What do you think of Microsoft integrating software into thier OS's?

[AuraEdge]

It started with IE in 98, stuck in a unziping utility in ME, and now they plan to stick in a firewall, DVD player and CD Burner software with XP.

Theres a big controversy going on because MS is taking business away from other people such as netscape, Winzip, and soon possibly Zone labs, DVDMagic, Nero, and adaptec.

What do you think of this?

I think they better come up with new features that will make the money spent on a new OS worthwhile. First thing I do when I install a Windows OS is load up Winzip or WinRAR, Norton Antivirus, Zonealarm and MS Office. I consider very integral to my computer. Wouldn't it be great if you could just install a Windows OS and then just start loading up stuff that you like, such as games, instead of things you need, such as drivers, unzipping tools to open up those drivers, and other precautionary tools?

And if they screw it up, you'll end up using third party software anyways. I dont consider the unzipping utility in WinME to be exceptional by any means, and still end up installing WinRAR to get all the benifits and ease of use from it.
Same will go for the firewall, CD burning software, and DVD playback software.

IE ended up working very well. People originally used netscape because it had less problems with viewing web pages. Now IE has worked out most of it's bugs, and its at the top of the web page 'compatability' chart.

I think this just forces third party companies to work a little harder in ease-of-use and features of thier new edition software. If it works better than MS's version, then people will go buy or download thier software even if Windows comes with it.

Any other opinions?

[DemonKnight]

And how is M$ not monopolizing the market now? I'm going to be moving to a Unix type OS soon I belive..

[linux_guru]

Just one of the reasons I use Linux !

[wyvrn]

If Microsoft is smart, they will integrate all those apps. MAC does it. I don't see anything wrong with it. What business does the govt. or anyone else have to tell them they cannot include a virus scanner or burning program into the OS? In this case I support Microsoft, the only thing that worries me is if they make it harder to install a 3rd party app that I may like better than their included version.

[tantone]

I agree with wyvrn.

I have no problem with it. They need to make it simple to uninstall though. I had to uninstall Outlook Express a few days ago for a Windows 2000 system and it's time consuming.

I think it would be nice to have all of those things integrated with the OS for people, like quite a few members of my family, who don't seem to understand the need to download 3rd party programs. You all know the kind I'm talking about too; the ones who think that the internet is simply having Netscape of IE.

[nilknarf]

I could care less as long as I can still install the software I like w/o problems.

And, MS has never been monopolizing, they've just had very good marketing ideas. It has worked too, even though their sw sometimes doesn't. If people don't like it, they'll find something else, or write their own.

Tim

[club_med]

If Microsoft is smart, they will integrate all those apps. MAC does it. I don't see anything wrong with it. What business does the govt. or anyone else have to tell them they cannot include a virus scanner or burning program into the OS? In this case I support Microsoft, the only thing that worries me is if they make it harder to install a 3rd party app that I may like better than their included version.

Although I too don’t care, BECAUSE there is Linux out there, I will explain it to you.

No one wants to tell MS how to do business, BUT there are laws in many countries of the world that are aimed at preventing companies from abusing their size/strength/money and becoming monopolies.

That’s the issue really, if MS becomes successful by integrating software into its O/S's, then many other companies will start to make losses.

That’s what it boils down to, is MS allowed to do this ?, what effects will this have on other firms and is that ok ?, is MS breaking/bending any laws ?. is MS (in a way) forcing us to use certain brands of software ?.

These are (IMO) the important questions we should be asking each other.

What do you think ?,
cm.

[BBA]

The way I see it, If mS does it and becomes successful, other companies should integrate products into their software.

That might mean other companies should make OS's that work, if they want to compete with a OS making company, instead of whine about the biggest one.

[wyvrn]

MS is first and foremost a software company. They would be stupid not to take part in the application market. If another product is better than the MS version, it will be used more. This happened with Netscape until AOL bought them and fuxored up a good thing. Now most people just use IE because it is less buggy. Internet Explorer was always in Windows (or on the cd or free for download), but for a long time Netscape was better and therefore used more.

Same thing with Winamp and Windows Media Player. I prefer Winamp for mp3's, mainly because Media player is a resource hog.

[Cruez]

Let em do what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with 3rd party software.

There are too many companies that specialize in specific markets. Microsoft may integrate their stuff, but it will be basic.

[CMonster]

"MS-CD-Roast" error messages:

"Sorry, the content of the CD you are trying to duplicate is copy protected by law."

"Sorry, the mp3 you are trying to archive is copy protected by law."

"This program has performed an illegal operation and the proper authorities will be notified ...searching for Internet connection... if the proper authorities cannot be notified within 30 days the operating system will be shut down. You have 29days:23hrs:57minutes remaining."

[AuraEdge]

Yea...we'll see who uses that Burner..I think I'll stick with Nero.
Also WMP cant touch Winamp for ease of use still.
I think its about time they put in DVD software though.
Who knows if I keep Zonealarm, but If I build new systems for people with XP, I no longer have to configure them without a firewall, since I dont think they would take it to friendly if a query popped up every time they try to access the net with a new program.

Some of the good, some of the bad, but isn't that the way it always is?

[DanU]

Microsoft IS a monopoly. That case has already been settled.

I think they should be allowed to continue integrating features into the OS as long as those features are considered integral to the operating system. The real hard part now is to figure out where to draw the line between the OS and the application. You could argue that file compression utilities are so indispensable that they should be included as a natrual addition to windows expolrer. You could also make the same argument that Microsoft Office is just so useful and widespread that that should be integrated into the OS as well. One thing is for sure... whatever competing companies exist for the integrated apps are going to sue like mad!

[nilknarf]

Microsoft IS NOT a monopoly, and that case HAS NOT been settled, and when it is settled the whole thing will be a moot point, and in many respects, already is.

Other OS's and software DO exist, and ARE competive with Microsoft. Corel and Sun both have OS's and Apps, which work and are very price competitive with Microsoft. In fact, my users would love it if we dumped Microsoft. The only reasons we haven't is the cost to retrain our users and several critical programs we use are dependent on certain Microsoft products.

I personally am going to start working with other flavors of OS's and Apps. The reason, I'm tired of the constant patches for bugs which would have been fixed before release in a quality product.

Tim

Tim

[JacobM5727]

i dont think microsoft is the issue, its up to the other companies to make products that people like better then the regular windows ones, they need to grow up and stop whining and get into gear (if anyone else said that, i agree)

[Savant]

well, as far as use is concerned every time they "integrate" something it doesn't work all that well, so you have to install other stuff, but its almost impossible to get rid of. on 98 the first thing I install is netscape 4.75, then pkzip, winamp (can't find anything better on windoze) etc.
but then I also use linux whenever I can (which is everything except games, and for the moment, CD-Burning)
then theres always legal issues of various sorts, that I would rather not take the time to figure out.

[Ironforge]

Also.. the more apps that are integrated.. the more potential there is for security risks.. as well as backdoors..

Nice M$ Firewall you got there..

[Savant]

hey wyvern don't get me wrong, they can make aplication if they want, I just don't think they should install themselves without my permission (as outlook express does)

[linux_guru]

Love your response CMonster. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif So true. Why should we be forced to have certain software on our machines if we dont want it there ? There should at least be the option at install time, whether or not to install various components.

That's how Linux does it. If you dont want Gnome on your box, fine. Dont install it. M$ are taking this choice away from you, and telling you what apps you will have.

[wyvrn]

I think they should be allowed to continue integrating features into the OS as long as those features are considered integral to the operating system. The real hard part now is to figure out where to draw the line between the OS and the application. You could argue that file compression utilities are so indispensable that they should be included as a natrual addition to windows expolrer. You could also make the same argument that Microsoft Office is just so useful and widespread that that should be integrated into the OS as well. One thing is for sure... whatever competing companies exist for the integrated apps are going to sue like mad!

How does anyone have the right to legislate what Microsoft includes with their OS? They are a private software company, and as such, can include whatever the hell they want into their software as long as it is a legal concept. I am sorry, but I do not understand your reasoning. The MS "monopoly" (not really, but fairly close to one) is because they have made products that fit more people's needs than say Unix, Linux, or MAC. Now if you want to prosecute them on their predatory business tactics with OEM's and such, that is a different matter.

hey wyvern don't get me wrong, they can make aplication if they want, I just don't think they should install themselves without my permission (as outlook express does)

Yeah I see your pt. This is a matter of personal preference. If MS wants to keeps its wide customer base, they will make a lot of applications optional (like cdplayer can be removed via control panel | accessories ), because many users like 3rd party programs and are not going to give them up.

[AuraEdge]

Cant you keep Outlook express out of the Windows and IE installation if you dont check it off?

I think IE and Media Player install themselves whether you like em or not. But the compressed folders, Internet connection sharing, and probably the firewall, DVD player and CD burner, are only going to get installed if you check them off in installation.

I dont like the Windows "monopoly" because of high software prices and lack of choices besides different kinds of windows (Not quite software savvy enough for *nix yet), but I have no right to argue against it as long as I'm using a Windows OS.

Thats not really the arguement here anyways.
I think if they didnt integrate new stuff into thier OS's, THEN MS would be abusing there monopoly. But as long as they keep shipping new stuff with new versions, they dont make u upgrade just because you have to.

[y-dawg]

first off i cant believe ppl are defending m$. they're just starting to make a mainstream decent OS with win2k. and while xp has pluses (64 bit processor support, stability AND compatibility), its also got real down sides (like the new net registration...total ****!...well not really, but no way im gonna pay for an OS and thats that! ill let intel register everyone one of their copies, while my money can go to support quality products like games and nero and so forth).
second off, m$ has no right to integrate utilities and applications into my OS. its MY os on MY computer which I use, thus I want it to be set up the way I like it! but m$'..they shove and bully everyone around, so why are you gonna defend someone that treats you like that??? true most ppl are stuck using their product, but at least fight for what you want, and dont accept the **** they dish out.

i dont like that m$ feels they have the right to stick IE, outlook express, WMP, or for that matter any other piece of software, without at least asking me at install if i want it installed. m$ tries to take over your whole computer. you can only do things teh way m$ says is ok...

also, by them giving all this crappy preinstalled stuff on the computer, its gonna take business away from quality companies making quality products. why dont they give us ms office. and, excuse me, ill take visual studio while im at it http://www.sysopt.com/forum/biggrin.gif

btw, m$ IS making you upgrade. they've give companies until the end of the year i believe, and if they dont commit to upgrade by then. it will cost them A LOT more to upgrade...those are the business strategies i like to support...

the fact is while there are other OS, windows is the only one for MOST ppl. and until that changes. i want M$ to give me a stable OS that does what its suppose to do. allow my hardware to properly communicate with each other and with the software, while running stabily and performing well. maybe if they would spend their money on getting some quality programmers, instead of a bunch of marketing pricks, they could provide the OS they talk about in their commercials. and then, you know what, i might actually be willing to pay for one of those OS they make...

[vass0922]

The way I figure it, if they want to bundle all this cra... errr software in the OS .. Fine.. BUT less us UNinstall the junk!!!

firewall? what do I need it for I'm on a freakin' dial up and I'm not even on that often so what do I need a firewall sucking up resources while I'm not connected?

You know with MS if its bundled in, its always running in the background (much like IE) .. "so it will run faster" of course.

One reason I am against bundling things like the browser, is it gives unfair advantage against software like netscape because they integrate it with the OS to make it faster, but nobody else has that ability! Ummm monopoly practice? Yup

Oh and I think they screwed up royally but lowering the quality of MP3's in WinXP... MP3 is a very strong standard vs. their propietary WMA format that probably only works on Windoze boxes.

How long is it before they start bundling office with the OS and charging 700 bucks for the OS?
May sound a bit far-fetched who would of thought they would bundle a (ableit a wannabe) cd burner software into their OS?

[wyvrn]

First off, I cannot believe I am defending MS. But hey I am trying to be reasonable, even if I do not like their new anti-piracy measures.

they're just starting to make a mainstream decent OS with win2k.

What was Windows 95? Most people consider it a revolutionary OS. But I guess you would rather still be using Windows 3.1 ? At least give credit where credit is due. Besides, Linux and Mac are FAR from "mainstream" OS's.

[cedar2]

If you want a scary vision of the future then read Bill Gates` book "The Road Ahead".
I quote:
"Once this era is in full swing, you won`t leave your network connection behind at the office or in the classroom. Your connection will be...your passport into a new, "mediated" way of life. Firsthand experiences are unmediated..."

I don`t know about you, but I rather enjoy firsthand experiences and I don`t think taking my network connection everywhere I go is going to improve my life. This man has an agenda and has the intelligence and economic power to carry it out. Look at how far he has come towards dominating the world of computers. Every step he takes is geared towards eliminating competition and increasing the control Microsoft has over the online world. The idea of MS operating systems on every computer with access to every piece of data stored on those computers is frightening, even more so with the ethics that Microsoft displays. Every step that MS takes to reduce your choices increases their control and brings us one step closer to being sheep in Bill`s flock.

[This message has been edited by cedar2 (edited 05-25-2001).]

[TCWolffe]

>What was Windows 95? Most people consider it a revolutionary OS. But I guess you would rather still be using Windows 3.1 ? At least give credit where credit is due. Besides, Linux and Mac are FAR from "mainstream" OS's.<

windows 95 was "revolutionary" or at least so went the marketing line, sure it looked different, and ran as an OS rather than as a visual program running over DOS, the real OS at the time of win 3.x.....but it was (and still is for those who are still running it) buggy, locked up often, and crashed totally about twice a year (or more) this is not what i call acceptable in terms of an operating system. and I really hope I don't hear someone going on about "well, lots of programs have bugs, it takes time to work stuff like that out...blah blah" it should work, completely, or at least to an acceptable degree (not crashing twice a year, etc.) and I should not be expected to test their software for 6 years before they come out with an improvement which I now have to pay them for, just to get what was originally promised.

[wyvrn]

Windows offered the completely computer uneducated the chance to learn about them and use it as a tool. I was not claiming it is THE most stable, but your assertion that it took them a long time to make a stable mainstream OS means nothing. Windows may not be the most stable, but it is mainstream. Linux may be more stable, but it is definately NOT mainstream. So other than Windows, what is a reliable AND mainstream OS in your opinion?

You are criticizing MS for something that by your definition nobody has done yet.

[Fingers]

Q. Could Windows be better?
A. Absolutely


Q. Can anyone else build an OS that will serve the public as well as Microsoft?
A. Apparently not.

[DanU]

Microsoft IS NOT a monopoly, and that case HAS NOT been settled, and when it is settled the whole thing will be a moot point, and in many respects, already is.


Sorry nilknarf, but I, and the courts, respectfully disagree with you about microsoft's status. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,s2074952,00.html


How does anyone have the right to legislate what Microsoft includes with their OS? They are a private software company, and as such, can include whatever the hell they want into their software as long as it is a legal concept.

Wyvern, this argument doesn't sound logical. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that nobody should make laws restricting microsoft's actions as long as they are legal. Laws should only be made to target illegal actions.
Businesses have numerous regulations targeted at them. Simply being a private company is no defense at all. (Technically, microsoft is a publicly owned corporation, not a private company. But the same rules apply.)

Don't get me wrong, I think m$ has some wonderful products. I use their OSes and apps nearly every day. (Good GOD!, did I just compliment microsoft??) But when they use their domination of one market (OSes) to put the squeeze on competitors in another market (like internet browsers or office suites), then they become the software equivalent of Standard Oil and Ma Bell and need to be dealt with in a similar manner.

[wyvrn]

Wyvern, this argument doesn't sound logical. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that nobody should make laws restricting microsoft's actions as long as they are legal. Laws should only be made to target illegal actions.
Businesses have numerous regulations targeted at them. Simply being a private company is no defense at all. (Technically, microsoft is a publicly owned corporation, not a private company. But the same rules apply.)

Private as in non-government. You are right, they are publicly traded on the exchange. My point was that I do not think the govt. should dictate what kind of software MS includes with their OS's. If they want to make a cd burner, web browser, cd player, office program, ftp client, and firewall program and include it with the cost of admission, more power to them. One of two things is going to happen. First, it will be so expensive that people will quit buying it and move to something else. Or, it will be considered an incredible bargain and MS will no doubt lose sales in their other divisions by giving away some of their software for free with the OS. In any case, MS stands to lose $$ by including their software with the OS. They would be smarter in making some of it pay for use, downloadable from their web site or marketed like any other software in Best Buy.

Don't get me wrong, I think m$ has some wonderful products. I use their OSes and apps nearly every day. (Good GOD!, did I just compliment microsoft??) But when they use their domination of one market (OSes) to put the squeeze on competitors in another market (like internet browsers or office suites), then they become the software equivalent of Standard Oil and Ma Bell and need to be dealt with in a similar manner.

That is the rub. By "putting the squeeze" on the competition, I suppose you to mean illegal business practices like forcing OEM's to install MS only software or they lose their discounts. But if by "putting the squeeze" on the competition means offering a better product at the same price, then more power to Microsoft I say.

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 05-25-2001).]

[cedar2]

MS will not price themselves out of the market because that would allow competitors a foothold and disrupt their long term strategy. Look at the revenue they generate - they can afford to buy complete control by foregoing a few dollars in profit today. This might look good to the user now, good software at good prices, but step back and look at the broader picture.
For instance, Home Depot moved into my town about two years ago with great selection at great prices. They offered to and did beat by ten percent any competitors quote presented to them. Three of five existing competitors folded and one more is on the way out. Guess what else? Home Depot doesn`t carry that good inventory anymore and the prices are higher than they were before Home Depot arrived.
I can`t prove MS has suppressed a superior alternative by their predatory practices, but you can`t prove they haven`t. Neither can I prove that MS prices are good - they`ve wiped any serious competitor from the map, except perhaps Linux, which runs about $30 in my neighbourhood. I can establish that each new release from MS reaches just a little bit further in removing options and control from the user, all in the name of user convenience. Like a magician, they distract you with a little bit of flash while the hand you are not watching serves other purposes. Those purposes may be good for the future of Microsoft but they don`t have your best interests in mind. Unlike most people, corporations engage in long term strategic planning, and Microsoft is very, very good at it.

[AuraEdge]

So why is MS a monopoly?

They lack compition by why is that?

1) Is it because business don't have the guts to challenge up to MS? - Theres only a handful of OS makers for the PC

2) Or is it because no one can make an OS as user friendly as MS? - By user friend I mean ease-of-use and installation.

3) Or is it because its impossible to make a better OS than they have, because everyone makes thier software for Windows and its diffucult to have the compatability that Windows has because of this caveat?

I think its a little of all three...

I believe the next big non MS OS will be a easy to install, easy to use version of Linux.

Ive been using MS OS's as long as Ive known computers, even back to the pre 3.1 days of MS-DOS. I did try to install Redhat 6.1 once, but after i got it installed and I got a desktop, I had no idea what to do from there. The resolution was off, and I was quickly confused.

I mainly switched because I was sick of MS's low stability in 9x.

But then Win2k came out, and I'm still using it to this day. Its what I wanted - A very stable OS with a similar interface as Windows 98SE, and somewhat near the compatability of Win98SE.

MS is really delivering where the consumers want it, and I think thats why they stay on top. Also, people are used to the Windows 95/NT Interface, which is why most people stick with Windows.

Sure I dont like some of thier business tactics, but they sure know how to make an OS.

I'm a end consumer for the most part. As much as I dont like how a company operates, I want the best parts for my computer to do what I want it to. I'm not willing to have a computer that doesnt work as well as I want it, or that is difficult for me to use, just because I wanna avoid the strongarming of a company.

Its like making a new computer with a K6-2 instead of a P3 if you dont like Intel in the pre-Athlon days.
But now that the Athlons out, we get to support the under dog, AND have better performance, and cheaper prices.

I think we need an "AMD" in the OS business.
The problem is its not as easy for OS's as it is for processors. This goes back to point 3) of my three points before.

For processors, as long as it speaks the x86 language, it can run anything the other one can.

Not so for OS's. Software companies will develop for the most popular OS's only. Only major companies have developed drivers and apps compatable with Mac OS's and Linux.

MS has a much stronger hold on the OS market than Intel ever did on the CPU market because of this fact.

Im drifting slightly OT here, but I think its all important in considering why MS has such a handle on the OS market, and why competitors are lacking.

[wyvrn]

Ok I think I am going to try to dispel some myths here. Microsoft has not gotten to be on top of the OS market purley on bully tactics. Hey they had to develop and market their products just like anyone else. And I don't follow the line of reasoning that because MS is now big, any thing they do becomes anti-competitive and somehow injurs someone else. If there really were a good competing product out there that gave consumers what they needed, then MS would have some competition. Look at AMD. Nobody, including Intel, gave them a snowball's chance in hell of competing in the processor market, certainly not the high-end. AMD was a much smaller company with only one fab plant at the time to Intel's 7, and Intel dominated market share and name recognition in all segments: portables, server, and mid range boxes. But AMD kept improving on their product (better Floating Point anyone?) and moved from a niche company like Cyrix to a mainstream chip manufacturer. They still are not as big as Intel, but I think it is easy to see where the processor market is going. At the very least, we will have two strong competitors, and at the worst, AMD will become the dominant chip maker will Intel far behind (I don't think this will happen for a long time).

Now take Linux vs. MS. Linux is right now a niche product. It is not as near as user friendly as MS, and despite its stability, people don't want the learning curve assoc. with it. Linux could be like AMD if they improve their product to the pt. where they are offering a nice blend between stability and ease of use, but until they do, people are going to buy more MS stuff.

This is the market at work. MS is not killing off all of the competition just through strong arm tactics. They simpy are offering more of what the avg. (read majority) customer wants, and as such have the majority of the market share. But all things change, and so will MS dominance of the OS market.

Cedar2,

You don't believe Linux and Mac have some sort of long term strategic goal? I would think any company would regardless of the market they are in. This in itself is not bad. It allows for long term goal planning and better efficiency. Trying to guess at MS strategic plan and claiming it is evil is a stretch at best.

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 05-25-2001).]

[RandomGoon]

Personally I think it's an OK idea to integrate all the extra applications. However, I'd REALLY like the option to say yea or nay when I reinstall the OS as to what or which app I install. Then there's the stability to consider; what good is this extra fluff if it just makes the OS more unstable?

Adding the extras into the OS isn't, IMHO, monopolistic. It's sneaky but makes sense from a business standpoint, "Hey look what we give you for free! (ok, you had to shell out for the OS and the cost is more than likely built in)" type of mentality, gets the stuff noticed. Now they are in no way saying you can't install a competitor's product. They are making it harder to justify using something else when it's right there at your beck and call. Use what you like, that's what I say.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not condoning M$' strong arming of OEMs. That's the wrong way to do business. But in the end they are trying to outdo their competition. Isn't that the goal in any business? Get Joe Consumer's $$ before the other guy.

'Goon

[This message has been edited by RandomGoon (edited 05-25-2001).]

[cedar2]

I am no saying MS is evil, I`m saying they are serving their interest, not yours when they add in the extras. In fact, MS is a textbook example of how to use excellent management and strategy to build a monopoly. My main complaint with their products is that they are overpriced, but thats the point of building a monopoly.
Apple almost did it but for a few bad decisions about licensing their technology. Linux doesn`t have a strategy per se, it is a cooperative effort. That is perhaps why they have been so successful in the face of the MS monolith. It is also probably why they haven`t been more successful; there is no single overriding profit motive.
As far as MS` strategy, look at Internet Explorer as an example. It started out as an optional add-on until they took out Netscape. Then it became a part of the Windows package, albeit removable. Then it became non-removable. Now it is starting to include filters to prevent you from doing things. It`s a good game. Eliminate the competition and get your product on to most of the machines. Sell an upgrade of your product (including filters) to the end user, then go to content providers and sell the technology to utilize the filters. Content providers buy it because of your massive market penetration and presto, a defacto new standard controlled by you, and another perpetual income stream. Multiply this by all the potential opportunities available to you through your market penetration and the tendency of the consumer to take the path of least resistance (read as effort) and you develop a pretty lucrative business.
Being a powerful individual or corporation or country doesn`t make you evil, nor does it make you good. But for better or worse, it does put you in charge and it allows you to get away with things that only benefit you.

[Andy_L]

I wish they would install one more app.- a Win98Lite like utility to truly allow you to choose what to install/not install.

[Savant]

I think most of the reason MS included software applications other companies once sold is because MS could make the same software better...which solved major support headaches because of misguided idiots who called MS to complain when THEY installed crappy applications from third party companies, thus making the MS OS more economic for both the end user as well as MS.
sorry, but it aint so, I quit using IE entirely when it became "integrated" (I used to switch browsers) because it started crashing more than netscape, with the added benifit of screwing up the o/s whenever it did. tried updateing it and it did help a little, but made the response more sluggish... so I dont see it as better.
since I only have 98 I haven't seen the other "integrated" apps, but my guess is they have similar problems, not to mention they no doubt take up system resources even when they're not in use...

*edited because I can't type.

[This message has been edited by Savant (edited 05-26-2001).]

[cedar2]

Hello BBA. I haven`t said Bill Gates is evil. I have said I don`t like his vision of the future. I don`t think it contributes to quality of life to be always tied into the network and I don`t think that living a mediated existence is good for society in general. Most of all, I don`t think that Microsoft is the best candidate for mediator. As you say, it is going to happen, but it doesn`t have to take the form Gates proposes. If, as Gates talks about, MS ends up being the "gatekeeper" to the Internet through the use of it`s products, we are only going to get what MS wants us to get, and MS will take a nickel from your pocket every time you venture online. Doesn`t sound like much, but think about how much it totals up to in a year when EVERY user pays. That money is yours and mine and not Microsoft`s. They don`t own the Internet, but if they control the access points, they win and we lose.
Sure there is something you can do. Is there something in IE 6, or even 5.5 that you need enough to turn over your freedom of choice in exchange? I find 5.0 works just fine and it doesn`t allow Microsoft to restrict my actions. How about WinME? I like 98 because it does what I need it to and I see no gain in upgrading. I can manage the level of intervention with these older versions and don`t contribute towards Microsofts` goals. I`m in the initial stages of learning Linux so that I have an alternative to go to.
Just how are your constitutional rights going to protect you if you don`t take some positive action yourself? They certainly haven`t prevented Microsoft from taking any of it`s actions so far.

[This message has been edited by cedar2 (edited 05-26-2001).]

[BBA]

y-dawg...

(like the new net registration...total ****!...well not really, but no way im gonna pay for an OS and thats that!

Ok...so I see why you hate MS. You can solve this delima by simply NOT installing the MS product in the first place.

Of course, if you want a free OS...there are plenty out there and nothing is stopping you from installing it.


second off, m$ has no right to integrate utilities and applications into my OS. its MY os on MY computer which I use

You need to share those.... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/biggrin.gif

On the other hand...I hardly believe YOU created the OS, or are even remotely able to claim ownership of your MS OS if YOU did not buy it ( see above )



i dont like that m$ feels they have the right to stick IE, outlook express, WMP, or for that matter any other piece of software, without at least asking me at install if i want it installed. m$ tries to take over your whole computer.

THAT! is what an OS is supposed to do.

You do not have to like it...you do not have to install it if you do not like it.

the fact is while there are other OS, windows is the only one for MOST ppl. and until that changes. i want M$ to give me a stable OS that does what its suppose to do.

Thats your problem...you want them to GIVE it to you! ( see above, again )

Well, I would like Ferrari to GIVE me a new F40, they can even include a radio if they feel they have too.

( Man...your drugs ARE good http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif )


BTW, Here's a question for you: What makes MS OS's unstable?

Answer: The **** software you install on it...you know the stuff NOT designed to work well...like Netscape, or AOL, or multitudes of others.


cedar2

If you want a scary vision of the future then read Bill Gates` book "The Road Ahead".



Well...can't argue that...but there is nothing I can do about, it is GOING to happen, Bill Gates or not!
It does not make Bill Gates evil for stating the obvious...he is actually giving us warning. Do with it what you will.

The only safety mechanism us American citizens have as individuals is to protect our rights, as given by the constitution.


Andy_L

I wish they would install one more app.- a Win98Lite like utility to truly allow you to choose what to install/not install.


I like that recomendation too... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
But, I don't think MS will take it seriously.

I would now like to once again mention the fact that almost every MS OS I tried was stable right out of the box ( except ME ) and remained so until I installed **** that was not compatible. I can hardly blame MS for third party software problems.


I think most of the reason MS included software applications other companies once sold is because MS could make the same software better...which solved major support headaches because of misguided idiots who called MS to complain when THEY installed crappy applications from third party companies, thus making the MS OS more economic for both the end user as well as MS.

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 05-26-2001).]

[CMonster]

2 more words: "Standard Oil" -now go check your history

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 05-26-2001).]

[AuraEdge]

I found this very good quote.

I repeat in closing that I fully agree that Microsoft has a right to defend its copyrighted works; and I hope that the company will continue to do so. But placing a burden of annoyance on its existing customers seems unreasonable, particularly when the only reason that Microsoft can impose product activation is its pre-eminence in the market. As I said last month, could Microsoft have made such a move when Windows 3.1 came out? Sure. But we'd have all bought OS/2 instead. And that's the point: when you've got competition, then you can do a lot of things that you CAN'T--or at least shouldn't--do once you're a monopoly.

Windows 2000 Magizine - Email Newsletter
http://www.cluboverclocker.com/news/XPCP.htm

[emcron]

I like that quote to AuraEdge. And BBA you must be one of the lucky ones. Where I work we have about 20 machines and the only software installed is win98, Office 97, IE 5.0, Outlook, and MS Publisher. This is all microsoft software but I still keep getting crashes.

[BBA]

Well, Win98 seems to have it's share of sensitivity to faulty hardware and unscrupulous website operators. It by nature allows other sources to take control of many systems functions, just because it is not built as a security conscious network operating system. Win NT or W2K is the only way to go in a company environment.

As for stability, what Win98 lacks in stability, it makes up for in repair-ability.
It is the only OS I have seen to date that can be ruined by AOL, then recovered to perfect operation with the included system file checker tool. That is the only thing I would like W2K to have. ( W2K does have a version of SFC, but it is no where near as effective as the Win98 version ).


I also have to say that MS Outlook is a very unstable product.

Not due to the client software alone, but due to the nature of it being a network dependant application ( if you use an exchange server system with it ). If it looses network connection with the server, or if the server is too busy, it can and does lead to system hang, which leads to user induced crashes of the os it is residing on.

Of course these crashes can be minimized by configuring the Exchange server to use a ramdrive for indexing...that way timeouts are eliminated while one account is polling for updates.

Of course, not many exchange administrators realize they can actually do this kind of thing. ( It was in an article posted in the Windows2000 e-mailings )

The point is, the software does work, and works well, if setup intelligently. Otherwise, anything will be unstable.

[pbharris]

i saw that MS had used a somewhat modified version of the GPL for its release of IPv6 - that tells me they have some gnu stuff in there. i still won't use it of course.

[AuraEdge]

I agree that MS Outlook is unstable. (specifically 2K)

Actually it just crashed on me twice today in Win2K.

Outlook is good about not taking down the whole OS with it though, but MS products shouldnt be crashing on MS OS's! Well nothing shouldn't, but expecially something that is developed in house.

I'm not even using exchange or anything..Just a lonely Win2K comp trying to get email off it's POP3 server. I also managed to crash Win2k today for the first time since last format back in January..It's just not my day http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif.

BBA - Now that I think of it, I dont think I've had any OS's crash on my before installing software either, with the exception of ME. I was loading up DirectX (Another MS in-house product) and got hit with a blue screen after the reboot. I must have done a hundred Windows OS installs, including NT, 2K, 98, 98SE, and ME.

I also like what you said in your last paragraph, I didn't think of it like that. Just one more reason it gives them to do it.

The more comments I read, the most I dislike the MS monopoly, since it gives them implicit rights to do things to customers because of lack of compition. On the other hand, I can see how they got to where they are, and why they feel the need to include software.