Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (304)	7/1/1998 10:40:00 AM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

A) Linux is great...and there are plenty of apps for it, if you know where to look. Many are free, too. Many people don't know where to look, which removes this as a consumer product. People don't have the resources nor the capability to use Linux. It's funny, because many people have the mindset that Microsoft is synonymous with PCs. Because we are in the know doesn't mean that unfair practices don't go on. B) My next computer is a G3, since it is faster on Windows emulation than any Wintel box is on Windows. That's great, but my point is the actual OS. You are rescinding back to the OS that you say you have a choice to use. I have no qualms about what computer to buy because Microsoft's monopoly only is apparent in the software industry. C)Both of these points nullify any point you make about a "MSFT market". People choose MSFT...it doesn't choose them, or force them to buy. Your B answer has nothing to do with Microsoft, sir. As for "A", we all seem to take advantage of the computer knowledge we have. Apple makes a better OS, stabler, faster, easier to use, and yet the consumers choose MSFT. All I hear are complaints about Windows 95/98 and how bad it really is from consumers, and yet they still continue to use it. Why? There's nothing else that is practical. All I see is Microsoft being able to lure top programmers away from other companies with lucrative contracts (See Borland, now Imprise), and those companies being able to do nothing about it. It's not fair competition. D)IBM was already losing. The DOJ DIDN'T stop them in their tracks, contrary to what the mainstream media wants you to believe. I had a friend who stated, in 1986, that "Someday everyone will work for IBM". At that point, DEC was humming IN DIRECT COMPETITION TO IBM! In addition, all the major PC clone makers were making inroads into the IBM market...and Apple was flying high. At what point did the DOJ create these competitors and alter IBM's market position? The DOJ had NOTHING to do with any of these conditions. The market morphed around IBM, and IBM couldn't keep up. The same will happen with MSFT, and has, to some degree. I'm not sure what you mean. The IBM antitrust suit started back in the 60s when the government stepped in and started the actual attack on IBM. IBM wasn't in competition with DEC at the time, and neither were they with Apple. This suit caused IBM back in the sixties to become demoralized, and from what I read from accounts of the CEO, if this suit didn't start, we all would probably be working for IBM today. Of course, I'm overgeneralizing. Matty Gregg