Microsoft Wins Windows XP Downgrade Lawsuit 203
CWmike writes "A federal judge has dismissed a year-old lawsuit against Microsoft over alleged antitrust violations for the 'downgrade' rules it set for Windows Vista and XP. The order put an end to the lawsuit filed by Emma Alvarado in February 2009. In her original complaint, she accused Microsoft of coercing computer makers into forcing consumers who wanted to run Windows XP to first buy Windows Vista, or later, Windows 7, before they were allowed to downgrade to XP. The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented."
How? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Yeah really... Microsoft isn't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft's expense after all.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
It's easy.
1 - Microsoft's lawyers wasted a small forest worth of paper filing frivolous motion after frivolous motion.
2 - smaller plaintiff couldn't keep up.
3 - money could probably have changed hands to the judge. Is that a new swimming pool with the Windows logo in his backyard?
Re:How? (Score:2)
How did they benefit? It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued. I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?), or any form of downgrade. You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you? Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd. The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.
Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?
I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell. The idea is absurd. It's very mafia-ish at the very least.
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of ways they benefit. One by having mechanisms built into Vista that patrol the user that weren't there in XP that were rejected by XP users when they released WGA. The next is that they actually denied consumers the choice even though consumers asked for it and in the end the only way to get it was to pay for the OS twice (once for Vista and once for XP). OEMs aren't just the big boys such as the royal OEMs.
This person's failure was obviously her failure of knowing the law or getting adequate legal council. Or Microsoft has deep pockets that get judges all hot and wet.
The OEMs were forced to sell Vista and were told not to allow XP. Microsoft's approach to forcing Vista was systematic. It isn't hard to see what they had done over the past two years. Those actions could only be taken by a monopoly in the manner they were, and then again only by a monopoly with something to gain. Microsoft had been directing Royal OEMs to remove support for XP in the BIOS tables and as well had been telling hardware vendors not to provide drivers for XP (sound, wireless, etc). They didn't direct this in this manner without some plan and thus benefit to themselves.
Really, it isn't hard to understand that users wanted X product but were forced to buy V product and then buy X product afterwords. When resellers said they were not able to comply and that Microsoft had discontinued their right to purchase the X product and then systematically denied support, and then lied about the availability of product keys. That's coercion of all parties--to say the least. When you consider Microsoft came up with more product keys after the netbook craze began you can see they were manipulating and coercing OEMs and thus consumers.
If I were this person I'd refile (as I'm sure the case didn't go to trial) and then subpoena all the OEMs and their communications in preparation of the Vista release. I'd be willing to bet there's some real telling details in those correspondences.
Re:How? (Score:4, Informative)
in the end the only way to get it was to pay for the OS twice (once for Vista and once for XP)
Except that once you've bought Vista, the downgrade to XP was free.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:4, Informative)
"Except that once you've bought Vista, the downgrade to XP was free."
Not for anything lower than Professional, IIRC. If you had home/home premium/home basic you had to pay like a $50 downgrade fee.
Re:How? (Score:2)
You are indeed right. I stand corrected.
Re:How? (Score:2)
And if you wanted XP Professional you had to have Vista Business in order to get the Pro Downgrade.
Re:How? (Score:4, Interesting)
A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device. Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced.
AAPL (Score:3, Funny)
A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device. Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced.
In other news, Apple Computer has hit an all time high in the stock market...
Re:AAPL (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
You are allowed to bundle items for sale so long as they are also sold as individual items.
Since you can buy a computer without the windows OS, you can also by one with windows. You can even offer a discount for buying both hardware and software.
Its the exact same concept as fast food restaurants employ. You don't want the fries and the drink with your gyro? Then don't get the combo. You want chicken in your gyro? Yeah, we used to sell a chicken gyro, now you buy a gyro and add chicken for an extra fifty cents. I'm sorry, that coupon is for dine-in only.
On the other hand, a customer is not compelled to buy a manufactured computer in the first place. Anyone can go out and buy a motherboard, a processor, RAM, etc, and build their own computer. They can do research on all the parts they need, how it works, make a project of it. Let's face it, we all know (or at least should know) someone who had no computer knowledge, read a book, and built a computer in under a weekend.
Re:How? (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you bought a new computer?
Re:How? (Score:2)
When was the last time you bought a new computer?
December 18th, 2009.
Re:How? (Score:2)
From whom? I don't know about the other poster, but I have to call BS on the "fully functional bundle of software" part.
Re:How? (Score:2)
"When was the last time you bought a new computer?"
My abacus had spare beads, does that count?
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
How did they benefit? It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued. I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?), or any form of downgrade. You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you? Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd. The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.
Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?
I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell. The idea is absurd. It's very mafia-ish at the very least.
That's weird... I just realized something... and maybe this is the problem:
"Back in the day" many OEMs were selling the XP Downgrade at an additional cost. Nowadays, it seems one can buy a machine with Vista/Win7 or XP (with a Vista or Win7 license included) at the same price.
Perhaps that is the problem with this suit (or part of it) - nowadays there is no extra charge. When the lawsuit was initiated, virtually everyone (due to Microsoft per their claims) was charging an extra fee for the downgrade license.
Just two months ago, I purchased 4 XP machines for a client. They were the same price as the identical hardware with Vista or Win 7. They came with Vista restore disks but XP pre-installed. And a free upgrade coupon for Win7 (which was honored, btw)... meaning, for the price of one OS, it's come with XP pre-installed, Vista restore disks, and Win 7 upgrade on it's way in the mail (for the cost of S/H). (These were for Lenovo ThinkCentres)
A year and a few months ago, the machine would have been an extra $40-80 for the "downgrade" to preinstalled XP.
Perhaps they had a hard time proving it because there isn't anything available online to help them prove it now. Or they were checking the wrong manufacturers and didnt find any that still may be charging extra.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Although the license fail to explicitly state it, it appears to be Apple's policy to allow downgrades. If you want to upgrade an old mac that will not run the newest OS, and contact Apple they are likely to have you buy the latest version, and then provide the older version. That is at least what I have seen happen in the past.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Although the license fail to explicitly state it, it appears to be Apple's policy to allow downgrades.
Generally speaking, it is not possible to install a version of MacOS on a Mac older than the one it came with. Apple don't provide the necessary hardware drivers.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Why does someone have to prove Microsoft benefited?
Let's say hypothetically that I shoot my very rich uncle, get caught, and in the middle of the trial it turns out I'm not in his will after all. I couldn't argue that I didn't actually benefit so I should get off. No one is going to conclude that If I knew about the will, that proves I had no other reason to shoot dear old uncle Fred, or that if I didn't know, I definitely did it for the money. If the state proves I did it based on solid eye witnesses, ballistic evidence and such, they may not bother much with my motives at all.
If Microsoft did something with the goal of benefiting, why does it have to have been successful before they are culpable? If Microsoft did something, and it didn't work as well as they thought, what relevance does that have to the question of whether what they did was itself right or wrong?
Re:How? (Score:2)
frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?)
Where are you getting this idea that Slashdotters hate the free market? You won't find more Ayn Rand freaks outside the Libertarian party than on this site.
Re:Oh the irony (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:2)
You sue the wrong party or pursue the wrong action (Score:5, Informative)
This is from the article:
Computer makers, not Microsoft, charged users the additional fees for downgrading a new PC from Vista to XP at the factory. However, Alvarado did not name Lenovo Group Ltd. in her lawsuit.
She sued MS for a practice of the OEM. Wrong defendant.
It's possible that she could have shown vertical market manipulation, but that might not have been relevant. Such practices might give rise to a federal antitrust suit, but she brought a state unfair practices action.
I'm no expert in the laws of Washington state, but from the article it appears that among other things she had to show that she did not receive value for her money and she failed to do so.
Re:You sue the wrong party or pursue the wrong act (Score:2)
Hmm. Your answer is too well thought out, logical, and evidence-based. Next time, please post a variation on this post. [slashdot.org]
Re:The usual (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:The usual (Score:2)
It is arguable and people will be insistent their opinion is the right one. It is all subjective but I do believe it says something that Vista had a shorter life. In fact it had half the life XP had before it's replacement came out.
Re:The usual (Score:2)
Yes, I am a troll because I like Vista more than XP
This had nothing to do with your personal opinion- which you're quite entitled to- and everything to do with the section I was replying to and quite clearly quoted alone:-
The only people who say that XP is better than Vista are people who haven't actually used Vista.
That's a blatantly sweeping, across-the-board generalisation. If you expect people to take something that all-encompassing and unqualified seriously, you're going to have to back it up.
You didn't, and it came across as a borderline-troll, or- at best- unsubstantiated and worthless.
my actual perception is that Vista naysayers simply recite the tired old flaws in Vista that have been fixed for years now.
Your actual perception is just that- perception. It might be right or wrong. It's probably coloured by your personal opinion, and time spent reading Slashdot- whose audience is a tiny and unrepresentative section of the mass home and business IT market as a whole.
Vista was rejected by the mass market, not by the niche of Slashdotters alone.
Oh and your post is proof enough.
My post proves nothing except that anyone making major assertions with nothing to back them up doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
If you had used Vista SP1 or later with non-ancient drivers, then you would know that Vista is simply a better OS than XP.
Matter of opinion, and an attempt to shift the ground. What you originally said above didn't mention SP1 at all, merely that:-
The only people who say that XP is better than Vista are people who haven't actually used Vista.
It's quite probable that people tried the original release of Vista, disliked it and that's what caused the negativity towards Vista. Whether it improved later doesn't change that- they tried it, the negativity stuck and your stupid generalisation is shown to be bunk.
You just owned yourself there, buddy.
Quite the opposite; your later mention of SP1- which massively alters the nature of your original assertion by excluding *everyone* who used the original release- proves that it was drivel in the first place.
And that's what happens when you pull unsubstantiated generalisations out of your ass, "buddy".
It's their copyright and they can do as they want! (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is under no obligation to give you a license for Windows XP if it doesn't want to. They've removed it from the general marketplace, but have left even Windows 3.1 in the MSDN subscription packages, even if those are a high price to pay for an old operating system, it's still the going rate.
What a waste of resources. This lawsuit had no hope, and the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, this was already covered under anti-trust legislation as illegal tying [slashdot.org] as Vista was the unwanted product tethered to the purchase of most OEM computers. Unfortunately, the chances of this ever being enforced are slim in the United States.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the world's non-embedded computers run Windows. When a company reaches that level of influence, it ceases to be just another firm and instead becomes a part of our societal infrastructure. It's certainly reasonable to hold such organizations to a higher standard than we hold smaller organizations. The power company can't "do as they want" either.
As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.
You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success". That's hardly true. The people responsible for Microsoft's growth have been rewarded many times over. If Microsoft finds regulations unbearable, it can split itself in two smaller companies, or shrink some other way. Then, it would no longer be subject to the same scrutiny.
But as long as Microsoft
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.
You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success"
You could also argue that society's choices - it's collective decisions - made Microsoft and Windows what they are today.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.
Society already has a say. They can stop buying Windows.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
The power of your argument is overwhelming. I am compelled to concede.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
Who modded you insightful?
The US legal system is a method through which the US government finds issues to jump upon and regulate. Furthermore, the legal system exists solely because it is a function of government (hence why we call it a court of law).
Parent is also wrong; all organizations, regardless of size, should be held to the same level of regulation.Society does have a say in how every organization is run, its called a combination of laws, public ownership (stock), and political harm (environmentalists). Society should not, however, control how an organization is run. Recently, banks were told exactly how to be run by society, at great cost to society. We should have allowed banks to fail, so that new banks could take over and succeed. Instead, every US citizen is now paying for banks not failing by having their credit card interest rates hiked (mine went from 4% to 12%, but people with bad credit are seeing upwards of 30%) due to regulation telling banks how to run their organization. This is just a contemporary example of why government intervention = everyone loses.
Larger organizations may be subject to more scrutiny, but the laws should not differ simply because your company makes more money.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
Why? Because it's conceptually elegant?
These laws already discriminate based on size: small businesses are exempted from many labor and regulatory requirements. Why can't we add a class for very large corporations?
Why not? Also, you just contradicted yourself.
Why not?
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
Speaking directly to your response by paragraph,
I don't understand what you mean by 'conceptually elegant'. 'Because it looks good' is not a reason to regulate. I assure you that you agree with me on this point. For example, I am against legislation allowing gay marriage because I am against the concept of any marriage. Its just a tax liability loophole, whereas people can create individual contracts to live together and combine assets in the formation of a family unit (whether or not they have children or even the ability to have children) regardless of sexual orientation so long as you don't call it a marriage contract (instead, call it an llc), therefore the concept is ridiculous (granted, there are a few tax credit/deductions that can only be earned through a marriage contract, but whoever heard of getting married so that you have a different standard deduction?). See how regulation regarding gay marriage is explicitly unecessary, as all people should be held to the same standard of regulation, just as businesses should?
Small businesses are exempt from labor and regulatory requirements because it would be both impossible to enforce and impossible to implement (both from a prohibitively expensive standpoint and from a reasonableness standpoint) in the majority of small businesses. This does not mean that our current laws are accurate or reasonable.
You seem to not understand the difference between what does exist vs what should be. I did not contradict myself. You can start a philosophical discussion about whether businesses care about customers beyond doing the bare minimum to keep people buying stuff, but in reality, without government interference, the purpose of a business is not to make money (see publicly traded company, government regulation of for detailed explanation).
Give me an explanation of why so, and I will tell you why you are wrong.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
I ask whether conceptual elegance motivates your thoughts because I can't conceive of any other reason for asserting that the law must apply in a uniform manner to large and small companies alike.
Look, I'm with you on getting the government out of marriage. The rights currently conferred by marriage should be split up into individual agreements that any two people can agree to.
That said, you must be aware of how difficult it would be to remove the concept of marriage from the law. The political cost would be astronomical, and the gain would be quite minimal. So in a practical sense, the government will always officiate marriages. Because marriage is not going away, and because it does confer definite benefits [nytimes.com], your opposition to gay marriage is an endorsement of continued inequality for one class of people. In fact, your confusion between "is" and "ought" in this instance is so plain that one must wonder whether you have other reasons for your opposition to gender-blind marriage.
You did not address my question.
You made a categorical assertion that we have no basis for applying different laws to large and small businesses. I asked you for the supporting foundational arguments behind that assertion, and you did not provide any. Again: why are we, in your view, specifically prohibited from applying different laws to businesses that dominate their markets?
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
Not quite.
I didn't say that the law must apply in a uniform manner to large and small companies alike, I said that it should. As for why, the very concept of a free market (which we currently only have in a limited state but generally agree would be a preferred business strategy here in the US, land of the anyone can do anything) requires that environmental factors regarding business are not modified by outside influences. For example, barriers to entry should only include economic (is there a market for product/service) and financial (for-profits should make a profit, non-governmental non-profits must have (private) funding, governmental for and not for profits should not compete with established organizations unless they can do so to the benefit of society; ie cheaper and better, lending institutions should not be governmentally based [so as to avoid political motivations, see no child left behind and abstinence only education]), and should not include political influences (environmentalists, religious organizations that proselytize, etc; that influence regulation. In other words, its ok that PETA exists, but PETA should not be telling BSA to get rid of fishing merit badge by funding political campaigns that promise to declare it an outrage).
We are not prohibited from applying different laws to different businesses (in fact this occurs regularly, based not on size of the business but rather the content of the business itself; for example, a shoe making factory is not held to beef inspections for mad cow). In clarification, the laws that we apply to all businesses should apply to all businesses in the same manner regardless of [business success]. As for why, there is no reasonable basis for punishing success, especially success that comes only because of a broken system (fix the system, and you don't have to fix specific situational items with controversial law after controversial law).
For example, large businesses should not receive specific tax credits that smaller businesses do not based on volume, as the incentive to produce larger volumes already exists (economies of scale/quantity discount pricing, expansion/growth/ROI for shareholders, etc). Small businesses, however, should not receive government loans at lower rates than large businesses, as small businesses have a larger risk of default, and the American taxpayer should not be one to shoulder such differential risk.
To address your last question, there are many, many reasons to provide different laws for different businesses, but being particularly good at what you do is not in and of itself one of them.
As an example, look at sarbanes oxley, an SEC regulation that has strict requirements for disclosure among all businesses, and higher penalties for fraud than previously existed. While some of the disclosure requirements are optional for smaller businesses (specifically when adherence would make it prohibitively expensive), this does not mean that small businesses can commit fraud without the new penalties for getting caught. While SOX is good for businesses because it gives (stupid) shareholders more faith in the honesty of business filings, it is actually bad for businesses because it doesn't actually make businesses any more honest. Furthermore, it makes 10k/10q filings less understandable. Meanwhile, larger businesses should have to hire more people for all of the new disclosure requirements, but in practice, they just increase the workload of their present employees. This leads to more burnout turnover, which is bad for both employers and employees, simply because a company, as you put it, dominates the market.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
I don't expect you to believe me. I expect you to agree with me. The difference is important.
What does that have to do with my argument? I'm not arguing that Microsoft should be charged double electricity rates, or that we should collect double bridge tolls from its employees.
Yes, but we do not individually exert a huge influence of the security of society. Microsoft does.
Like I said: regulating companies is not punishing success. Microsoft has two options:
One would presume that Microsoft is better off under option B that under option A --- that's not a punishment for success. It's a reward with strings. There's nothing wrong with that.
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
Can you think of any GPL software from, say, 10 or 15 years ago that would be much use as the basis for a closed-source app today? Probably the most popular software of that age is WinXP, and re-selling that without SP1-3 would be nigh impossible.
Personally, I'd like it if, to receive copyright protection, software had to be either published with all sources, makefiles, etc., or have those placed in escrow until the copyright expired, and likewise the high-res masters of a/v works. This way, the version in the public domain contains all the information needed to make derivative works from it. As it is, books, for example, contain the copyright material in losslessly, for the most part, even if duplicating it would be non-trivial,
Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa (Score:2)
I can think of such opensource tools, though not necessarily GPL. SSH, which forked from open source to closed source and still has an open source fork available, is available in a more featureful closed source version, especially including Kerberos support ofr Windows clients.
Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:4, Interesting)
Like, say, attorney fees? (Score:3, Informative)
> There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers.
Almost nobody wants to go to court. (Attorneys sometimes do because it's fun to do advocacy before the court, but most of them are smart enough to put client interests first. Debt Collection agencies also want to because they're almost never opposed, because people don't have money to fight them, but they don't even really think of it as going to court.) Courts also have pre-trial systems in place to try to get the parties to agree to a settlement before trial is necessary--pretrial conferences serve that function in most courts. A judge can look at the record and say "Are you sure you don't want to just settle this?"
Losing a lawsuit that you've spent years on (and likely paid for someone else to spend years on) is a pretty meaningful consequence for the losers.
You've also got the problem that the bigger the consequence to the loser, the less likely they are to bring legitimate claims to court.
Re:Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, anyway, this didn't go to trial. Basically exactly what you wanted to happen, happened. Except instead of "a panel of retired judges," it was one non-retired judge who's actually paid to make these decisions.
In terms of ending discovery or other interminable (and expensive) pre-trial research & investigation--if you could make a suggestion that would do that without granting a virtual 'shield law' to civil fraudsters who don't want to be forced to cough up evidence they've committed fraud, I'd listen. I occasionally wonder if a system with much more active & stronger regulation and much less litigation would be a worthwhile trade-off. I don't know, but I haven't thought of any others.
Re:Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:2)
This is a lunatic waste of a court's time and resources.
Re:Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:2)
That's exactly what your lawyer's job is. If he's lying to you, or horribly mistaken, you can sue him. That's why all the lawyers here on /. post lengthy disclaimers...
And with your pre-trial trial, how does "discovery" work? Does it have the full force to subpoena documents, in which case it's trivial for anyone to do so without consequences... Or does it have no such power, in which case it's a useless waste of time, as no information is available?
The problems with a loser-pays system have been discussed to-death on /. and everywhere else. Your plan adds nothing new.
Re:Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:2)
So?
Take ending slavery. And then try your argument against that.
Now you see the flaw in your “argument“, don’t you. ^^
Re:Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:2)
I see a flaw in your argument.
This change in the legal system would not reflect a massive change in human worldview; it's just a change in the mechanics of how civil lawsuits are brought and reviewed. The argument against it would sound like ' this change would cause those who have been harmed to not bring cases because defendents are large organizations that have better legal resources and the risk of having to pay when a lawsuit is warranted (even if the outcome is unlikely to be favorable) is not something that our legal system is designed for. A court of law is a justice system, it is not designed to intimidate.' Or something along those lines.
Meanwhile, we already have meaningful consequences for losers of a civil suit - the public record that the loser is wrong in the facts of a civil lawsuit, court costs, time spent, etc.
Re:Why did this have to go to trial? (Score:2)
If you, as a prosecutor, can't get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich you're not doing your job right.
Grand juries are... at best an unpredictable, and at worst a totally useless, check on prosecutorial power. Not the best model to go from.
more spawn of MS spooge (Score:2, Interesting)
They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
72.54% of Windows users continue to use XP, so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista. If Microsoft had any competitors they would be forced to continue selling XP in order to avoid losing market share, however their monopoly means they do not have to worry about this since there literally aren't any competitors*. They are therefore abusing their monopoly by forcing 7/Vista onto a market that does not want it. What the judge says is true and Microsoft really aren't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it's XP or 7, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse. I certainly feel abused because I want to buy a laptop with Windows XP but all the options in my price range come with Windows 7 Home Premium. How can the judge conclude this isn't monopoly abuse? Somebody get the EU!
*Mac OS is not a direct competitor to Windows since I can't legitimately install Mac OS on my PC. Alternatives like Linux aren't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.
Re:They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopo (Score:3, Funny)
Alternatives like Linux aren't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.
Yes, but 2010 will be the year of the Linux desktop; just you wait and see...
Re:They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopo (Score:2)
72.54% of Windows users continue to use XP, so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista.
Wow, giant fallacy in your first sentence.
If you said, 72.54% of *new computer purchases in 2010* have XP installed, then you'd have a point. You'd also have a point if the upgrade to Windows 7 was free and trivially-easy.
As-is, though, you're just spouting nonsense. Do you think this site is full of jellybrains? Did you think we'd fall for that trick?
Of course there IS a benefit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course there IS a benefit... (Score:2)
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.
That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine. To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP)
Fixed that for you. It was strictly an OEM charge.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
In your dislike of Microsoft(which probably dates back to the old days of Microsoft vs. Netscape), you have missed what really happens(or happened since we are in the days of Windows 7, not Vista).
When you buy a computer from an OEM, the vast majority came with the OS pre-installed. Now, due to the volume of sales, the company doesn't "install" each and every setup clean and then put drivers and software on the machine, they go from a single hard drive image that they then place onto the hard drive of new machines. As a result, the cost to the OEM in terms of labor, both in terms of time spent setting up the machine, as well as in getting what is hopefully a reliable set of drivers and software is much lower. Without this, labor alone in setting up Windows with drivers and software would increase system prices by a significant amount.
So, what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP? The company has to go out of its way in terms of labor(remember, a very low percentage of people buying an OEM computer cared enough to insist on XP over Vista) to make a machine XP when the system is set to go out with Vista. It isn't like the company offered two machines, one with XP and one with Vista, it was the same model, so extra handling and such come into play.
From the Microsoft point of view, if an OEM wants to buy copies of XP, that is up to the OEM, Microsoft does not charge there, and Microsoft was not the one charging ANYTHING, except for the license and disc for XP. So, it wasn't Microsoft who was doing the sales. And sales, not Microsoft is where things come into play. In theory, if you order a system from an OEM with XP on it, and they ONLY put XP on the machine, there is no double charge. If you buy a system with Vista, and then pay for it to be downgraded by the company to XP, then you have to fight with the OEM about you being sold two operating systems when you only wanted one.
In any case, there was still the labor cost to manually place XP on the machine, and the company could easily charge $100 since it is an extra labor cost, and then give the XP license for free if you prefer to do it that way. If you want something out of the ordinary, you will generally have to pay for it. The only exception is when you get a REAL custom built machine where the company has to pick the OS rather than just grabbing a machine off the shelf and ship it since thousands of the same configuration have been put together with zero difference.
Blame Microsoft when they do something wrong, but in this case, if a sales rep on the phone sells you two operating systems and you only wanted one, then blame the sales person. This applies to EVERYTHING, where sales people will always try to sell more, and the buyer has to know when not to buy it. Now, it is also the option of the company selling something to only offer certain services on select items. High cost items will generally provide the greatest number of options when it comes to extras, while low cost items may not have certain things available. This really comes back to the idea that companies will be more inclined to take a "lesser profit" on extra services if they have already made a good profit on the sale.
So, how much money do YOU feel your time is worth? If you make $20/hour at your job, your employers would want to make at least $30/hour from the work you do to make it worth it to them, probably more. How much total time, from sales to installation of XP to shipping would it take to send out a specially configured system? Is it worth it for a company if they only make $10 total profit on the sale of a low-cost $400 computer tower?
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
You wrote:
> So, what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP?
No, what happened when Microsoft came out with Vista and _no one wanted it_? The OEM could continue with their familiar XP operating system and driver installation, and not waste money and resources on engineering solutions that few customers wanted. Unfortunately, Microsoft proceeded to manipulate the OEM's in ways that require Microsoft power, ways for which Microsoft has been convicted before. The _threatened_ OEM's, by raising the prices of Vista licenses for those few customers that wanted them, unless OEM's agreed to switch entirely to Vista. Numerous customers did not _want_ Vista, but were coerced by new hardware being available only with Vista pre-installed. And that effectively raises the price of XP equipped machines quite a lot, because for an individual customer doing all that driver and patch upgrading is hideously expensive.
Vendors were willing to continue with XP, to support customers who wanted it. Microsoft acted against those vendors: and if you don't believe a big vendor can do a hardsell, try attending a meeting with a big vendor, and a few of the little after-hours meetings they try to arrange with your management. It's enlightening.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
"That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine. To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable."
Sometimes a harsh response is appropriate:
Cry me a river. Don't like the terms, don't fucking buy Windows. Windows terms too inconvenient? Don't fucking buy Windows.
Refuse to learn a different OS? Refuse to learn how to route around inconvenience? Then tough shit.
Want XP? Buy a retail copy and run it in a VM. Too lazy to learn? Then you don't actually NEED XP so piss off. Apple wants your business, and Linux is available if you have any initiative at all.
Windows terms should become ever more onerous and inconvenient, and those who favor Free and Open software should welcome such moves by their enemies.
(It is perfectly reasonable to consider MSFT an enemy, despite those who consider it an enemy for illogical reasons.)
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.
Actually, there was 3 years between the launch of Vista and Windows 7. Rather than being rushed out, that is actually longer than average for a Windows release. The major Windows NT releases have taken 1 year, 2 years, 3.5 years, 1.75 years, 5 years, and 3 years respectively.
The releases that took longer involved major upgrades to the code: 3.5 years for NT4 to 2000 and 5 years for XP to Vista. It seems that the Microsoft are aiming for 3 years between releases now (Windows 8 should be out in 2012).
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
"And Vista wasn't bad at all."
Vista constantly ate itself. NTLDR would just disappear from the system (even booting with a LiveCD and looking for it turned up nothing) at random. It was a total POS for me, and I was using nothing but big-company hardware. I tried different hard drives and even an additional SATA controller in case my onboard controller was fubar'd, kept getting Vista eating itself. I formatted, installed XP, hacked the video .INF to make it work, and that was that, no issues.
Classic Theme? (Score:2)
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2, Insightful)
My general opinion of Microsoft is that they don't make good software, they make software that's just good enough. That's my personal opinion.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much my opinion on any current desktop operating system. They're all just good enough. I currently use Linux pretty much exclusively, except for a VM instance of XP, so I've learned how to deal with and get around anything that bugs me, but I would imagine the same could be said for both OSX and WinX.
There really hasn't been anything new in the desktop world for decades, other than eye candy. Filesystems (which actually could have an impact on how we handle our data) have tended to evolve, rather than radically change.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
Just because everyone on here hates microsoft doesn't mean they don't make decent software.
Agreed. In my mind, the fact that the security breach of the week tends to allow root-privileged execution of arbitrary code means that they don't make decent software.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.
Two things. First, Microsoft is not targeting the tiny percentage of users that find headless operation useful. Second, you don't need Microsoft's approval to run a cron daemon in Windows...
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
You want headless you should be running Windows Server rather than regular Windows. You may have to jump through hoops to change from the server scheduler back to the regular scheduler if you feel that is important, and to turn off the aditional security features intended to prevent things like browsing the internet on the server, but once you do so, you basically have Windows Ultimate++.
Oh and Windows 7's Task Scheduler is equivalent to cron. It cannot be fully configured from the command line, and does not use the crontab format, but it otherwise has a super-set of the functionality of cron.
Re:Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.
You know, it's somewhat telling that those are the only two points that a linux advocate (I assume) could come up with. I used to split my computers into Win/Linux, but I find that the expense in time administering the Linux ones is demanding. I still "believe in" Free Software, and the distros have all made strides, but Windows 7 has made such a significant leap that it's difficult to compete with. With Vista, you needed a quantum computer to even boot the machine, so the division was simple: Vista on the heavier machines, and Linux on the lighter ones. Now though, considering that Win7 was pushed out with new computers at a comparatively low price, it's much harder to find a reason to use Linux even on weaker machines (I realize that the price drop came mainly from hardware price drops, but overall you pay a lot less for a full-features laptop, and Windows 7 will run just fine on it, unlike the sluggish Vista).
I still use OSS for anything that I possibly can, which is almost everything apart from CAD/CAM and some 2D graphics software (but then, I don't need to edit audio/video, otherwise there'd be that too). However, when it comes to the OS, making the decision that "Linux will better suit this machine" almost never happens apart from really old computers (which wasn't true during Vista).
As Tacvek has addressed in the post above, headless operation isn't really what Win7 is supposed to do, and cron can be handled either with the Scheduler, or an array of free software you can easily find. From a practical standpoint, MS has done very well with Windows 7.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their cue from Windows
FTFY. "Queue" means something else entirely.
At any rate, I don't think I'd say Windows sucks any worse than pick-your-own-distro-Linux. Why? Because I use them for entirely different purposes. As long as I'm a PC gamer, neither Linux nor OSX is going to serve my needs; as such I can hardly say Windows "sucks", since it's the only OS that actually does something I really want to do! (And no, wine is not sufficient.)
If you're going to say "Windows is worse than Linux", you really do need to qualify that with what tasks you're talking about; clearly, each OS has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it's silly to pretend one is unilaterally better or worse than the rest.
He's just a zealot (Score:2)
Every OS has its zealots who thing it is the One True Way(tm). Well, if your OS is the only way to go, that must mean other OSes suck. In particular, Linux and Mac zealots tend to hate on Windows so hard because it is so dominant. They convince themselves that their OS is amazing and superior, the masses are just too stupid to realize it.
There's no reasoning with the zealots.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
If you are calling yourself a gamer, why don't you just buy a PlayStation or XBox or Wii?
Because I'm a PC gamer, not a console gamer. There's a distinct difference; PC gamers like being able to tweak graphics settings, run dedicated servers, use a keyboard and mouse, and so on.
There's nothing wrong with console gaming, I simply prefer PC gaming.
Computer operating systems are not meant to be a single purpose systems and neither Microsoft promotes Windows as a gaming OS.
I'm well aware that computers are not single-purpose; I use computers for lots of other things. It's one reason I'm a PC gamer: so I don't have multiple devices to upgrade every few years.
I keep trying to switch to Linux; every year, I try again, and every year, it's still not quite there. This year, the biggest reason is the lack of Netflix support, the second-biggest being gaming (some of my games work in Linux).
It occurs to me that I'm writing this post from Linux, while playing Starcraft via wine in windowed mode, so perhaps that will help show that I'm hardly anti-Linux. (Incidentally, Starcraft works better under wine than it does in Windows 7, at least on my machine. I wish all games followed suit.)
Whether Microsoft advertises Windows as a gaming platform or not is irrelevant; the fact is, if you tend to play lots of new AAA PC game titles, you need Windows.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.
In my (limited) OS X experience, that would probably be because the window was already at its larger size, so all the green light could do was shrink it down to its smaller size.
I do agree that the UI is poorly-designed. This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stop. Maybe that's Windows/GNOME/KDE conditioning, but that's the way it is. If I have no windows open for a given application, I do not expect that application to be considered to be "running".
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stop. Maybe that's Windows/GNOME/KDE conditioning, but that's the way it is
It's conditioning that begins before you are taught to obey the stop sign and traffic light.
Blood red in Western culture is a warning that you are about to make a dangerous and irreversible mistake.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:3)
The green button is a "zoom to fit" button. The plus sign inside might be suboptimal, but there are no "fiery logic hoops" involved. If the window is larger than the "fit" size, it shrinks. The button's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same. Different starting points just lead to different paths.
The plus sign on hover might be suboptimal, but I don't think there's a simple symbol for "zoom to fit"--and zoom is generally regarded intuitively as zooming in. I doubt most people associate the mouseover symbol with the button function, though, given the strong associations people have with color.
For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either. I can't really see a meaningful difference.
This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stop
If I click the close button on a window, I expect the window to close. I do not expect that command to be passed upstream or laterally to other windows. Application-level control is performed at the application-level interface: the menu bar. As a shortcut, some simple apps automatically close when the last document does because the application can't do anything without windows open.
If I have no windows open for a given application, I do not expect that application to be considered to be "running".
And I wouldn't expect that closing desktop windows would terminate an application that continues to work in the background without open windows.
Word, iTunes, Firefox, etc. however all CAN continue to run without windows open, playing music, downloading files, etc.
It saves me tremendous amounts of frustration that applications with long load times don't shut down when I absentmindedly close the last document I was working on before opening the next.
It's your conditioning entirely because the way windows work in Windows is different, and the popular Linux desktops duplicated the market leader for familiarity. Nothing more and nothing less. The windows model puts the application in a master "frame" if you will, with all the child windows contained within it. Close the frame, close the child windows. Apple doesn't use the frame; there's no "master" window for most applications.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:3, Informative)
For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either. I can't really see a meaningful difference.
Actually, when you maximise a window in Windows, the button icon changes to reflect a different action will occur when you click it again. This has been true since at least Windows 3.0.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrast this with Windows, where the maximise button always either makes the window fill the entire screen, or returns it to its original size. As other commenters stated, the button does indeed change its icon to indicate that this is the case, and it may not be entirely intuitive (two overlapped boxes?) but neither is an x, a - or a + sign with traffic light colours, it's all something the user has to learn.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
There is a single symbol for Zoom that is intuitive and readily understood by almost everyone - the Magnifier Glass.
A Plus sign designates Increase (add) and is understood by anyone with any mathematical education. Due to this, using a + (plus) sign is idiocy of the highest level and inconsistent with worldwide educational practices. Please correct the inconsistency in your thinking as the Reality Distortion Field has affected it.
In the event of Firefox, when it is downloading, it leaves a window open (the download window) and does not run as a hidden background process. iTunes is integrated so deeply into OS-X that the Windows equivilent is Internet Explorer. The reason it runs as a hidden background process is due to it being the Sound Subsystem since without it you have no sound available. (not being a Mac Dev, I don't know if this is correct)
In Windows, Linux and BSD, the purpose of the filesystem cache is to retain the last used files (programs/docs) until the memory is needed by an active process. What it sounds like is that OS-X is flushing this cache too quickly or the app isn't properly integrated with the OS. In my case I do this several times a day on Win7-64/8GB and have noticed no start up delays after the first instance due to the cache, over time even that decreases because not only does Windows cache frequentyly used files, it relocates them to a faster part of the disk to speed initial loading time during system boots.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
Seriously, "The plus sign inside might be suboptimal" is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design. A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD. Every grade school child can tell you this. It is an international standard that has been in effect long before Apple was even thought of. Making a window smaller is the epitome of counter intuitive.
It also is not "Zoom to Fit", as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit, but pressing the "Zoom to Fit" again, has the reverse effect, and thus could not be called "Zoom To Fit" by any rational English speaker. Besides, even on applications that come with OSX, I have pressed the green button and found that it leaves scroll bars. It could more rightly be called the, "Uninformatively change to an shape that you will learn after pressing it". The behaviour is definitly application specific, and totally inconsistant for an OS widget.
Claiming that the most people don't associate a button's behavior with it's functionality is fanboyism at it's best. Someone points out a massive problem with the UI, and you dismiss it as something no one bothers to pay attention too. If no one paid attention to the symbol, then why put a symbol at all? Also, what harm would have been caused by putting a symbol that actually wasn't diametrically opposed to the function of the button? Of course, if anybody actually uses symbols when they look at a computer, then OSX has been designed in a confusing and unintuitive way.
Even in this bizarre universe you live in where people don't actually look at the symbols on their screen, what does the color green tell you about a button. Green means go. Using it to mean change windows shape or size is again counter intuitive.
For what it's worth, windows has two modes for the button in it's Maximize/Window button. One is full screen, the other is windowed. It always does the same behavior, and the icon changes to show exactly what mode it is in. An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen, and an icon of two windows if it will not, indicating that you can see more than one window. Go check it out for yourself. Your comment makes me think that a great many of the OSX has a good interface crowed, have no idea what the other offerings do, so just assume that the OSX failings apply to everyone else.
Red means stop. This existed LONG before OSX. Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple' applications that will close, and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is, again, counter intuitive. Expecting users to identify the difference between an application and a windows is just bad design. From a user perspective, the UI IS the application. Your excuse also fail when one considers that pressing the still running application brings up a window. Also, your "Application-Level" UI control, has an entry to close the window. This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists. In this so called "Application-Level" UI element, they call the action "Close". It doesn't say "Stop" the window. It says "Close" This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact "Closing" a window. Thus, a red button would be totally counter intuitive, and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means "Stop".
Your example of load times is intuitively solved by caching. Not by leaving the application running after the user tells it to stop. Your examples of applications that run without a UI are examples of non-intuitiveness. The only one that has any merit MIGHT be Firefox with the downloading, but even then I don't agree. Word definitly has no business running without any documents. iTunes has no business running without a playlist. etc. Running without a UI is the business of a service not an application. Mixing the two is confusing to a user and counter intuitive.
The claim that pointing
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
Seriously, "The plus sign inside might be suboptimal" is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design. A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD.
The symbol shows what the button, in general, does. It's no more or less intuitive than the Windows buttons, really, which have to convey operations in a tight space. How does a square indicate maximize? It doesn't make any sense until you understand what the button does.
It also is not "Zoom to Fit", as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit, but pressing the "Zoom to Fit" again, has the reverse effect, and thus could not be called "Zoom To Fit" by any rational English speaker.
And again, this is identical behavior to Windows. Click once for maximize. Click maximize again, and it shrinks. If your window started maximized, clicking "maximize" the first time will make the window shrink.
The behaviour is definitly application specific, and totally inconsistant for an OS widget.
Of course it is. Applications are set to be different sizes by the developer as the "fit" size. The zoom button toggles between the developer-specified fit size and the user specified size.
Clicking it one time will enlarge, clicking it again will reduce, unless it started out "large" in which case the odd/even toggle will be reversed. The button behavior is identical to that of Windows. The difference is that Windows specifies full-screen as the toggle state, and OS X specifies the application's preferred window size as the toggle state.
An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen, and an icon of two windows if it will not, indicating that you can see more than one window. Go check it out for yourself.
Except that a user has no way of knowing that's what the symbols mean. One is a square, and one is two squares. The relationship is certainly not obvious unless you already know what the button does.
Red means stop. This existed LONG before OSX. Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple' applications that will close, and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is, again, counter intuitive.
Says who? The button is attached to the window. "Stopping" the window should stop that window. It doesn't make sense to stop other windows. The application has a menubar. If you want to stop the application, do it there.
Users don't have to know the difference. They can quit all applications the same way: cmd-Q or Application>Quit. They can close windows the same way: click the close button on the window. There's nothing counterintuitive about that.
On the other hand, the number of people complaining that "Word disappeared" because they clicked the wrong "X" in Windows is high. They were done with the document.
Also, your "Application-Level" UI control, has an entry to close the window. This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists.
This is totally nonsensical. Of course application-level controls have these options. Windows are spawned from the application.
In this so called "Application-Level" UI element, they call the action "Close". It doesn't say "Stop" the window. It says "Close" This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact "Closing" a window. Thus, a red button would be totally counter intuitive, and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means "Stop".
I think you might want to spend some time considering the definition of counterintuitive, and possibly your fixation on what colors "mean". Red lights also mean "record", "do not enter", "power on", "standby", "error", and countless other meanings depending on context. Red does not mean "stop".
Red in this context means close.
I suppose you have a post re
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
Actually, green toggles between sizes, typically one larger than the other (although they may just be different shapes, and AFAICT they could be the same)
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a user of Linux, OS X and Windows, Windows is still the worst. Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X.
I believe the word you are looking for is "cue." That said:
The latest client OS webstats from Net Applications, W3Schools, and others, should be out early next week. There have been some surprises posted already: Windows 7 eclipses Vista on Steam, 64-bit dominating 32-bit [arstechnica.com] 1 in 5 Windows PC gamers running 64 Bit Win 7.
The one certainty is that Linux will be bringing up the rear.
The Apple OSX model is a tightly integrated - tightly controlled - bundle of OS, UI, hardware, apps and marketing. That targets a profitable upscale niche market little changed in 33 years.
It's not a comfortable fit for a geek.
Windows is shamelessly middle class and commercial.
It is good, serviceable, tech that is available in every form factor and at every price point. The "protected path" is there for the user who thinks Netflix and Blu-Ray offer something of value.
Windows doesn't compell you to buy Corel Draw and MS Publisher when Inkscape and Scribus are available. But neither does it give the GIMP a free ride because of its ideological purity or political correctness.
That seems to be what most folks want.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
Except for one: the average consumer can't get a legal copy of any version of Windows for free.
Re:But Windows OS still sucks. (Score:2)
The consumer wants the system bundle. The factory install. The manufacturer's or dealer's warranty. No OS is free-as-in-beer under those terms of sale.
Re:Benefited? What kind of logic is that? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're good if the plaintiff doesn't prove you did it.
Re:Stupid Judges Ruling our Lives (Score:2)
"Don't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there?"
Then big corporations would NEVER get what they wanted.
Re:Windows 7 is a pile o crap (Score:2)
My Windows 7 (beta) system hardly ever gets rebooted. I only ever put it in sleep mode these days and it just keeps chugging along for a few months at a stretch. Eventually some update or power failure forces me to reboot or switch it off.
I did have one time where my memory usage got too high and I had to reboot, but I blame the stupid developer who wrote the buggy program that I was using at the time. Unfortunately, the developer was me.
Perhaps your problem is that you have some buggy code by a studid developer on your system. Oh look, you mentioned EA!
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
LOL. Looks like I got moderated by a judge...or somebody who bought one and doesn't like to see the merchandise devalued.