something like that. Fucking A if my email gets fucked over because of microsoft, thats just one more reason to hurt someone
When the rich wage war its the poor who die~
this dude totally just quoted linkin park.
Dada: I don't care because OSS/GNU/etc wins in any case!They're not even in this war! There's no unified open-source alternative to the services that Yahoo provides.
Haha, Yahoo is getting sued by some of it's shareholders:Holy shit that's crazy & interesting! Microsoft is using the shareholders "dissatisfaction" to it's own advantage to... "take over" the company. At least they try but man these methods...
Link (http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Shareholders+sue+Yahoo+for+rejecting+Microsoft+bid/ScienceandTech/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=tech-yahoo&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True)
Actually, if this flops and Yahoo brings Microsoft down . . well, that's sort of bad for the US economy.Huh?
Other than that, there's no issue with this. At all. Just a normal thing, a big company eating a slightly smaller company.Looks like someone didn't read the topic.
Actually, if this flops and Yahoo brings Microsoft down . . well, that's sort of bad for the US economy.In the short term, yeah. In the long run, however, removing a monopolist from the picture, especially in such a high-demand area, would create a lot of new competition as other companies attempt to fill the void, and strong competition produces a stronger economy than lack of competition. (Just look at how the computer industry took off after IBM lost its monopoly on the production of PCs!)
Huh?masonwheeler already explained this one. It'll damage the US economy temporarily, and with the rumors of the stock market crash .. blah blah blah, it'll be a big deal. It'll clear up like everything else though. Microsoft has a huge share in the US Stockmarket, which is why I mentioned that if they take a hit, it'll hit the economy directly.
Looks like someone didn't read the topic.I read the topic. I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. I don't care about Yahoo, nor do I use any of their services. If I am somehow forced to surf the internet on the latest Microsoft product, I will retreat to Linux. It's really that simple to me.