Cory Nelson wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Cory Nelson wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cory Nelson wrote:
>>>>> Darrien wrote:
>>>>>> Anytime someone has problems with Microsoft products, all they
>>>>>> can seem to say is: "Drop M$ (I'm so cool^W l337, I spelt M$
>>>>>> with a '$' hur hur hur) use Linux" Without bothering to say WHY
>>>>>> you should use Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm... apparently you take things _way_ too seriously.  I've
>>>>> contracted out to Microsoft in various forms over the course of
>>>>> years, and am merely using a symbolic (if not over used by some
>>>>> groups) representation of M$ for Microsoft, based on _my_ feelings
>>>>> towards the company as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> What feelings of yours does writing "MS" as "M$" represent? The
>>>> earth-shattering proposition that Microsoft is in business to make
>>>> a profit?
>>>>
>>> For starters:
>>>
>>> 1) Microsoft relies on bloated advertising budgets and leveraging
>>> their dominant market position to sell their
>>> less-than-release-candidate-quality software.
>>
>> Wow. Imagine a corporation doing that in order to turn a profit. Wow.
>
> If they put out _quality_ software that was worth the price, I'd
> probably say otherwise.

What does the quality of the product matter?

>>> 2) They tend to _borrow_ intellectual property and turn it around
>>> for
>>> a profit without giving credit where it's due.
>>
>> Wow. Is that anything like StarOffice?\
>
> Sure - Star Office runs on Solaris, Windows and Linux, and has an
> outrageous pricing and licensing scheme.  Did I mention anything to
> make you believe otherwise?  We were talking about Microsoft.

Yes, we were. I am jsut always charmed by Linux advocates who accuse
Microsoft of impropriety regarding intellectual property yet called products
like Open Office et al. "innovation".

>>> 3) It costs about $100 to call their tech support (beyond initial
>>> support periods) to get answers to problems like Mike C. posted in
>>> his original problem statement to this newsgroup.  Of course, far
>>> more than that for Enterprise Customers.
>>
>> Wow. The unmitigated gall.
>
> Exactly.

Yes. How dare they force people to pay such money.

>>> 4) Shoddy, profit-driven licenses that don't even make sense.  For
>>> example, Microsoft imposes a per processor license fee on OEMs,
>>> regardless of whether or not the box has a Microsoft O/S.  This
>>> taxes small retailers in the sense that Computer Manufacturing is a
>>> high overhead, low markup business.  The OEMs cant absorb the
>>> increased overhead.
>>
>> Wow. Shame on Microsoft for holding guns to people's heads in order
>> to make them pay license fees.
>
> Sorry, this just doesn't make sense.  It's not that they're holding a
> gun to someone's head to get license fees that they are not paying,
> it's holding a gun to someone's head to make them pay for something
> that they're not selling.

Sure it makes sense. No one is being forced to buy the box.

>>> I think much of my animosity stems from abuse of position and power
>>> as opposed to utilitarian ethics... anyway, I'm completely rambling.
>>
>> Let me know when they start abusing their position and power.
>>
> Indeed - this boils down to a difference in opinion as to what's
> abusive.

The Xbox is totally sweet.

-- 
Kevin Gowen