Microsoft closing down?

[DereX888]

yeah I know - many of you just wish it'do it right away...
Not to advertise here anyone or anything, but this is interesting observation:

"The concept of Microsoft possibly shutting down can be associated with the recent announcement that the company is cutting costs to save a billion dollars. With upwards of $70 billion in the corporate coffers and many billions in the personal bank accounts of the CEO and founders, you have to wonder what people at Microsoft are thinking. Do they know something we do not know? The reason behind the announcement has to be one of three things: Someone sees a rocky road ahead, they are even greedier than ever, or they are planning a shutdown.
The company is already saving a tremendous amount of money by offshoring jobs and using cheap H1-B visa holders for U.S. jobs. This is well documented. So what does Microsoft do with the profits besides bank them? It talks a big game about R&D but its most mundane product, the Internet Explorer browser, is full of holes and is essentially a bunch of cobbled-together old code. Here's an interesting exercise for you: Open Internet Explorer. Go to Help, then About, and you'll see that Microsoft still acknowledges that Internet Explorer is the old Spyglass browser based on Mosaic. This was thrown together years ago. Then look at the copyright notice. It ends in 2001. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that there has been no real update since then, just patches. To get a bigger laugh, click on Acknowledgements and see how long you can endure the laundry list of people who worked on the code. It's as if the entire state of Washington did some coding. Why?

The fact is this software, which has been mostly stagnant since the marginalization of Netscape, is just coasting. So where is all the R&D? I don't see it. In fact, I see the entire company coasting along making more and more money with possibly one concept ahead: to close down."

"With Microsoft shuttered, where would it leave the users? Most users could coast on XP for three years if they had to. Perhaps Microsoft could shut its doors after Longhorn comes out. Perhaps the stable Win2K would emerge as the pass-around operating system of choice, assuming that Microsoft would send all its OS offerings into the public domain as one last slap at Linux."




__________________________
Above excerpts are from J. Dvorak's article published here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1622629,00.asp

[Ripper2860]

My personal opinion is that anything as criitical to our economy as a computer operating system should be in the public domain after a certain period of time (say 10 years). This would give the company which developed the OS sufficent time to re-coup any R&D cost and make a significant profit. Chances are the developing company is already on to a "bigger and better" OS by then and continued support and improvement could be provided by the community of developers.

Pharmaceutical companies are are allowed to capitalize on a product for a certain amount of time after which it can be available in a "generic" form by others -- why can't an operating system?

[DereX888]

Agreed.
However with a software it would be more difficult than with chemicals (medicine).
Since WinXP is based on the code of Win2000, which is based on the code of WinNT, which was based on the code of OS/2 - which part of the code should have been available - in this scenario - after certain amount of time? And - i.e. - what with other parties holding copyrights to same parts of the code (like IBM's own OS/2 version)?
Trouble, trouble, trouble.

[housepig]

Agreed.
However with a software it would be more difficult than with chemicals (medicine).
Since WinXP is based on the code of Win2000, which is based on the code of WinNT, which was based on the code of OS/2 - which part of the code should have been available - in this scenario - after certain amount of time? And - i.e. - what with other parties holding copyrights to same parts of the code (like IBM's own OS/2 version)?
Trouble, trouble, trouble.

and should software be covered by copyright (life of creator + 70 years) or patent (20 years from first filing date)? or neither - there are arguments that software shouldn't be patented because it's a set of instructions for a process, carried out by other instruments, and historically that has not been considered patentable.

[DereX888]

True.
I dont see any cooking recipies being copyrighted, and medicine is far more important than any best piece of software - yet it becomes public domain after certain amount of time.
It all comes to same old same old - some f***g politicians were bought by corporation(s) and cooked something like DMCA... Thats one of the reason I will never personally condemn any software piracy (to those who would like to report me for supporting piracy: I stated that it is my own opinion - to which I am entitled to express here and in/on/at any other public place - under my freedom of speech rights. It also means that it is *my* opinion, not the owner's of this site etc etc).

[redwudz]

I heard they were just changing their name to "Macrosoft' to go along with their dominance of the industry. Bill Gates still doesn't have enough money to buy immortality, he needs more.

After dealing with numerous viruses, trojans, etc., that plague their OS, I think MS should include stuff like antivirus and antitrojan programs built into their software. Why should we have to pay for their shortcomings?

I get a crapload of updates from their site. Why not something to eliminate viruses and trojans as updates?

[Ripper2860]

Thats one of the reason I will never personally condemn any software piracy (to those who would like to report me for supporting piracy: I stated that it is my own opinion - to which I am entitled to express here and in/on/at any other public place - under my freedom of speech rights. It also means that it is *my* opinion, not the owner's of this site etc etc).

FYI ...

I agree with you. However keep in mind:

1. This is not a public place it is a private forum owned by an individual.
2. Freedom of speech rights do not extend to every country. The WEB is international and the rights and laws of the country hosting the forums typically apply.
3. In the U.S, at least -- 1st ammendment rights do not apply to private enterprise, homes, forums, etc. It only prohibits the government from suppressing free speech. Individuals and employers have the right to prohibit speech and association.

Say derogatory things about your employer or your boss, and even though it may be an opinion, you can get fired and legally have no recourse. Start having "White Supremacist" meetings in the company cafeteria with co-workers during your lunch hour and see what happens!!

[handyguy]

DereX888, where is your link to the article?

People might have issues with piracy; but people don't have issues when people post whole articles, instead of a paragraph & a link.

[DereX888]

DereX888, where is your link to the article?

handyguy - link to entire article *is* in my post.
Should've read it first before jumping to conclusions!

As for posting entire articles - that is exactly what is NOT fair IMO.
If I/anyone want to post an entire article, why not post just a link to it instead?
Also the site publishing its article might have objections to it as well, epecially site like the one I posted excerpts from the article (heavily loaded with banners etc - which obviously means they do rely on the amount of banners shown, dont ya think?)

[flaninacupboard]

After dealing with numerous viruses, trojans, etc., that plague their OS, I think MS should include stuff like antivirus and antitrojan programs built into their software. Why should we have to pay for their shortcomings?

I get a crapload of updates from their site. Why not something to eliminate viruses and trojans as updates?

Because they'd get fined a crapload of money again. As with the IE debate, why buy antivirus and firewall if windows has them built in?

[vitualis]

... to which I am entitled to express here and in/on/at any other public place - under my freedom of speech rights. It also means that it is *my* opinion, not the owner's of this site etc etc).

... 3. In the U.S, at least -- 1st ammendment rights do not apply to private enterprise, homes, forums, etc. It only prohibits the government from suppressing free speech. Individuals and employers have the right to prohibit speech and association.

Thank you!

Many of you Americans seem to have this belief that "freedom of speech" is a catchcry that means you can say anything you want.

It doesn't.

I actually almost (but don't) feel sorry for Microsoft at times. They don't really have the advantages of being a monopoly but have the burden of it.

It was Netscape Navigator that made the WWW great, but it was Internet Explorer 4 (and above) that brought it to the masses.

I firmly believe that the WWW would not have been as popular as it is if web browsers remained firmly in the domain of 3rd parties. Let's face it, Microsoft made a pretty good browser (IE4/5/6) at the time and sadly, it was their will to crush Netscape that drove IE's development.

Once Netscape was dead, IE's development stagnated.

Every cloud has a silver lining though... We would not have had Mozilla and the Firefox browser if Netscape wasn't crushed by Microsoft...

Regards.

[tekkieman]

.... We would not have had Mozilla and the Firefox browser if Netscape wasn't crushed by Microsoft...

Hate to say it, but that in itself disproves the monopoly claim. This is exactly what free enterprise is all about. If you make a decent product that people want, there is nothing MS can do about it. Yes, Netscape was a decent product. So MS gave theirs away for free. They don't care about the piddly income from it. They get theirs from the OS.

There are AV companies that give away their AV software, and those that charge for it. Should every company that gives it away to gain market share be accused of trying to create a monopoly?