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: (Score:2)
Yeah really... Microsoft isn't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft's expense after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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 a
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)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
You are indeed right. I stand corrected.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 ce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you bought a new computer?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you bought a new computer?
December 18th, 2009.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
"When was the last time you bought a new computer?"
My abacus had spare beads, does that count?
Re: (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 lice
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (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, ball
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 c
Re: (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
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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
The power of your argument is overwhelming. I am compelled to concede.
Re: (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 (environmentalis
Re: (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?
Re: (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
Re: (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,
Re: (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 pr
Re: (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
Re: (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
Re: (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 sett
Re: (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 comm
Re: (Score:2)
This is a lunatic waste of a court's time and resources.
Re: (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 ca
Re: (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: (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 somethi
Re: (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 fr
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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 ne
Re: (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, b
Re: (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 co
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: (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: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (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: (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 no
Re: (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
Re: (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
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: (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 e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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: (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: (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
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrast this with Windows, where the maximise button always either makes the w
Re: (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
Re: (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 th
Re: (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. Applic
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 certain
Re: (Score:2)
Except for one: the average consumer can't get a legal copy of any version of Windows for free.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're good if the plaintiff doesn't prove you did it.
Re: (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: (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 deve
Re: (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.