Microsoft Antitrust Case: Justified or not

[neverlate2day]

I want everyone to speak about the Microsoft Antitrust case, whether they feel it was justified or not. Feel free to add on the antitrust case by the EU.

I have a debate regarding that in school in the next 36 hours, so please post immediately.

As I will be using posts here as a reference in my debate, please mention your source while stating any statistics/facts.

Please post valid reasons, don't just state your view without justification. If you are unable to take up a view post me all the links you encountered regarding this.
Help will be appreciated.

PLEASE HELP ME I NEED IT FOR MY DEBATE
(Oh Please oh please!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[tnl2k7]

I agree with it. I think the sheer size of Microsoft is ridiculous, and will agree 100% with anyone who says they abuse their position. They bundle their own mediocre crappy software with Windows (take Vista for example, WMP, IE, photo editor, video editor...) in efforts to try and take over the universe with their broken logic. If they could only wake up and make non-bloated, sensible software with a nice varied selection of software from different publishers to install, they might just get the computer-literate people to like them, and shrug the DOJ off their backs.

My opinion: 100% justified - Microsoft really do show themselves up with all their useless bloatware taking over the world.

 

[alexandgruntz]

I have to disagree with the antitrust case. Microsost get bashed for including basic applications such as IE (although I use Firefox) and Windows Media Player. This doesn't happen to Linux or Apple.

The verdict is: if you don't like it, replace it. Microsoft is giving you a start so you can use what's there, and if you need more powerful applications, get them. Microsoft isn't forcing you to use IE, WMP or Photo Gallery.

 

[Smith6612]

I have to disagree with the antitrust case. Microsost get bashed for including basic applications such as IE (although I use Firefox) and Windows Media Player. This doesn't happen to Linux or Apple.

The verdict is: if you don't like it, replace it. Microsoft is giving you a start so you can use what's there, and if you need more powerful applications, get them. Microsoft isn't forcing you to use IE, WMP or Photo Gallery.

You are completely right here. I don't mind the software that comes with Windows, and I put it to good use as well. Some tools that I wanted before I moved from Windows 2000 (old gaming computer) to Vista (current gaming computer) were things such as Windows Movie Maker and System Restore (just in case). I see Apple getting bashed all the time on how their Macs are expensive and how they won't release their OS to PCs. Sure, Macs cost more but ultimately they're made from recycled materials and generally have slightly faster hardware than many budget PCs. Look at the Mac Mini for example. That's a fully powered computer, capable of many things and yet it's super small. MacBook Air? That thing has an Intel Core2Duo and yet it's soo small.

 

[Archkronos]

I agree with it. I think the sheer size of Microsoft is ridiculous, and will agree 100% with anyone who says they abuse their position. They bundle their own mediocre crappy software with Windows (take Vista for example, WMP, IE, photo editor, video editor...) in efforts to try and take over the universe with their broken logic. If they could only wake up and make non-bloated, sensible software with a nice varied selection of software from different publishers to install, they might just get the computer-literate people to like them, and shrug the DOJ off their backs.

Actually, I rather like WMP11. Photo editors and video editors need to be included, too.

And why do apple not get into trouble-- oh wait, I remember: iLife isn't part of the operating system - it is bundled with it for free when you first buy the system.

I have to disagree with the antitrust case. Microsost get bashed for including basic applications such as IE (although I use Firefox) and Windows Media Player. This doesn't happen to Linux or Apple.

The verdict is: if you don't like it, replace it. Microsoft is giving you a start so you can use what's there, and if you need more powerful applications, get them. Microsoft isn't forcing you to use IE, WMP or Photo Gallery.

^ this.

MacBook Air? That thing has an Intel Core2Duo and yet it's soo small.

The thing overheats like crazzzzy.

 

[Smith6612]

The thing overheats like crazzzzy.

Well yeah because by looking at the pictures the MacBook Air it's bound to overheat. A friend of mine I found out has a MacBook Air, so I'll have him load it down and see if it has some decent cooling or if he gets a Thermal Shutdown.

 

[Archkronos]

Well yeah because by looking at the pictures the MacBook Air it's bound to overheat. A friend of mine I found out has a MacBook Air, so I'll have him load it down and see if it has some decent cooling or if he gets a Thermal Shutdown.

Run a forkbomb. I had just enough time to go into a PC World, set off a forkbomb and walkout.

The thing was getting mighty hot.

It'd probably overheat if you turned off the thread limit because it probably hit the maximum thread limit for the user and denied any others opening. Though it'd still get hot.

 

[omoney]

I think the antitrust act was justified I mean NetScape was trying to start a business by providing a internet browser for a fee. Unfortunately microsoft saw this as a threat to it's pc domination and soon released their own internet browser for free. It almost took NetScape out of business. If microsoft was allowed to continue it's dominitation we would not have the variety in computer software and operating systems we have today.

 

[cased]

I have to disagree with the antitrust case. Remember those knife commercials on TV? Not only do you get this extra sharp knife, but you also get this extra gadget. And that's not all, but you also get this gadget as well. But wait, order now and you'll also get another gadget. Do they get sued for antitrust? What ahole commie came up with the idea of punishing a company for packing lots of feature into their product to make it more appealing to its customers? We can't be having innovative new products that people actually like to use in the US. The company might become successful and make lots of money and that makes us jealous.

Now maybe if Widows didn't allow someone to install competitor products, there would be a case, but you can install any software you want. No one forces you to use the software Microsoft gives you with its OS. The only ones trying to impose their will on the consumer were those who brought the antitrust case against Microsoft.

 

[rlodge]

I have to disagree with the antitrust case. Remember those knife commercials on TV? Not only do you get this extra sharp knife, but you also get this extra gadget. And that's not all, but you also get this gadget as well. But wait, order now and you'll also get another gadget. Do they get sued for antitrust? What ahole commie came up with the idea of punishing a company for packing lots of feature into their product to make it more appealing to its customers? We can't be having innovative new products that people actually like to use in the US. The company might become successful and make lots of money and that makes us jealous.

Now maybe if Widows didn't allow someone to install competitor products, there would be a case, but you can install any software you want. No one forces you to use the software Microsoft gives you with its OS. The only ones trying to impose their will on the consumer were those who brought the antitrust case against Microsoft.

A big part of the Microsoft anti-trust case was that they intentionally "broke" Windows so that competitors' products wouldn't work with Windows. (Java? Netscape?) It's one thing to allow you to bundle your products but to use your maket position to make sure that your competitors products won't work with your software is bull. That is one of the major reasons for the anti-trust case.

 

[cased]

A big part of the Microsoft anti-trust case was that they intentionally "broke" Windows so that competitors' products wouldn't work with Windows. (Java? Netscape?) It's one thing to allow you to bundle your products but to use your maket position to make sure that your competitors products won't work with your software is bull. That is one of the major reasons for the anti-trust case.

I'll have to take your word for it I guess. I never had a computer that I couldn't install Netscape or Java on and I've had computers with Windows98, 2000, and XP.

Although I said they'd have more of a case if competitors couldn't install software, it's not much more. If people didn't like it, they could just buy another OS. It's obvious to me that people just didn't care about the competitors. That's their fault, not Microsoft's.

 

[daltonlaffs]

The only thing that justifies the antitrust case is that Microsoft forces you to use certain applications. It's damn near impossible to make an Explorer replacement (although it is possible, I'll give you that), and Internet Explorer is pretty much part of Vista. If you tried to get rid of IE, Vista would freak out. I hate that software, but I keep it back there for stability.

I also agree with the fact that Microsoft "broke" Windows, as rlodge mentioned, so that a lot of third-party software would no longer function. Heck, as a VB programmer, I saw a LOT of things change in Vista that broke some old software and had to switch to VB.NET.

On the flip-side though, they DO allow you a choice for the most part. It's technically possible to replace Explorer (there are a few choice registry keys for that), as well as about everything but IE.

I find it justified because of what they broke on their competitors' fronts. They should have offered, at the very least, compatibility packs that actually will run pre-Vista software with no strings attached and no error boxes.

 

[BentFX]

Just a quick funny from back in the day...

Bill Gates bought ten million vaccinations for impoverished children. Apparently the vaccines come bundled with internet explorer.

 

[cased]

Suppose I created a new computer whose architecture was totally different from a PC or an Apple. I also created my own software which is the only software that will work on the computer because the architecture is different and thus a different machine code. Suppose I keep this a secret because I don't want anyone making software for my computer other than myself. Can I now be sued for antitrust?