Microsoft vs. UNIX

[arn]

Per this CNet article (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-870805.html)... Microsoft and Unisys are launching a multimillion dollar ad campaign to undermine Unix.

The campaign, called "We have the way out," describes Unix as an expensive trap. "No wonder Unix makes you feel boxed in. It ties you to an inflexible system. It requires you to pay for expensive experts. It makes you struggle daily with a server environment that's more complex than ever," one ad reads.

The irony is a bit thick... but depending on their relative success/mindshare, may affect Apple's future ability to use Unix as a selling point for Mac OS X.

[Kid Red]

cough*screw M$*cough *cough

Typical. M$ sees it's near end and is using scare tactics to sway people away from the light, and effectively, macs.

I hope and prey Apple has a clever rebuttal, they need to nip this on in the bud quickly.

[MacLuver23]

As Bart Simspon once said "what a load of crappy, crap, crap!"

(Microsoft knows UNIX and Mac OS X is better then Windows)

[AmbitiousLemon]

i wonder if this is in response to sun's recent sucesses in the ms anti trust suit.

im betting this smear campaign will be quite successful since most windows users are uneducated regarding technology.

its a shame that this will also inhibit apple's ability to market mac os x.

[macktheknife]

Oh this is too easy. "Thick" doesn't even scratch it. Microsoft's ad is *solid* irony and is unmistakable b.s. "Ties you into an inflexible system." Right. Even if UNIX is "inflixible," at least it works! Remember that Microsoft doesn't even use its own software to run its website; it uses *UNIX* because its harder to hack than the crap that Bill Gates peddles!

I really don't understand why the government hasn't broken up the Microsoft monopoly already. Netscape fell victim to Internet Explorer after Bill Gates "integrated" it into Windows. Now Real Audio might get the shaft with Windows Media Player being oh-so tightly integrated with Windows. Does the idea of tying an application into an OS seem obscene to anybody? I mean, what happens if Microsoft faces a threat to its Office application suite? The next thing that will happen is that Word, Excel, and PowerPoint become part of Windows. The only reason why this hasn't happen is that Corel, Borland, and other office productivity software have bit the dust under Bill Gates' juggernaut. It's like GM trying to sell you a car with the CD player, insurance policy, etc. "tied" together with the car without a choice for the consumer.

Sorry for the rant, but somebody's got to say it . . .

[Backtothemac]

Mirror mirror on the wall who is the biggest liar of them all.....

[Biggles]

I personally dont find anything really wrong with integrating your products into your OS. None of you can deny that the Windows version of internet explorer is an incredible app. I mean, if you own both products, why not make them work together for the benifit of each one of them? Windows is better because IE works seemlessly with it, and IE is better because it is completely woven into the OS.

I just wish Apple would do the same. Make a browser and tie it to Mac OSX, integrate Appleworks into Mac OSX, as well as others. It would make just about everything work better.

Now of course I'm not saying that Apple and Microsoft should be the only ones allowed to integrate the products into an OS. Other companies should have access to the abilities to do this too (although the final product would have to be approved by Apple or MS before it would ship with the next verson of the OS).

Just think, if all the important apps you use (like word processing, image/video editing, internet browsing, audio, etc.) were all built in to the OS, and made by great developers, AND approved by Apple...wouldn't the world just be a better place? :)


But im getting very off topic:
Microsoft bashing Unix = bad.
Unix = not very flexable but rock-solid stability
Rock-solid stability = good

so in conclusion:
Unix = good
MS = bad
:)

[Hemingray]

Sounds like a lawsuit to me! :D I'd love to see 'em get pegged with false advertising. Drive yet another nail into their cross...

[Taft]

With so many companies, universities and people of the general population (ahem, Linux folks listening?) using Unix flavors around the world, why can't we get some good ad campaigns *for* Unix? I mean it just can't be beat in the server arena.

The have the way out alright...the way out of the world of stability, sensibility, and sanity.

I just hate MS so much. So dang much.

Matthew

[Choppaface]

i wonder what the register will have to say about this :D

[Simon Liquid]

Originally posted by macktheknife

I really don't understand why the government hasn't broken up the Microsoft monopoly already.

Gee, I dunno...do you think it might have something do do with the massive campaign contributions MS has made over the years?

Naw, that would never happen in America.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Biggles
Windows is better because IE works seemlessly with it, and IE is better because it is completely woven into the OS.

...

Unix = not very flexable but rock-solid stability
Rock-solid stability = good


I completely disagree with the fact that binding IE to Windows makes IE better. IE is better (ie. more compatible with more web sites) because of M$'s dominance of the market and the mass of developers targeting only Windows. And this is in part because of bundling the browser free with Windows, *not* because of integration. I don't know if windows is any better off having IE so integrated into it. Thats debatable.

The fact remains that M$'s embrace and extend techniques have created a browser that dominates the market. It wasn't because their browser was necessarily better--it was a case of marketing gone bad in the hands of a company willing to employ any tactic to get ahead.

And I'm bloody sick of people saying that Unix is not flexible. How do you mean inflexible? Just remember that an operating system having structure doesn't equate to an operating system being inflexible. And the structure is to a certain extent suggested by the operating system, not imposed.

OS X is a perfect example of this. The Unix underpinnings are *very* well hidden and you can put apps and files anywhere on the system you want to. Don't like the fact that you have a User folder with user specific data in it? Well thats exactly the same way M$ does it, except that they do it in a more confusing and less well defined way. Also, its the way the multi-user environment worked in OS 9.

Structure does not imply inflexibility.

Inflexibility implies an *unyielding*, *unaccommodating* structure.

Matthew

[Beej]

Grrr. Microsoft annoys me. What more can I say?

I guess I can add in this little grumpy face, if that helps convey the message any better:

:mad:

[AmbitiousLemon]

Beej: hahaha. let us all email grumpy faces to microsoft as a informal protest. anyone got an email address?

[lelereb]

Bill Gates is stupid.
Microsoft.equals(****)=ABSOLUTELY_TRUE

[Beej]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
Beej: hahaha. let us all email grumpy faces to microsoft as a informal protest. anyone got an email address? Reliable sources inform me we can email grumpy faces directly to Bill Gates here:

bill@microsoft.com

I sent two, just to be sure.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Beej
Reliable sources inform me we can email grumpy faces directly to Bill Gates here:

bill@microsoft.com

I sent two, just to be sure.

From: postmaster@microsoft.com
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:07:09 AM US/Pacific
To: ambitiouslemon@mac.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

bill@microsoft.com



Reporting-MTA: dns;inet-imc-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;smtpout.mac.com
Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:07:08 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822;bill@microsoft.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1

From: Ender Wiggin <ambitiouslemon@mac.com>
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:06:55 AM US/Pacific
To: bill@microsoft.com
Subject: :(


:(

[lelereb]

Unix requires costly tecnicians? And Windows not? Booth requires costly tecnicians, the only diference is that some (most?) Windows tecnicians are fakes, the only thing they says is "we must upgrade to newest M$ products".
And what about security and stability? Who knows and use unix will never change to windoz simply 'couse microsoft tells it.

[Matthé]

Originally posted by macktheknife
Does the idea of tying an application into an OS seem obscene to anybody? [/B]
uhm, try running os 9 (don't know about X) without quicktime
I'm not defending M$ here but hey, fair is fair, apple does this too

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Matthé

uhm, try running os 9 (don't know about X) without quicktime
I'm not defending M$ here but hey, fair is fair, apple does this too

os9 works just fine without quicktime. ive removed it from many of my systems with no problem, so im not sure what you are referring to.

and mrtrumbe. im not sure if this is true but ive been told that the reason ie on windows runs so fast is that it is built-in to the system. and since the speed of rendering pages is a big part of what makes a browser good if this is true then building ie into windows has made it better. but it may be faster for other reasons, who knows.

[Matthé]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


os9 works just fine without quicktime. ive removed it from many of my systems with no problem, so im not sure what you are referring to.

quicktime is more than just the player, delete the extensions and your computer will NOT restart afterwards.
the os really needs quicktime functionality

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Matthé

quicktime is more than just the player, delete the extensions and your computer will NOT restart afterwards.
the os really needs quicktime functionality

again not true. i was talking about removing all the extensions. i create cds with mac os 9 operating systems all the time for various uses and always take out all the unnecassary extensions and what not, this includes quicktime. my classic environment i use for mac os x has no quicktime extensions as well and i use it all the time (even boot into it occassionally). removing quicktime extensions in fact is one of the best things you can do to improve boot time and general system stability. if you dont need quicktime, removing it is one of the best things you can do, so dont give me this crap about not being able to remove it, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[britboy]

ok, so deleting the extensions may cause os9 not to start up, but at least qt is a damn good app (unlike that sorry excuse m$ came up with called wmp). Even if it wasn't bundled with the os, most people would have downloaded it anyway to get the added functionality. For osX for example, when you choose the column view, qt is used for many of the previews. Having it bundled in together saves the hassle of having to get it online.

[Matthé]

i had no idea
i've tried it once and it didn't restart after that so i assumed quicktime was an essential part of the os
i stand corrected (several times ;)

[Beej]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
From: postmaster@microsoft.com
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:07:09 AM US/Pacific
To: ambitiouslemon@mac.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

bill@microsoft.com



Reporting-MTA: dns;inet-imc-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;smtpout.mac.com
Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:07:08 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822;bill@microsoft.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1

From: Ender Wiggin <ambitiouslemon@mac.com>
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:06:55 AM US/Pacific
To: bill@microsoft.com
Subject: :(


:( ROTFLMAO!

You idiot! :D He he he...

[blakespot]

Originally posted by Kid Red
cough*screw M$*cough *cough

Typical. M$ sees it's near end and is using scare tactics to sway people away from the light, and effectively, macs.

I hope and prey Apple has a clever rebuttal, they need to nip this on in the bud quickly.
I don't think MS is too fearful that the end is near.


blakespot

[blakespot]

Originally posted by Hemingray
Sounds like a lawsuit to me! :D I'd love to see 'em get pegged with false advertising. Drive yet another nail into their cross...
It's all just a matter of opinion. I think most would agree that MS's "opinion" here is wrong, but it's not lawsuit material.


blakespot

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Beej
ROTFLMAO!

You idiot! :D He he he...

what didnt you know that that is actually bill's address but he is running mac os x and using apple's mail.app and just used the bounce tool to send it back to me, i mean come on its pretty obvious.

[b8rtm8nn]

I'm a sys admin in a primarily Windows environment and we are actually installing Linux servers because of the ADDED flexibility. Relax, .NET is going to be a big headache for MS on the server infrastructure front, OSX server will start to be used by us because if you know UNIX you can configure all the services from the terminal - and most are more reliable and flexible than Windows(not OSX Server, but BSD and Linux).

Most UNIX vendors only offer expensive and complex solutions, that is why MS does so well, but the emergence of Linux and OSX is starting to peck away at the "web appliance" market - servers that only do DHCP or RAS or file/print serving, etc.

As MS starts inplementing more standards-based systems, which they must to be considered as UNIX replacements, that also opens the market to OSX and Linux since MS services are now more accessible in cross platform environments.

Life is really good, and
Apple is doing a fine good of taking advantage on their UNIX underpinnings.

[Mr. Anderson]

Oh, this is great!:rolleyes:

Interesting article though. Suns reply was right on the mark though

'Sun responded to the campaign in a statement. "Sun still does not see Microsoft as a real threat in the datacenter market where reliability, availability, serviceability and security are key," the company said. "As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows." '

Its going to be a pissing war, the only thing I interested in seein is if Sun starts an ad campaign of their own. And there seemed to be no mention of Linux....

But what added more to the humor was the random ad that popped up on the page

I think its supposed to be Bill Gates under the hat!:D

[Rower_CPU]

I think this could actually work in Apple's favor.
Several of you mentioned that consumers aren't too savvy about the tech behind their OS. So then it stands to reason that many of them believe that a Unix OS is just a command line. Just like they believe that more MHz means a better CPU, I'm sure many would believe that a GUI means it's not Unix.
Granted, Apple will have to be careful about marketing OS X now.

Do they tackle the giant head on? Or do they let it undermine itself and then swoop in for the kill?

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by macktheknife
I really don't understand why the government hasn't broken up the Microsoft monopoly already. Netscape fell victim to Internet Explorer after Bill Gates "integrated" it into Windows. Now Real Audio might get the shaft with Windows Media Player being oh-so tightly integrated with Windows. Does the idea of tying an application into an OS seem obscene to anybody? I mean, what happens if Microsoft faces a threat to its Office application suite? The next thing that will happen is that Word, Excel, and PowerPoint become part of Windows. The only reason why this hasn't happen is that Corel, Borland, and other office productivity software have bit the dust under Bill Gates' juggernaut. It's like GM trying to sell you a car with the CD player, insurance policy, etc. "tied" together with the car without a choice for the consumer.

But, it's alright for Apple to include iMovie, iTunes, iDVD? Just like very few people install a 3rd party browser or media player for Windows, you can probably count on your hand the number of folks who get a 3rd party tool to rip and burn CDs on a Mac. How many shareware CD rippers saw thier business dry up when iTunes was first released? Yes MS bundles IE and media player, but nothing there keeps me from adding a 3rd party tools. I have Netscape and Real installed on my XP machines, no problem. It's no different than Apple packing in thier digital hub stuff. It's great value added to the OS.

Adding features and functionality is a natural evolution of the operating system. Who would buy a modern day OS that didn't include a browser, it's insane. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when I had to buy a seperate TCP/IP stack, a browser, a defragmenter, disk compression, etc. I really appreciate that out of the box there are great tools to do what I want on both the Mac and PC, and on both platforms I always have the choice to install something 3rd party if the pack-ins don't meet my need.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


But, it's alright for Apple to include iMovie, iTunes, iDVD? Just like very few people install a 3rd party browser or media player for Windows, you can probably count on your hand the number of folks who get a 3rd party tool to rip and burn CDs on a Mac. How many shareware CD rippers saw thier business dry up when iTunes was first released? Yes MS bundles IE and media player, but nothing there keeps me from adding a 3rd party tools. I have Netscape and Real installed on my XP machines, no problem. It's no different than Apple packing in thier digital hub stuff. It's great value added to the OS.

Adding features and functionality is a natural evolution of the operating system. Who would buy a modern day OS that didn't include a browser, it's insane. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when I had to buy a seperate TCP/IP stack, a browser, a defragmenter, disk compression, etc. I really appreciate that out of the box there are great tools to do what I want on both the Mac and PC, and on both platforms I always have the choice to install something 3rd party if the pack-ins don't meet my need.

the point isnt including the software its building it into the os. itunes, iMovie, iDVD are not part of Mac OS they are separate applications.

and if you want to really talk about ie you need to also realize that ms used ie to destroy other browsers not just by including it and building it into the os but by creating their own standards.

im not one to mindlessly defend apple but if you are going to make arguments you you cant leave out major details just to make your point, some of us will notice the holes in your logic.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the point isnt including the software its building it into the os. itunes, iMovie, iDVD are not part of Mac OS they are separate applications.

and if you want to really talk about ie you need to also realize that ms used ie to destroy other browsers not just by including it and building it into the os but by creating their own standards.

im not one to mindlessly defend apple but if you are going to make arguments you you cant leave out major details just to make your point, some of us will notice the holes in your logic.

Two points, first I see it as a natural tool to include in the OS. For example, the original help file system for windows was an RTF based system with all kinds of hoops and nasty stuff you used to have to do to get the psuedo-hyperlinks working. So now HTML comes along, it's easy to code for the developer (I can do it in notepad if I'm so inclined), it's got hyperlinks built in, and I just developed a browser to display this stuff. MS has a choice. They can continue to move forward with a proprietary engine and format for help files or use this nifty new standard called HTML. Guess which way they went? Now if you are going to base your help system on HTML, you need to guarentee the user is going to be able to read it. That means you need to include ("bundle") a browser and you need to make sure the user can't shoot themselves in the foot by uninstalling it completely. Thus one of the reasons why IE is bundled with Windows.

And while I certainly agree that MS does quite frequently do the embrace and extend philosophy, I don't remember that being part of the original rant I was responding to and from what I see in the headlines, does not seem to be an issue in the various monopoly cases. Once again that is simply about choice, as a developer I have a choice. I can target IE and get a richer user experience and deliver my product earlier because of some of the cool things that IE added first or only, such as iframes, ActiveX, etc. or I can increase my development time and target multiple browsers. Some folks may consider what they do as dirty pool, but as a developer I see it from a slightly different light. I've seen it several times, each time an alternative platform comes along MS figures out a way to make it easier for the application developer to target MS. It happened with OS/2 vs. NT, Borland's C++ vs. Visual C++, and Netscape vs. IE. In each case it was easier/cheaper to develop with the MS alternative. If you capture the mind of the developer, you get the applications, and the customers go to the applications. MS uses embrace and extend to make my life easier and I think that is just being a smart competitor.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


Two points, first I see it as a natural tool to include in the OS. For example, the original help file system for windows was an RTF based system with all kinds of hoops and nasty stuff you used to have to do to get the psuedo-hyperlinks working. So now HTML comes along, it's easy to code for the developer (I can do it in notepad if I'm so inclined), it's got hyperlinks built in, and I just developed a browser to display this stuff. MS has a choice. They can continue to move forward with a proprietary engine and format for help files or use this nifty new standard called HTML. Guess which way they went? Now if you are going to base your help system on HTML, you need to guarentee the user is going to be able to read it. That means you need to include ("bundle") a browser and you need to make sure the user can't shoot themselves in the foot by uninstalling it completely. Thus one of the reasons why IE is bundled with Windows.

Like 'Lemon said, you're failing to distinguish between bundle and integrate.

IE is built into the Windows shell. MS required (until recently) that shortcuts to IE be placed on the desktop by OEM manufacturers. The whole DoJ case at this point rests on MS's claims that IE can't even be removed from the OS without seriously rewriting the code. Does that sound like simple "embrace and extend" to you?

You can remove any Apple app w/out destroying the OS.

I agree with you that Netscape dropped the ball with their 4.x series of browsers. Their latest offereings are much better, but the damage has already been done. The problem is that IE has not progressed much in terms of standards lately, and without serious competition they won't have reason to.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Like 'Lemon said, you're failing to distinguish between bundle and integrate.

IE is built into the Windows shell. MS required (until recently) that shortcuts to IE be placed on the desktop by OEM manufacturers. The whole DoJ case at this point rests on MS's claims that IE can't even be removed from the OS without seriously rewriting the code. Does that sound like simple "embrace and extend" to you?

You can remove any Apple app w/out destroying the OS.

I agree with you that Netscape dropped the ball with their 4.x series of browsers. Their latest offereings are much better, but the damage has already been done. The problem is that IE has not progressed much in terms of standards lately, and without serious competition they won't have reason to.

I don't really see the difference between bundle and integrate in this context. When I first boot up my new Mac or PC there a shortcuts. On the PC one is IE, on the Mac one is iTunes, as a consumer I don't have a choice to remove either of those before I boot up my machine. You are right, in the case of iTunes I can delete the whole app and install a 3rd party application to do the same thing. In the case of IE I can delete the shortcut and install a 3rd party app to do the same thing, IE will simply be in the background providing the services it supplies for the OS, but in no way impacting my user experience with the new 3rd party application. In both cases the problem for the 3rd party vendor is not that anything is integrated, but that it is bundled. With both those applications, my motivation for buying a 3rd party application is virtually nothing. iTunes is very cool, for my use I don't need to replace it. Likewise IE works very well and I am not motivated to replace it either, so the 3rd party vendor loses. So if IE is integrated (as opposed to bundled), but I can delete the shortcut and install Netscape never seeing IE again (as a browser), who cares?

The end result is still the same, I select a file or folder, click the delete menu, install my 3rd party app, and go on my merry way. Yes if IE was bundled (instead of integrated), it could be removed however, MS would still have to find another tool to do the things IE is doing for it now (help, explorer), that would mean that you still would have something integrated into the OS you couldn't remove even if it wasn't as blatent.

I agree that the HW manufacturers should probably be allowed to modify the MS configuration as much as they want, assuming the HW manufacturer then takes on the support role. If Dell wants to make Netscape the default browser, they should be able to, and nothing in the IE integration with Windows prevents that. Forcing MS to reengineer the components that use IE as a tool is lawyers making technical decisions for a company and that's wrong. Nobody is asking Apple to make Finder a removable component why should MS have to remove the technology they use in Explorer.

As for IE and standards, I'm using a SOAP, XML, and XSL. What other standards have been proposed lately? MS does tend to jump the gun and push out "preapproved" standards and then switches to the standard when it is approved at the next release. I have been bite by that one before, but that is the price you pay for coding to an "unapproved" standard.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The problem is that IE has not progressed much in terms of standards lately, and without serious competition they won't have reason to.

Can anyone say "Motorola?"

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


I don't really see the difference between bundle and integrate in this context. When I first boot up my new Mac or PC there a shortcuts. On the PC one is IE, on the Mac one is iTunes, as a consumer I don't have a choice to remove either of those before I boot up my machine. You are right, in the case of iTunes I can delete the whole app and install a 3rd party application to do the same thing. In the case of IE I can delete the shortcut and install a 3rd party app to do the same thing, IE will simply be in the background providing the services it supplies for the OS, but in no way impacting my user experience with the new 3rd party application. In both cases the problem for the 3rd party vendor is not that anything is integrated, but that it is bundled. With both those applications, my motivation for buying a 3rd party application is virtually nothing. iTunes is very cool, for my use I don't need to replace it. Likewise IE works very well and I am not motivated to replace it either, so the 3rd party vendor loses. So if IE is integrated (as opposed to bundled), but I can delete the shortcut and install Netscape never seeing IE again (as a browser), who cares?

The end result is still the same, I select a file or folder, click the delete menu, install my 3rd party app, and go on my merry way. Yes if IE was bundled (instead of integrated), it could be removed however, MS would still have to find another tool to do the things IE is doing for it now (help, explorer), that would mean that you still would have something integrated into the OS you couldn't remove even if it wasn't as blatent.

I agree that the HW manufacturers should probably be allowed to modify the MS configuration as much as they want, assuming the HW manufacturer then takes on the support role. If Dell wants to make Netscape the default browser, they should be able to, and nothing in the IE integration with Windows prevents that. Forcing MS to reengineer the components that use IE as a tool is lawyers making technical decisions for a company and that's wrong. Nobody is asking Apple to make Finder a removable component why should MS have to remove the technology they use in Explorer.

As for IE and standards, I'm using a SOAP, XML, and XSL. What other standards have been proposed lately? MS does tend to jump the gun and push out "preapproved" standards and then switches to the standard when it is approved at the next release. I have been bite by that one before, but that is the price you pay for coding to an "unapproved" standard.

I only said that MS claimed that IE was impossible to remove. In fact it's quite easy to do with a 3rd party app called IEradicator from http://98lite.net/. But you need the app to do it (unless you're comfortable with registry hacking and modifying the Windows shell).

It is very difficult to compare the business practices of MS and Apple, since the conditions are different. Apple, in effect, has the monopoly on Mac systems since they killed off the clones. They are free do configure the default installation of new machines since they provide the hardware as well as the software.
MS however should have nothing to do with the hardware side, and yet they have been mandating to OEMs what they can and can't do. They are now telling OEMs that they can't sell OSless or "naked" systems. Their public claim is that they fear pirated versions of Windows will be installed, but the truth is that they are trying to keep people from installing Linux or some other "alternative" OS on their machine. MS is finally *allowing* OEMs to remove the IE shortcuts from the desktop because Netscape is on its last legs and dead in the water.

To the average user bundling may be the same as integrating, but to people who want to have a choice, there's a world of difference.

The standards I was referring to were CSS (which nobody really supports completely, but Netscape 6 is way ahead of IE 6).

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by mcrain


Can anyone say "Motorola?"

Seriously...somebody needs to give them a swift kick in the rear to get them moving...

[macktheknife]

I am in complete agreement with ewinemiller that the integration of applications or utilities into the software system can be beneficial. I also agree that developers can spot advanced software and develop accordingly. Lastly, I do not advocate a strip-down OS. I am merely trying to stimulate a conversation on something we accept as a given.

Consumers and CFOs in charge of companies' IT budgets might not be willing to accept a more advanced alternative if it costs more. For instance, by integrating IE into Windows, MS has effectively shut off Navigator. CFOs will wonder: "Gee, we're already paying for Windows and it includes a browser, so why license Navigator?" The choice to dump Navigator, then, becomes clear not due to any technological superiority per se, but merely because MS has been able to sell one app (IE) by integrating it with the important OS. Now, in my previous sentences, replace "browser" and "Navigator" with another application and company and you will see the predatory power MS can wield. Now, we think it's strange if MS starts bundling Excel or a game like Age of Empires as part of the OS, but what if MS senses a threat or wants to expand its market in the future to other apps? Wasn't it just a few years ago that Navigator was something we downloaded off the net separately?

I am not bashing MS for taking this route: In fact, Microsoft is merely flexing its competitive edge (its control over the OS). Bill Gates is an aggressive and smart competitor who has outfoxed his enemies. However, the threat to other companies who dare to make an app faces an unfair (and potentially illegal) obstacles created by MS. Yesterday it was Netscape, today its Real Audio, tomorrow it could be any company. Convenience is a positive for consumers, but Microsoft's ability to limit choice through its OS should give people something to think about.

[Taft]

Originally posted by ewinemiller

...
but I can delete the shortcut and install Netscape never seeing IE again (as a browser), who cares?
...


But IE is still there! Web content in your windows explorer windows is still enabled. Shortcuts will still open in IE. In short IE will always be there. No matter what.

The individual actions of M$ could be considered legal and just "good business". The actions as a whole, however, add up to an offense.

Matthew

[Taft]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

and mrtrumbe. im not sure if this is true but ive been told that the reason ie on windows runs so fast is that it is built-in to the system. and since the speed of rendering pages is a big part of what makes a browser good if this is true then building ie into windows has made it better. but it may be faster for other reasons, who knows.

I haven't heard that. If its true, then it just reinforces my point. If Netscape didn't have access to the same APIs and hooks into the OS as IE did, thats another offense.

Matthew

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by macktheknife
However, the threat to other companies who dare to make an app faces an unfair (and potentially illegal) obstacles created by MS. Yesterday it was Netscape, today its Real Audio, tomorrow it could be any company. Convenience is a positive for consumers, but Microsoft's ability to limit choice through its OS should give people something to think about.

Very good point, for example if I was the CEO of company that provides antivirus software I'd be nervous right now. It's just the kind of tool that in the past has been added to the base OS. Remember Norton/Symantec used to provide a "must have" disk defragmenter for PCs, how popular is that product now? Current virus checkers are now priced in that service model kind of pricing that MS wants to move to. I think that it would a natural that MS would in the future would add virus checking technology to the core OS. The smart CEO would be in discussion right now to provide that engine.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by mrtrumbe
Web content in your windows explorer windows is still enabled. Shortcuts will still open in IE.
Matthew

Yes web content would be part of explorer, but that is the user experience that is windows these days, much like Aqua is part of the modern MacOS. And no URL short cuts do not open in IE. I have Netscape installed on a Windows XP machine, the shortcuts open in Netscape.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


Yes web content would be part of explorer, but that is the user experience that is windows these days, much like Aqua is part of the modern MacOS. And no URL short cuts do not open in IE. I have Netscape installed on a Windows XP machine, the shortcuts open in Netscape.

Whoa! You are really starting to jump to some strange conclusions here.

Comparing the Aqua GUI (buttons, sliders, dialog boxes, etc) is in no way similar to how MS chooses to provide its Help application and HTML rendering.
That's like comparing Windows' Start Menu to Apple's ability to play back media files through the Finder...they are in no way related or even comparable.
The Windows "user experience" should have nothing to do with web content. It's only through their monopolistic practices that it came to be that way.

[AmbitiousLemon]

ok ive been staying out of this because i didnt want to argue with someone who doesnt seem to understand anything about windows or mac os. but ill just mention real quick that mac os uses html in its help menu and in other places as well, but no web browser.

o an im surprised you guys have dropped the whole standards things since this ewine guy doesnt seem to know what he is talking about with standards. maybe someone should educate this poor fool.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
MS however should have nothing to do with the hardware side, and yet they have been mandating to OEMs what they can and can't do. They are now telling OEMs that they can't sell OSless or "naked" systems. Their public claim is that they fear pirated versions of Windows will be installed, but the truth is that they are trying to keep people from installing Linux or some other "alternative" OS on their machine. MS is finally *allowing* OEMs to remove the IE shortcuts from the desktop because Netscape is on its last legs and dead in the water.

Not arguing with you there, as long as the HW manufacturer supports thier configuration. I wouldn't want to be MS and having user's call me because Dell or Gateway futzed with my default install. Officially the OEM does support the OS install, but I know lots of folks who called MS directly for support on thier OEM install and MS was very friendly and helpful. I could see that stopping.

From what I understand about the "naked" machine issue, it's not that MS prevents them from offering naked machines, it's that they provide a discount or comarketing agreement(read discount) on the Windows license cost to those manufacturers who don't offer naked machines. From what I read the discount only amounts to about $10 a copy which might be tight squeeze on a $400 emachine, is probably not a tight squeeze on a $2000 Dell.

[Rower_CPU]

'Lemon,
I'm trying here, but the guy has stopped responding to me...hmmm, maybe he doesn't have an answer...

BTW, nice 'tar. I was wondering when you'd post it.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


Not arguing with you there, as long as the HW manufacturer supports thier configuration. I wouldn't want to be MS and having user's call me because Dell or Gateway futzed with my default install. Officially the OEM does support the OS install, but I know lots of folks who called MS directly for support on thier OEM install and MS was very friendly and helpful. I could see that stopping.

From what I understand about the "naked" machine issue, it's not that MS prevents them from offering naked machines, it's that they provide a discount or comarketing agreement(read discount) on the Windows license cost to those manufacturers who don't offer naked machines. From what I read the discount only amounts to about $10 a copy which might be tight squeeze on a $400 emachine, is probably not a tight squeeze on a $2000 Dell.

This article might clear up the matter of "naked" machines:
http://theregus.com/content/4/24467.html

MS is flexing its muscle to force OEMs to preinstall an OS, rather than let the customer choose. One more reason to build your own system...

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
'Lemon,
I'm trying here, but the guy has stopped responding to me...hmmm, maybe he doesn't have an answer...

BTW, nice 'tar. I was wondering when you'd post it.

incredibly annoying isnt it? (the guy and the avatar)

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
'Lemon,
I'm trying here, but the guy has stopped responding to me...hmmm, maybe he doesn't have an answer...

BTW, nice 'tar. I was wondering when you'd post it.

Not that I don't have answer, just that see it from a different viewpoint and it's one of those agree to disagree things. In the current Windows UI, everything revolves around the webpage kind of look and feel. When I select a file, shortcuts to functions appear, folders can be expressed in pages, it's everywhere, much like the Aqua UI is part of what makes a Mac look as spiffy as it does, it's part of the philosophy of the way Windows behaves. MS leveraged the technology in IE to make that happen.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


incredibly annoying isnt it? (the guy and the avatar)

Put it on a transparent background and I'll be happy. I hate those damn white boxes...

Back to the original topic...MS is trying to confuse people as to what Unix is and what it's capable of. I really hope to see Apple and Sun fire back with some ads highlighting the...uhhh...shall we say, security "shortcomings" of MS solutions.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


This article might clear up the matter of "naked" machines:
http://theregus.com/content/4/24467.html

MS is flexing its muscle to force OEMs to preinstall an OS, rather than let the customer choose. One more reason to build your own system...

I stand corrected, the article I read the other day talked about the $10 discount thing.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


Not that I don't have answer, just that see it from a different viewpoint and it's one of those agree to disagree things. In the current Windows UI, everything revolves around the webpage kind of look and feel. When I select a file, shortcuts to functions appear, folders can be expressed in pages, it's everywhere, much like the Aqua UI is part of what makes a Mac look as spiffy as it does, it's part of the philosophy of the way Windows behaves. MS leveraged the technology in IE to make that happen.

How about standards support? Netscape 6, now that it's more stable and less bulky, is actually a better browser than IE. Problem is that the damage has been done.

Everything in Windows revolves around the webpage metaphor *because* MS built IE into the OS. It's kind of a chicken or egg thing. Speaking of chickens...'Lemon?

[AmbitiousLemon]

well im not real into this now, but you seem to have missed my earlier point.

mac os has some built-in html. like the help menus. however apple has not integrated a web browser into the operating system as ms has done. saying that parts of windows use html and there fore a web browser must be an integrated component is simply wrong so quit trying to make the point.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Put it on a transparent background and I'll be happy. I hate those damn white boxes...


how does one edit an animated gif?

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
well im not real into this now, but you seem to have missed my earlier point.

mac os has some built-in html. like the help menus. however apple has not integrated a web browser into the operating system as ms has done. saying that parts of windows use html and there fore a web browser must be an integrated component is simply wrong so quit trying to make the point.

Didn't miss your point, you're right MS could have choosen to not integrate but instead build another component to handle the in OS HTML stuff. Instead they choose to use a component they had already built and tested to handle the task, saves time, saves money. Seems like a logical choice to me, why build and maintain two HTML renders? Now, with a little hindsite, which we have the luxury of now, it's easy to look back and say with the possible legal consequences, it may not have been the best decision to integrate.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


how does one edit an animated gif?

I guess it depends on how you created it.
ImageReady should be able to open it and allow you to go frame be frame and drop out the bg. I'm doing just that right now on a placeholder image I'll use until I can really do something good.

[lordsinforge]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


what didnt you know that that is actually bill's address but he is running mac os x and using apple's mail.app and just used the bounce tool to send it back to me, i mean come on its pretty obvious.

Shouldn't someone try god@microsoft.com?

I mean look at the guy, he has to have a complex..

:cool:

[jvaska]

sorry...i don't have time to get through this whole thread...so i'm just jumping in here...

this really irks me...

microsoft goes after unix...and all things that go with that...but why in the ****! doesn't somebody get out there and point out all of the crap that developers go through while writing for windows? i've got friends who do it...it drives them completely nuts...

it's very clear now...microsoft is back on game for total domination in all things computery...controlling bandwidth...attacking other OS's...buying every small code shop in the land...leveraging billions in R&D just to muscle out any remaining small players in practically EVERY market...manipulating, manipulating, manipulating...

i'm sure everybody knows that microsoft never had any layoffs...in fact!!!!...they are still hiring in a very active fashion...

ugh...

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I guess it depends on how you created it.
ImageReady should be able to open it and allow you to go frame be frame and drop out the bg. I'm doing just that right now on a placeholder image I'll use until I can really do something good.

o i didnt create it. i downloaded it from a animated gif archive. i opened it with image ready but cant seem to save (save as or export) to .gif format. any ideas? do i save as .html with images and just use the image file created since that should be a .gif?

[edit ahhhh! the avatar's all on crack now or something... now this is why i wasnt going to do the whole avatar thing, its just craziness!]

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


o i didnt create it. i downloaded it from a animated gif archive. i opened it with image ready but cant seem to save (save as or export) to .gif format. any ideas? do i save as .html with images and just use the image file created since that should be a .gif?

Well I can see that you tried...but your Chilemon looks like it dropped acid!

ImageReady has a "Save Optimized" command in the File menu. When the save dialog box opens choose Images only.

It's odd that it won't let you save as gif. How did you make the changes just now?

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Well I can see that you tried...but your Chilemon looks like it dropped acid!

ImageReady has a "Save Optimized" command in the File menu. When the save dialog box opens choose Images only.

It's odd that it won't let you save as gif. How did you make the changes just now?

well what i ended up doing is opening in image ready 7.0 used the magic wand tool to select the white background and then deleted it form each layer. then i went to save optimized and choose images only which saved it as a .gif that you see now. not sure why its all on acid and what not.

[Rower_CPU]

Strangeness...maybe it's just a redraw problem...double check your frames in IR.

Here's my temp avatar:

[Mr. Anderson]

Ha, that's great. Seems like the frames are a little out of order too.

See if you can set the transparency to the first pixel. That might do it.

[Mr. Anderson]

Someday I might use this

[Mr. Anderson]

maybe not, it has some issues too. :mad:

[Rower_CPU]

Yeah...animated gifs with transparent bgs are tough to make. I made the atom from scratch, more or less, and moved the electrons along their paths by hand, frame by frame...the tricky part was actually optimizing it such that it doesn't look like crap.

[Mr. Anderson]

I rendered it in Lightwave, created much larger version, shrunk it for this test. I'll redo it when I have to, I'm not going to getting an avatar anytime soon. You can see the original on my homepage

http://www.dukestreet.com

[Gelfin]

(1) This tactic is typical Microsoft. We know that this is a big ol' lie, but we're geeks. Advertising like this is aimed at the nontechnical Harvard Business School idiots who make decisions about "directions" and "broad policy initiatives" and such. It's FUD for the nontechnical people who ARE intimidated by the scraggly UNIX geeks and their incomprehensible command line incantations. They want aggressive management types walking into strategy meetings saying things like, "I'm afraid we might be boxing ourselves into a very complex and expensive set of solutions." The geeks (if there are even any in that sort of meeting) won't be able to explain why not without using big words that the other HBS idiots in the room don't understand. It's a clever approach, and absolutely evil.

(2) The real irony here is the Orwellian twist. More options make things complicated. Complication requires expertise. Expertise is expensive. Expensive, complicated things make you feel boxed in. Therefore, options are restrictive (and war is peace, and freedom is slavery). Uncle Bill loves you. Uncle Bill frees you from the confinement of complex options and liberates you to do exactly what Uncle Bill thinks you ought to be able to do, in exactly the way Uncle Bill expects you to be doing it. It's bliss, really it is.

(3) The only way to fight this is for geeks to band together and come up with a way to explain this to dolts in corner offices in terms that doesn't involve geeky technical explanations. The Balkanization of UNIX over the years means there's really no single strong entity who can speak for UNIX and pay to mount a big ad campaign to combat Microsoft's latest line of crap. It can only be a grassroots effort. Microsoft is counting on the clueful people to show no interest in coming out of their darkened cubicles to influence mindshare.

(4) Try 'billg@microsoft.com' instead.

[GPTurismo]

an unflexible system? can we say proprietary WINDOWS? hello. It's easy as hell to make a AIX work with an IRIX with a Solaris with a Linux with a MAX OS X box.

You have to be a genius to make Windows work with any of those.

Complex server enviroment = more functional, more stable, and more secure. I hate to say it, companies are to worried about bottom line than whats actually in the box. If some kid right out of college who was an average tech geek can run it, they want it so they can pay him 8.50 an hour instead of 30 to 40 dollars an hour.

Microsoft is feeling the crunch because Linux and other prosics systems are killing them in the foreign markets. All in all, this is going to lead the US to fall behind the rest of the world in another market the US help establish and dominated.

Wait until Mandrake or another easy to manage linux system comes out. Thats when we will see. If mac os x can be easy to use unix, an easy to use linux can't be far behind.


But...


UNIX 4 LIFE *does a gang symbol*

[spuncan]

K lent just ended where I am so Im back and Isee this. WTF black is white White is black. What happened. Unix full of Traps. Unix is open source and easy to use that is its definition. Windows possibly going to be open source, full of traps impossible to be a "power user" with. I guess Gates decided that he wants to kill Sun. Well good luck u cant kill millions of people writing in JAVA each day and the entire internet. Yep all of it everytime anything looks half way decent that JAVA so if Microsoft some how suceeds well lets just say a billionare will have a funeral after that. And no its not sad that some one gave up the internet for lent.

[GPTurismo]

Agreed. Java is the fastest growing tech language in the world, and microsoft can't have it.

Funny indeed.

[Rower_CPU]

On a related topic, check out this article re Sun's use of some Apple code to make JVM more optimized for Mac OS:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/03/28/020328hnsunapple.xml

[Mr. Anderson]

Nice article.

Java applications load faster on Apple Macintosh systems than on other computers, said Denison.

...

Improvements to Java from third-party companies such as Apple is the way the Java process is supposed to work, Davis said. "I don't know how earth-shattering it is in that Sun has been generally open to taking best practices from any source possible, other than Microsoft, perhaps," Davis said.

This is very cool, didn't know that. Hopefully it will make it more appealing as a development platform.

But it also seems Sun has a bit of a bias towards MS

[blakespot]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


How about standards support? Netscape 6, now that it's more stable and less bulky, is actually a better browser than IE. Problem is that the damage has been done.

Everything in Windows revolves around the webpage metaphor *because* MS built IE into the OS. It's kind of a chicken or egg thing. Speaking of chickens...'Lemon?
As a web developer by trade I can tell you that IE is definitely the main target to code a site for. Netscape support is still what I'd consider "required"...but in a year? Netscape 6.x makes it a bit better---but there's still effort involved in coding for a browser that has < 20% market share.

Realities.


blakespot

[blakespot]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


Very good point, for example if I was the CEO of company that provides antivirus software I'd be nervous right now. It's just the kind of tool that in the past has been added to the base OS. Remember Norton/Symantec used to provide a "must have" disk defragmenter for PCs, how popular is that product now? Current virus checkers are now priced in that service model kind of pricing that MS wants to move to. I think that it would a natural that MS would in the future would add virus checking technology to the core OS. The smart CEO would be in discussion right now to provide that engine.
As a person responsible for the webservers of a large, high profile organization, _I_ would be pretty nervous if I were running MS's IIS. We made certain that our new web platform, being setup now, was Unix through and through---we've gone from Linux on Cobalt Raq's to Solaris on Sun machines w/ Apache as the webserver (ColfFusion scripting language).

MS is no friend to anyone responsible for servers.



blakespot

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by blakespot

As a web developer by trade I can tell you that IE is definitely the main target to code a site for. Netscape support is still what I'd consider "required"...but in a year? Netscape 6.x makes it a bit better---but there's still effort involved in coding for a browser that has < 20% market share.

Realities.


blakespot

Same here...I'm torn between wanting Netscape to die so that I don't have to check it for my website's compat, but then I hate the idea of IE being the only browser out there.

Same with Mac OS. If everyone gives up on it since it has < 10% market share...where does that leave us?

[kirknord]

Originally posted by ewinemiller


But, it's alright for Apple to include iMovie, iTunes, iDVD? Just like very few people install a 3rd party browser or media player for Windows, you can probably count on your hand the number of folks who get a 3rd party tool to rip and burn CDs on a Mac. How many shareware CD rippers saw thier business dry up when iTunes was first released? Yes MS bundles IE and media player, but nothing there keeps me from adding a 3rd party tools. I have Netscape and Real installed on my XP machines, no problem. It's no different than Apple packing in thier digital hub stuff. It's great value added to the OS.

Adding features and functionality is a natural evolution of the operating system. Who would buy a modern day OS that didn't include a browser, it's insane. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when I had to buy a seperate TCP/IP stack, a browser, a defragmenter, disk compression, etc. I really appreciate that out of the box there are great tools to do what I want on both the Mac and PC, and on both platforms I always have the choice to install something 3rd party if the pack-ins don't meet my need.

What really bothers me about M$' tactics is that they are making a system that WILL NOT OPERATE without some of the apps or they make it a real PITA to remove some of them.

A hypothetical situation:
Imagine if the only reason you couldn't run Photoshop or Notepad was because you had disabled IE in your Windows configuration. It's just ridiculous. What does a web browser add in terms of raw functionality to a program like Photoshop? Nothing, yet I'd be stuck with the code bloat from IE eating up valuable system resources.

[kirknord]

Originally posted by ewinemiller

And while I certainly agree that MS does quite frequently do the embrace and extend philosophy, I don't remember that being part of the original rant I was responding to and from what I see in the headlines, does not seem to be an issue in the various monopoly cases. Once again that is simply about choice, as a developer I have a choice. I can target IE and get a richer user experience and deliver my product earlier because of some of the cool things that IE added first or only, such as iframes, ActiveX, etc. or I can increase my development time and target multiple browsers. Some folks may consider what they do as dirty pool, but as a developer I see it from a slightly different light. I've seen it several times, each time an alternative platform comes along MS figures out a way to make it easier for the application developer to target MS. It happened with OS/2 vs. NT, Borland's C++ vs. Visual C++, and Netscape vs. IE. In each case it was easier/cheaper to develop with the MS alternative. If you capture the mind of the developer, you get the applications, and the customers go to the applications. MS uses embrace and extend to make my life easier and I think that is just being a smart competitor.

Ah, but this is where the law actually comes in. M$ is using their monopoly in desktop oerating systems to give them an advantage in other markets and create an insurmountable barrier to entry by other players. Because IE is bolted into the operating system, there is very little incentive for ambitious developers to try and create a new and truly innovative browser. No one is going to invest in them because IE is so ubiquitous and they become an investment risk.

IE didn't win the browser war because of superior technology. They won because they had the ultimate means of distributing the product; the operating system itself. Netscape had to fight tooth and nail to get people to purchase CD's or spend the time downloading Navigator after that. IE was "good enough" for people. It was free and it was already installed. Essentially, M$ used their monopoly to make using Navigator a huge pain in the butt. And in doing that, cut off what was a viable source of revenue for Netscape.

M$ plays dirty pool plain and simple.

Bust 'em up I say. Create conditions where they actually have to compete with others on the quality of their product rather than the sheer amount of marketing money they spend.

[kirknord]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


o i didnt create it. i downloaded it from a animated gif archive. i opened it with image ready but cant seem to save (save as or export) to .gif format. any ideas? do i save as .html with images and just use the image file created since that should be a .gif?

[edit ahhhh! the avatar's all on crack now or something... now this is why i wasnt going to do the whole avatar thing, its just craziness!]

Well, you'll want to set the Optimization settings to GIF, diffusion dither, check transparency, select a matte color, basically set all the color settings. Then it's a simple command+option+s
Unless you have enabled slices, you should just be able to save the image back out as an animated gif.
Save As won't help you out unless you want to save the file out as a .psd with a new name.

[j763]

hehe, bill used to have an email address "askbill@microsoft.com" - just go to google and type in "site:microsoft.com askbill" to check if you want... i tried it but unfortunantly:

From: postmaster@microsoft.com
Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:08:06 PM Australia/Melbourne
To: j763@mac.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

askbill@microsoft.com



Reporting-MTA: dns;inet-imc-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;smtpout.mac.com
Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:08:06 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822;askbill@microsoft.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1

From: "Jack K." <j763@mac.com>
Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:07:39 PM Australia/Melbourne
To: askbill@microsoft.com
Subject:


Dear Bill,

According to C|Net,

"Microsoft and Unisys are launching a multimillion dollar ad campaign to undermine Unix.

The campaign, called "We have the way out," describes Unix as an expensive trap. "No wonder Unix makes you feel boxed in. It ties you to an inflexible system. It requires you to pay for expensive experts. It makes you struggle daily with a server environment that's more complex than ever," one ad reads. "


Why if that is the case does MSN Hotmail still run on Unix?

Thankyou.


oh well...
:mad:

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by kirknord


Well, you'll want to set the Optimization settings to GIF, diffusion dither, check transparency, select a matte color, basically set all the color settings. Then it's a simple command+option+s
Unless you have enabled slices, you should just be able to save the image back out as an animated gif.
Save As won't help you out unless you want to save the file out as a .psd with a new name.

I've found that dithering is often unnecesary and adds noise to the image...the rest is right on though..

[eirik]

M$ is evidently trying to position itself in that sweet spot where an enterprise can enjoy tremendous flexibility, scalability, reliability, and availability without having to employ many high-paid IT gurus.

The sweet spot is tough to nail; I believe. Flexibility (and scalability) tend to be more complex than a rigid, constrained system that requires less in the way of high-paid IT gurus. Obviously, there's a trade-off that software and hardware makers are looking to overcome whereby an enterprise gets all of the flexibility and capability without the incredible complexity that requires an army of IT gurus.

So, M$ is attacking the nix's because, right or wrong, they are PERCEIVED to be very complex. So, M$ and Unisys (why Unisys?) are looking to exploit this perception and other negative ones.

At the same time, M$ is trying to overcome its poor reputation for security and reliability/availability by that old tried and true business tactic, if you can't make your widget better right away or ever, spend millions of dollars on an advertising campaign that asserts that 'quality is job one'. Bill Gates recently asserted that 'security' is M$'s number one priority.

It worked for Chrysler in a big way!!! Granted, Chrysler's quality assurance did improve significantly but it took considerable time. So, the advertising with lee Iaococa (SP?) bought a more positive perception amongst auto consumers well before quality actually improved. (I am not asserting the Chrysler products are top of the line quality cars, BTW.)

Well, Apple has a reputation for making flexible, capable, powerful things simple and low-cost to use. Unix has a reputation for reliability, availability, scalability, and security. OS X is Apple simplicity on Unix. The 'power of Unix and the ease of use' of Apple.

This represents a tremendous opportunity for Apple, if Apple has the resources to make OS X Server and the PowerMac Server line more enterprise-ready.

For all of M$'s many flaws, when it comes to marketing, M$ does nothing half-assed. M$ can make a significant impact on market perception. And, Apple may be able to ride the wave while M$ ultimately wipes out.

Point in fact, however, as I understand Apple's priorities, aside from the consumer, education, and graphics segments, it is not targeting enterprise servers per say, rather it is targeting workstations in the enterprise. So, this may be an opportunity that Apple lacks the resources to exploit. Maybe Apple could accomplish the same with some strategic partnerships with major Unix server application vendors?

E

[Onyxx]

Why is everyone saying that unix is inflexible? Unix has to be one of the most sturdy, flexible systems out there! If you don't like how you standard build of whatever flavor you have works, you change some of the source and recompile a version better suited to yourself. How much more flexible can you get! Unix is completely flexible for those that know how it works. For newbies and such, it looks like an incomprehensible nightmare throwing line after line of undecipherable code onto their screen.

But if you have ever used GNOME you know that a unix system can be very user friendly as well. GNOME is a window manager/file system/collection of programs that work together to turn a unix command line into a desktop navigateable, completely graphic, easy to use (and damn powerful) interfaced, unix machine. Experts or frequents might feel hindered by Gnome's little quirks but for most its perfect.

So for all of those who say that Unix isn't flexible, you might want to rephrase that into "Unix is completely flexible for people that know how to use it" or "Unix can be inflexible, but it doesn't have to be if you know how to use it". If you are still skeptical of what i'm saying and are running os x, download a little app called Fink from source forge and tell it to compile xfree86 and GNOME. Once you play around with those guys you can get a fairly good idea about just how flexible Unix really is.

[kirknord]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I've found that dithering is often unnecesary and adds noise to the image...the rest is right on though..

Actually, since it was a GIF animation that was downloaded from somewhere, I've often found that when you're saving a GIF back out from another GIF, dithering helps. From a straight psd file, yes, no dither is best.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by kirknord


Actually, since it was a GIF animation that was downloaded from somewhere, I've often found that when you're saving a GIF back out from another GIF, dithering helps. From a straight psd file, yes, no dither is best.

:) thanks for all the suggestions but ive given up on the whole avatar thing for awhile. i tried using gif fun, gif builder, and image ready. no matter what i tried it always looked fine until i uploaded it. gif builder garbles some of the images, and gif fun is just a piece of junk.

first pixel, white as transparent, dithering and mattes, nothing seems to help and frankly i dont know what the hell im doing. so unless anyone knows exactly how to set the settings in image ready im sticking with no avatar for awhile longer

[Rower_CPU]

That's understandable...better to have nothing than a tripping chick...I mean lemon. :p

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
That's understandable...better to have nothing than a tripping chick...I mean lemon. :p

:) yes ive had enough problems with trippy chicks in real life let alone on the net but then thats another story...

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by blakespot

It's all just a matter of opinion. I think most would agree that MS's "opinion" here is wrong, but it's not lawsuit material.


blakespot

That was really a tongue-in-cheek statement... I know that's nothing to get sued over. ;) But in the sue-happy state of CA, EVERYTHING GOES! :p

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I've found that dithering is often unnecesary and adds noise to the image...the rest is right on though..

You're right. Dithering is pretty unnecessary in a GIF unless you're trying to show the entire color spectrum using 32 colors. (Not really, but you guys know what I mean.) Either that or if there's anyone still out there running 256 colors (God I hope not!)

When you guys make your avatars, make the background color between the light and dark greys in this forum. Then, when you choose your transparency in Save To Web, make that middle grey the transparency color. The difference should be so minimal that you won't hardly be able to tell.

And if you guys are already doing that and it's not working... well... I'll just have to wait until I get mine. :D

[DNA]

...it will slow down the evolution of just about everything on the planet for at least a decade...

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by DNA
...it will slow down the evolution of just about everything on the planet for at least a decade...

as if ms hasnt already set technology back many years.

[nigel_t]

This tactic will not work no matter what amount of money they put into it. Any IT person worth his weight knows that no OS on the planet is better than UNIX. Lots of people have different flavours but at the end of the day its still unix.
And I'm sure Winblows has some unix like stuff in it.
M$ a** is starting to twitch and they are grabbing at straws.
Unisys on the other hand, what the heck is up with them every body will loose confidence in them, They are dead.

Later.:D

[Jookbox]

i like how people come here and say that microsoft is evil, even though apple is just as evil. if you don't think so, i hope you someday wake up.

[Jookbox]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


The standards I was referring to were CSS (which nobody really supports completely, but Netscape 6 is way ahead of IE 6).

too bad netscape barely supports html :rolleyes:

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Jookbox
i like how people come here and say that microsoft is evil, even though apple is just as evil. if you don't think so, i hope you someday wake up.

We all know Apple has issues, half the posts to these threads are proof. Don't drop and run, back it up.

Now go away, or I will taunt you another time (in outrageous french accent)

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by eirik
[...] if you can't make your widget better right away or ever, spend millions of dollars on an advertising campaign that asserts that 'quality is job one'. Bill Gates recently asserted that 'security' is M$'s number one priority.

It worked for Chrysler in a big way!!!

"Quality is Job One" was Ford, but good points otherwise. Microsoft is trying to sell people on a shortcut that doesn't exist. This is no different from an ad campaign that tells you you can eat anything you want and lose weight while you sleep.

[lordsinforge]

Originally posted by Jookbox


too bad netscape barely supports html :rolleyes:


It's not so much that netscape doesn't support html, it does support the standard. The problem is that M$ has added in support for "propriatory " tags. Do a webpage using word and compare the same thing with something done in dreamweaver and the M$ word html file will most likely be bigger because of all the extra tags that they throw in, tags that are only usable in exploder...

[namu]

Just wanted to add my $0.02 about FLEXIBILITY:

Unix systems are found on systems that range from embedded electronic appliances to room-sized mainframes. They can be tuned to perform specific tasks, especially network tasks, such as bridges, routers, firewalls, proxies, webservers, file or name servers, domain servers, etc...

I'd like to see a Windows OS run on a Disk-less computer :D
Or in a micro-controller chip, such as a 68HC11 or AVR.
Or on multiple Virtual Machines on an IBM mainframe...

Can i strip all the unnecessary "features" in Windows so it fits on a 1.44 MB floppy disk like half a dozen Linux distributions do ? Nope.

MS talking about flexibility is like General Motors pretending their middle-range car can be used as a bicycle or an high-end sports car indifferently.

[ooartist]

How you say? Let me explain. As Intel hardware based PCs gets cheaper and cheaper guess what becomes the most expense component? If you said Windows OS you win the prize. I tell you why Microsoft is bashing *nix the reason is they need the market share. They are getting their ass kicked in the middle tier of the enterprise by Linux and they don't even come close to Solaris, HP, etc in the upper tier. Sure they can keep the desktop market but as the PC price keep coming down they will eventually have to cut into the margins on the Windows OS, the PC Makers (DELL) will force them watch and see.
I think this is the reason MS started the XBox. As OSes become a commodity the only way to make money on them is package them all together with Hardware. Hmmm who does that now, Apple, Sun, HP, IBM. In the next few years youly see MS slowly shift its Business Model from mainly software to more hardware (Look for Mobile Phones by MS coming soon). They will keep Windows going by giving it to PC makers and then selling it as a service to the end user (like MSN, 19.95 a month). This is where I think they will start to decline. People will not pay monthly for a crappy OS no matter how many applications you integrate into it (IE, WORD, etc).
Oh, if you are wondering how MS will do all the above I have one word, .NET .
Thats right turn the OS/applications into web services and nickel and dime everyone to death. They already started doing it now with Media Player.
Yeah I don't think MS will ever be gone from the Intel PC desktop but I do think the desktop will be gone. I think it will evolve into something more compact and much less expensive than now (like under $200). I mean face it where MS makes its money is from people like my parents who buy computer evey two years and takes the load of crap windows that comes with it and uses it to e-mail and word process. So the only way MS can make money at that point is control the hardware and man are there some big fish to fry to do that. That's why they are jumping into the Game Console arena and Mobile Devices arena they still may have a little breathing room there.


shutting down crystal ball,

ooartist

[Rower_CPU]

Too bad they're losing their shirts on the Xbox. They practically have to give them away they're selling so bad in Asia and Europe.

.Net is definitely MS' big push to grab hold of some new markets...the only thing is their security/stability rep bites them in the ass when they try to move into the server/networking arena.

If we move to a completely online computing environment (OS and apps run from server, and never actually reside on your machine) MS is going to die...unless they buy their way in...

[Rower_CPU]

Came across this today:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-872266.html

Only MS would have the gall to run a smear campaign against *nix while using FreeBSD servers to spread the message.

I'm surprised those servers haven't crashed because of an irony overflow exploit...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by macktheknife
Oh this is too easy. "Thick" doesn't even scratch it. Microsoft's ad is *solid* irony and is unmistakable b.s. "Ties you into an inflexible system." Right. Even if UNIX is "inflixible," at least it works! Remember that Microsoft doesn't even use its own software to run its website; it uses *UNIX* because its harder to hack than the crap that Bill Gates peddles!

I really don't understand why the government hasn't broken up the Microsoft monopoly already. Netscape fell victim to Internet Explorer after Bill Gates "integrated" it into Windows. Now Real Audio might get the shaft with Windows Media Player being oh-so tightly integrated with Windows. Does the idea of tying an application into an OS seem obscene to anybody? I mean, what happens if Microsoft faces a threat to its Office application suite? The next thing that will happen is that Word, Excel, and PowerPoint become part of Windows. The only reason why this hasn't happen is that Corel, Borland, and other office productivity software have bit the dust under Bill Gates' juggernaut. It's like GM trying to sell you a car with the CD player, insurance policy, etc. "tied" together with the car without a choice for the consumer.

Sorry for the rant, but somebody's got to say it . . .

so true...that is microsoft style to the max and uncle sam is probably (justifiably) getting more dirt on ms to take them to court again

unfortunately, sun is not the smartest of companies having predicted the end of pc machines in the 1990s, a move toward having apps and hard drives in a central location, hailing the return of the dummy terminal, the ineffective free office app suite they had, and totally underestimating microsoft as a competitor

it is sad that such an "idealistic" company like sun will probably bite the dust the same way netscape and some others did against microsoft...one company i worked for had one of the netscape founders as our mentor and i know one of the founders of sun and to be honest, neither were businessmen but more suited for the clergy (very nice guys, in other words, and always willing to help out)

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by lordsinforge
Do a webpage using word and compare the same thing with something done in dreamweaver and the M$ word html file will most likely be bigger because of all the extra tags that they throw in, tags that are only usable in exploder...

General agreement here, but whoa, let's not use Dreamweaver as our benchmark for generating clean HTML. Seriously. If you're looking for something that generates practically the same HTML you'd write by hand, check out Freeway (http://www.softpress.com/). I got a copy cheap at MWSF and found that it would have easily been worth the full price. It's the first web design software I've used that seemed like a really significant improvement over a plain text editor. The only time it's ever generated a page that didn't look the same in IE and Netscape on both Mac and Windows is when I wrote my own custom action and my code broke the compatibility.

(Sorry to editorialize, but this is almost certainly why they were selling FW so cheap at MWSF to start with, and I kinda feel like I owe them an occasional plug now and again. ;))

[TimDaddy]

I've known for a while that Microsoft's web sites were on Unix servers. When I heard about this campaign, I figured they would quietly switch to Unisys. I was wrong. Today's issue of the Wall Street Journal has a quick note about the fact that Microsoft's anti-Unix website is on a Unix server. That's kind of funny. Go Bill!

[jefhatfield]

maybe bill will buy part of sun

paul allen (co-founder of microsoft and usually second richest man year after year) is tight with linus torvalds (creator of linux) thru their transmeta connections...so anything is possible

i am glad at least that bill does not own a part of apple anymore (from what i have heard here)

[kenkooler]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Too bad they're losing their shirts on the Xbox. They practically have to give them away they're selling so bad in Asia and Europe.


M$ created that X-box crap as soon as they realized that Sony's PS2 was a perfectly capable machine to connect to the internet and browse the internet, send e-mails, play dvds and everything most computer users need.