Microsoft and politics

[XJnine]

In quite a few of the forum threads here lately I've seen people bashing Microsoft for their business practices or using the always popular abbreviation "M$". That actually got me thinking about something. I guessing that we can find some trends between a persons political leanings and whether or not they believe Microsoft is the evil empire.

Answer the poll honestly and let's see. I already have my opinion as to what the results will be but I'll wait until we have some votes before I comment.

In the poll I'm trying to stay away from actual political party names so people in countries other than the US will be able to vote. If you are not of voting age or you can't vote because you're a felon :twisted: please just choose the option that you would select if you could vote.

[werty316]

Basically my take is that M$ is a huge ass corporation ready to take over the world. Maybe the board game "Monopoly" should be named Microsoft like this t-shirt I have:

http://www.splitreason.com/Product_Images/microsoft_black_large.gif

[GIBSON]

Politicians are trying to force microsoft to do certain things though, if you want to you could discuss about it in this newspost:
http://bjorn3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=38991#post38991

[Rob]

I think Microsoft is great and we (the whole computer industry/community) owes them a huge debt of gratitude for bringing computing to the masses.

[werty316]

I think Microsoft is great and we (the whole computer industry/community) owes them a huge debt of gratitude for bringing computing to the masses.

True dat and who knows how everything would be is Microsoft never existed. You gotta give good ol' Gates some reps going from a college drop out to making huge bucks.

[Kougar]

XJnine, you need a third option for "MS a free business and I generally vote." :mrgreen: I hate trying to stick myself under a liberal/conservative label as I usually end up right down the middle once you average my preferences out...

I did start a thread over HERE (http://www.bjorn3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39013#post39013) that I lost track of...

I pretty much agree with Rob's point of view, I think the current prevalent state of computers wouldn't be nearly where it is at to date if MS hadn't come along and gotten the ball rolling when they did. Sure, someone would have come along in their place if Gates had stayed in college, but how long would it have taken and would it have been as good?

I don't agree with lots of things MS has done, they don't exactly make it easy for other OSs to spring up (Such as the Lindows -> Linspire suit), but this isn't a Intel vs AMD situation. There is no "AMD" in the OS market fighting the "Intel" Microsoft...

If the EU want's MS to hand over the keys to their core business while milking the M$ piggy bank for all it's worth, then I think MS should stop bundling and selling their operating systems to the EU market and let them rot trying to figure out how to use Linspire, let alone any flavor of Linux you choose. Most couldn't even use OS X. :roll: For those people in the EU that don't share the same opinion as the EU council, then MS can sell them XP or Vista through their own US website any everyone would be happy. :mrgreen:

[ToXic_WaSTe]

Basically my take is that M$ is a huge ass corporation ready to take over the world. Maybe the board game "Monopoly" should be named Microsoft like this t-shirt I have:

http://www.splitreason.com/Product_Images/microsoft_black_large.gif

The funny thing is, that they are so spread out over different areas they are starting to slowly kill themselves. The same thing happens to a lot of Hardware makers when they try to enter a new market, and dont have what it takes.. Cant remeber which but a Big mobo manufactorer did it.. anyone remeber?

[werty316]

No big motherboard maker comes to mind but M$ isn't going anywhere any time soon.

[Kougar]

Hm, you sound exactly like Anandtech in their last motherboard article... the manufacturer in question was Abit, who is now Abit Universal because of it. ;)

MS isn't killing themselves, although the EU and their incessent fines are going to have a impact if they keep it up, and likely we'll be paying for it when we buy another Office suite or OS...

[GIBSON]

If the EU want's MS to hand over the keys to their core business while milking the M$ piggy bank for all it's worth, then I think MS should stop bundling and selling their operating systems to the EU market and let them rot trying to figure out how to use Linspire, let alone any flavor of Linux you choose. Most couldn't even use OS X. :roll: For those people in the EU that don't share the same opinion as the EU council, then MS can sell them XP or Vista through their own US website any everyone would be happy. :mrgreen:

Completely agree with you on that one. If I'd be Microsoft I'd announce I'd stop distributing the OS in Europe. I'd like to see the EU's faces :mrgreen: They'd be begging to change MS's mind.

I have to agree with rob too, Microsoft revolutionised the world. Their OS made it possible to let anyone use a computer without knowing any command line. It was the beginning of the pc as we know it.

[Bio-Hazard]

Yup, just stop selling (and supporting it) it over there and they would up and die, I couldn't think of a better thing to happen to those fools.............;) It wouldn't take but a month before they changed their tune............:)

[vfrex]

Microsoft may have advanced the PC in it's infancy, but that is a weak excuse for allowing them to monopolize markets. They have been reaping the benefits of their efforts for 20+ years. Their (ex-?)CEO is the richest man in the world. All of the founders have more money than they could ever hope to spend. Microsoft might have done a lot to innovate the PC between the 1980's and the mid to late 90's, but what have they actually done since?

They might have been a huge part of bringing computers from where they were in 1980 to where they were in 1999. But monopolies stifle innovation, and Microsoft is no exception.

[Kougar]

"Allowing them to monopolize?" So what would you have done to prevent this monopolization, they didn't exactly have much in the way of competitors they were standing on as they hit the top floor...

Since you asked that question I can recall MS was one of the few supporters of some kind of Net Neutrality, but not even they and Google had enough clout to win back the politicians from the telecoms. If you have issues with giant monopolies you oughta start there first.

[vfrex]

Aren't the EU fines being imposed because Microsoft is blocking competitors out?

[Kougar]

Aren't the EU fines being imposed because Microsoft is blocking competitors out?

And just who are they blocking?

[werty316]

Aren't the EU fines being imposed because Microsoft is blocking competitors out?

What competitor? I didn't know M$ had any competitors.

[GIBSON]

The first EU fines were about how microsoft added windows mediaplayer in it's OS. (I can't really see the harm of it, they're just making the OS more complete with a mediaplayer) But well, they said it made it a lot harder for the competition to let people use their mediaplayer as they already have one installed by default and most people won't look for anything else then. (IMHO, this is just a really gay fine, if it wasn't included there just would be a lot more mediaplayers out there which you'd have to pay for)
The second fine is because microsoft doesn't want just about anyone looking into the windows code. I personally can understand that, if i'd had a multi-billion dollar OS, I wouldn't just show the code to just about anyone! On the other hand I understand the government's concerns, they wanted to make sure that microsoft wasn't an evil organisation that made it's software report with everything happening on the government's computers. They finally allowed the government to look into the windows code, but apparently the EU thinks that was not enough and voilà, there's the second fine.

[vfrex]

And just who are they blocking?

Apple (iTunes), AOL (Winamp), Real.

What competitor? I didn't know M$ had any competitors.

See above.

[Kougar]

Exactly how are they blocking those companies, since they are not in the OS business? Apple is the one that decided to use their proprietary format that isn't WMP compatible.

WinAmp is free to use and I don't see how MS could be blocking them. As for Real, I'd be pretty happy if MS DID start blocking their Realplayer software. :-p

[vfrex]

When you buy Windows, you are paying in part for the time that microsoft put into WMP. You don't have a choice. Further, I wouldn't say that a multimedia player is an essential part of an OS. As you already paid for WMP in the cost of windows, you would never pay for another multimedia player.

[XJnine]

I wouldn't say that a multimedia player is an essential part of an OS

Not essestial for it to power on but imagine the backlash is someone bought a computer and brought it home and couldn't even play a cd with it unless they downloaded or bought some other software. People expect and demand this basic functionality in their computers. Microsoft should not be forced or required to include a competitors product in their product either like some of the lawsuits are trying to do with products such as media players and web browsers.

The OS should have the ability to do all the things we expect it to do by default with the company's own software. It should be up to the system builder to integrate other software if they think that's what the customer wants. It should be up to the user to actually get and install other software if the provided software doesn't meet their needs. It should not be up to the government to tell any of them anything. Let the market decide.

[GIBSON]

When you buy Windows, you are paying in part for the time that microsoft put into WMP. You don't have a choice. Further, I wouldn't say that a multimedia player is an essential part of an OS. As you already paid for WMP in the cost of windows, you would never pay for another multimedia player.
I really don't think there is any price difference between the regular xp and the version without mediaplayer though.

[vfrex]

I really don't think there is any price difference between the regular xp and the version without mediaplayer though.

Is there a version without WMP?

Not essestial for it to power on but imagine the backlash is someone bought a computer and brought it home and couldn't even play a cd with it unless they downloaded or bought some other software.

What about just having an option when you buy the computer? WMP or Real or iTunes/Quicktime.

[GIBSON]

Is there a version without WMP?



What about just having an option when you buy the computer? WMP or Real or iTunes/Quicktime.
Yes there is. If you're interested you should look it up. There's a slight difference in the name, there are two more letters after XP if I'm not mistaken.
BTW: I strongly agree with XJnine on this. Customers do expect their brandnew computer to be able to play a cd.

[XJnine]

What about just having an option when you buy the computer? WMP or Real or iTunes/Quicktime.

Do you really think it's worth the time and effort to ask every customer what brand of media player software they want on their PC and customize it for them? Should the government FORCE a company to give you that option or should we just let the market see if people prefer companies that give their customers that choice?

The options come from the system builder not the OS company. The OS is providing one so that if nothing else is done you can still play music. The system builder can add more if they want. Neither MS nor the system builders should be required to include any other software though.

[Kougar]

Is there a version without WMP?

What about just having an option when you buy the computer? WMP or Real or iTunes/Quicktime.

First, Microsoft already sells a version of XP without WMP installed, simply because the EU demanded they do so. "Windows XP N"

Second, I don't see the point of your arguement since RealPlayer, Quicktime, iTunes, and WinAMP all offer free downloads of their programs for personal use. If a user wants one of these players then it simply takes 1 minute or less to google the respective site up and have a finished DL.

Telling MS to not bundle WMP in with their OS would be the equivalent of telling Apple to not bundle Quicktime with OS X, which they have been doing since System 7. :wink:

[GIBSON]

First, Microsoft already sells a version of XP without WMP installed, simply because the EU demanded they do so. "Windows XP N"

Second, I don't see the point of your arguement since RealPlayer, Quicktime, iTunes, and WinAMP all offer free downloads of their programs for personal use. If a user wants one of these players then it simply takes 1 minute or less to google the respective site up and have a finished DL.

Telling MS to not bundle WMP in with their OS would be the equivalent of telling Apple to not bundle Quicktime with OS X, which they have been doing since System 7. :wink:
Maybe we should file a complaint against apple :twisted: I would so laugh my ass off, they'd probably have no clue what to do. They can't say it isn't a valid complaint as they did make microsoft make a version without it.
Actually, has microsoft ever thought about this. They could use apple as an example to support their own case.

[ToXic_WaSTe]

First, Microsoft already sells a version of XP without WMP installed, simply because the EU demanded they do so. "Windows XP N"

Second, I don't see the point of your arguement since RealPlayer, Quicktime, iTunes, and WinAMP all offer free downloads of their programs for personal use. If a user wants one of these players then it simply takes 1 minute or less to google the respective site up and have a finished DL.

Telling MS to not bundle WMP in with their OS would be the equivalent of telling Apple to not bundle Quicktime with OS X, which they have been doing since System 7. :wink:

Yes, but how many novice users go download a music player.... My sister doesnt and my Dad doesnt and some of my non technical friends dont. They all use WMP because its right there pre installed on their laptop or whatever they use and what does WMP incode hmmmm WMA. So were all stuck with one player and one format

[vfrex]

The EU is going after Apple for monopolizing behavior, aren't they? I'm sure if OSX was in the position to be a monopoly, the EU would go after their bundling too.

[XJnine]

Yes, but how many novice users go download a music player.... My sister doesnt and my Dad doesnt and some of my non technical friends dont. They all use WMP because its right there pre installed on their laptop or whatever they use and what does WMP incode hmmmm WMA. So were all stuck with one player and one format

That's their problem for being novice users then. It should not be Microsoft's problem that novice users are using their product. They included a media player because there are novice users using windows and they don't want/know how to download a different media player.

I guess this is the kind of thinking you come up with though when you think the government should take care of everything for you..... "My Dad can't figure out how to download itunes so the government needs to make their competitor include it in their product"....

[vfrex]

Ok, let me ask this. Do you think the other multimedia players would be free if people were given the option when they bought a computer as to which MM software they wanted?

[ToXic_WaSTe]

Ok, let me ask this. Do you think the other multimedia players would be free if people were given the option when they bought a computer as to which MM software they wanted?

No, but really has nothing to do with that...

Its about MS pushing on a player that limits your way of handling music, a player that restricts you to encode one format.

I agree with vfrex, its all about them being a monopoly and this is a better way to make sure they arent.

[XJnine]

They have that option, it's called downloading them. You can't govern people's ignorance. If you don't know how to download or have a friend that can do it for you, oh well. Ignorance is bliss as they say, you'll never know what you're missing. If you know there's something else out there and you want it I'm sure you'll be able to get it.

You also shouldn't tell a computer manufacturer that they must give a customer a choice between various pieces of software. Let them decide if they want to do it or not.

In regards to your question, yes they would be free. They are free now and they would continue to be. Why would me (system builder) asking you if you want Winamp installed on your computer suddenly cause Winamp to start charging for their basic version of software? That would make it less likely for you to choose their software and would only hurt them.

[XJnine]

What this all boils down to who is do you look to to solve your problems?

Do you think the Government should solve the problems or do you think the market and peoples demands should decide what happens?

I personally don't want the government involved in anything that they don't absolutely have to be involved in. Governments are driven by politics and vote buying, not by what's right.

[vfrex]

They are free now because they can't compete with Microsoft's price of $0. By microsoft charging $0 and bundling, they eliminate a potential market. There might still be free MM players (hell, I use VLC and Foobar2000), but there would also be room in the market for companies to make money off of it outside of putting ads in their program & website.

[XJnine]

They are free now because they can't compete with Microsoft's price of $0. By microsoft charging $0 and bundling, they eliminate a potential market.

They are free because that's what the market says their price needs to be in order to be competitive. I can guarantee they are still making money somehow or they wouldn't be making a product at all.

WMP is not free either. The development cost is bundled into the cost of windows. If they didn't do that they would lose a small portion of profit for each copy of windows sold that contained the product they weren't charging for (WMP). They're not going to lose money and include a free product just because they want to keep Winamp off the market. If it's not profitable they wouldn't be doing it.

Still, the problem here is not microsoft including features in their operating system. Every OS out there has 'basic functionality' and one of the basic features is the ability to play music. Right now nobody cares about Apple/Mac/itunes because they're a small player. How many mac's would apple have to sell before you would tell them they had to include a competitors media player software on their product? When do they become a 'monopoly'? In a sense they already are because a lot of people that buy mac's buy them because they need to for the type of work they do (desktop publishing, design).

[vfrex]

They are free because that's what the market says their price needs to be in order to be competitive.

Yes, but in the market, there is a price setter. It is the only market form in which a single company can set the price. That is Microsoft.

Still, the problem here is not microsoft including features in their operating system. Every OS out there has 'basic functionality' and one of the basic features is the ability to play music.

I won't disagree with that. But WMP does a lot more than just play music. And, as Toxic_Waste mentioned, it locks out many formats. Look at it like this:

Msft monopolizes OS (FACT) -> Msft monopolizes web browser through their OS monopolgy, and implements its own standards (attempts to monopolize web development) -> Msft bundling software like an advanced media player (like WMP) with their monopolized OS allows them to lock people into file formats

It just goes around and around for them. Microsoft is now considering ending their OSX chat client. Lock MSN users into Windows if they want to use all of the features.

[XJnine]

Microsoft is now considering ending their OSX chat client.

Hmm, imagine that. Ending support for a competitors product. That sure is strange....

The end result is that Microsoft is doing excatly what they should be doing. They are trying to make money for their shareholders and they're doing a damn fine job.

They are also doing nothing to prevent people from finding and installing their own software to replace the ones that are included in their OS.

I guess if I live in a town that only has a Chevy dealer I should ask the government to make them sell Ford too since the only dealer would be a monopoly.

MS is not a true monopoly either. All they do is make an operating system. The system builders look at all the available OS's they could include with their systems and they choose Windows. Why? Because that's what the customers want. Dell, Gateway, HP, Compaq.. They're the ones that cause the problem you're talking about, not MS. People demand these features and microsoft satisfies their demands. Builders choose to exclusively use Windows and now because of their decision you want microsoft to change and not the ones that put them into this situation, the system builder.

Microsoft should not have to remove functionality from their product or include a competitors product. Period.

[Bio-Hazard]

People are free to use whatever they like, no one is locked into MS products. If the average person is to lazy or doesn't know any better, it's about time they got off their butts and learned instead of complaining about it.
There's nothing stopping anyone from making a product better than what MS is producing, if you make it, it will sell.......;)
It really gets old listening to people complain about MS products and that they are the biggest player in the market. They only got that way by sticking it out when times were hard when others gave up. Now other countries are trying to make them give up their research and information so they can market their own versions, that's totally crap.

[vfrex]

The end result is that Microsoft is doing excatly what they should be doing. They are trying to make money for their shareholders and they're doing a damn fine job.

That is a topic that can spur a debate of its own. IMO, Microsoft's current position is utterly unsustainable. Their products lock users into their other products. So, as cheaper viable alternatives become more mainstream, Microsoft's method of locking users into their product lines will fade.

I would NOT own Microsoft stock right now. Apple is definitely a better bet, because they have growth prospects. Microsoft can only sustain their current position, or shrink.

[Bio-Hazard]

Apple is worse than MS ever thought about being, if it isn't Apple product or you pay money to Apple, you'll never get it to run on a Mac. You have to do exactly as Apple says or you're out of there........;)

[vfrex]

I'm not going to side with Apple's business practices over Microsoft. I will say that they are in a better position to improve shareholder value.

[Bio-Hazard]

Not at their extremely small market share Apple has. That exactly why so many software companies don't support Apple and the Mac OS, there's just no demand for it so little or no money to be made to offset R&D costs.

[Kougar]

Yes, but how many novice users go download a music player.... My sister doesnt and my Dad doesnt and some of my non technical friends dont. They all use WMP because its right there pre installed on their laptop or whatever they use and what does WMP incode hmmmm WMA. So were all stuck with one player and one format

This is all the more reason a media player must be included with any OS! Downloading and using a different player is as easy as checking your email, so if they had been wanting to change players that would not have been an issue for most of them. Anything plays .WMA, including the majority of mp3 players, and this format offers better compression/sound over mp3 anyway. If MS let WMP rip mp3s of files the RIAA and music industry would have crucified them, or at least tried to. ;) If ripping one format is an issue, there are more free programs than I could name that rip all sorts of formats, it's not like MS is locking down the system to only use .wma. :roll: Infact, it is Apple that does this with their iTunes player and format, not MS.

XJnine has reminded me of something though... Computers already are sold with separate media players and software that rips your music CDs already, that use other formats other than .wma. I had to clean all that junk off of my laptop when I'd gotten it, most desktops you buy, especially any Dell or HP, would include such free players as well.

Asking MS to not bundle a media player is like telling them to not include Outlook Express, not include a basic browser, or just about any other program an OS needs to be an OS.

I couldn't name a single Linux distro that is a full installation which does not include an email program and KDE/Konqueror for a broswer. Thinking MS shouldn't include one either is just as stupid as any linux distro not having built in browser support, or Apple not bundling Safari and "Apple Mail" with their own OS. It it helps any, the way I see this is like Infiniti or Ford selling their cars without a driving wheel or a shift knob, so they can let the user choose what wheel or knob to use. In my view a browser, media player, and email program are all just as critical elements needed for an Operating System.

[vfrex]

Not at their extremely small market share Apple has. That exactly why so many software companies don't support Apple and the Mac OS, there's just no demand for it so little or no money to be made to offset R&D costs.

First off, OSX's market share is growing. Surveys suggest that many windows users are interested in trying out a Mac. Second, Microsoft isn't growing, and it's not paying out a big dividend. Apple is largely a growth company. That's why it's stock is moving, and Microsoft's hasn't budged in the past few years.

XJnine has reminded me of something though... Computers already are sold with separate media players and software that rips your music CDs already, that use other formats other than .wma. I had to clean all that junk off of my laptop when I'd gotten it, most desktops you buy, especially any Dell or HP, would include such free players as well.

Those are mostly trial versions which expire, right? I'm pretty sure those companies are paying Dell & HP money for each computer sold with their trial software bundled on it.

Asking MS to not bundle a media player is like telling them to not include Outlook Express, not include a basic browser, or just about any other program an OS needs to be an OS.

No. A standalone e-mail client is becoming a thing of the past for many users. If given the chance, the majority of people will use webmail. Most ISP's, colleges, and other e-mail providers offer web based access to your e-mail.

I couldn't name a single Linux distro that is a full installation which does not include an email program and KDE/Konqueror for a broswer. Thinking MS shouldn't include one either is just as stupid as any linux distro not having built in browser support, or Apple not bundling Safari and "Apple Mail" with their own OS.

Last I checked, most Linux distros give you the choice of a few web browsers, window managers, desktop environments, and multimedia players to choose from. And frankly, that is a completely different story. Suse, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, etc., none of them develop their own web browser.

I am not arguing that software shouldn't be bundled. That isn't the point at all. I am arguing that to give MM software publishers a fair chance, there should be a step in the process of the Windows installation where the user chooses what they want.

[ToXic_WaSTe]

First off, OSX's market share is growing. Surveys suggest that many windows users are interested in trying out a Mac. Second, Microsoft isn't growing, and it's not paying out a big dividend. Apple is largely a growth company. That's why it's stock is moving, and Microsoft's hasn't budged in the past few years.


Good point, but stocks moving... I know they've been climbing for a while, but they are all jumpy. They were all the way up at 100, But now they are back in 50. IT shares are never really safe, and espcially with apple because they're so secretive, you can win big but you can just as well loose big.

[Kougar]

Those are mostly trial versions which expire, right? I'm pretty sure those companies are paying Dell & HP money for each computer sold with their trial software bundled on it.

The media players I've messed with were free installs that didn't expire, however they would push for a version upgrade to the pay to use/"Pro" whatever edition. No different than WinAMP, Realplayer, or quicktime that all "suggest" to the user to switch from a free version to a pay-to-use install with full features. WMP doesn't do this, because it was already bought with the OS. Infact unlike other media players, you don't need to pay to ugrade WMP. I've gone frum version 9 to WMP11 without a hassle, and can remove WMP11 anytime I wish.

No. A standalone e-mail client is becoming a thing of the past for many users. If given the chance, the majority of people will use webmail. Most ISP's, colleges, and other e-mail providers offer web based access to your e-mail.

The majority of people I know use webmail... though Microsoft's Outlook Express program. ;) The one friend I know that doesn't do this instead uses Microsoft Outlook instead. There are similar programs that come with some linux distros. Using my college email account is such a pain that I simply tied it into Gmail as well...

Last I checked, most Linux distros give you the choice of a few web browsers, window managers, desktop environments, and multimedia players to choose from. And frankly, that is a completely different story. Suse, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, etc., none of them develop their own web browser.

The majority of those Linux distsros are open-source... therefore the community is where the development comes from. The community is where the linux browsers were developed as well.

The "choice" of a webrowser is exactly that, You get the same choice with XP, and while IE can't be completely removed from the system it can still be locked down, so the system can't use it at all. Those linux distros do come with a browser already installed in the installtion, and it is no different than changing browsers in Windows than it is in Linux. For example that is why there us Ubuntu, and Kubuntu as one uses KDE and the other has Konqueror.

I am not arguing that software shouldn't be bundled. That isn't the point at all. I am arguing that to give MM software publishers a fair chance, there should be a step in the process of the Windows installation where the user chooses what they want.

Now this would certainly be nice to have. Maybe in three OS's from now MS will finally get around to implementing this, who knows... But while MS should give it's users the ability to decline to isntall IE or WMP or Outlook Express, they shouldn't be required to offer to install other software developers products. If a user can't DL the exe, run it, and follow the install instructions to change from WMP or IE or Outlook, then they have no business complaining about it in the first place.

[ToXic_WaSTe]

Now this would certainly be nice to have. Maybe in three OS's from now MS will finally get around to implementing this, who knows... But while MS should give it's users the ability to decline to isntall IE or WMP or Outlook Express, they shouldn't be required to offer to install other software developers products. If a user can't DL the exe, run it, and follow the install instructions to change from WMP or IE or Outlook, then they have no business complaining about it in the first place.

A user will learn what they have to. There is a reason we evolved, instead of giving up and starve to death we made that ladder and climbed that tree to get the nice and fresh bananas... Okay bad point but what i mean is. If it's not part of the OS the user will get used to having to download their own Player and then they might actually get something besides WMP, :wink:

Or they'll just get stuck with real player and after one buffering:twisted: too many they throw their computer out the window along with windows...window,,, windows,, get it? :lol:

[vfrex]

The media players I've messed with were free installs that didn't expire, however they would push for a version upgrade to the pay to use/"Pro" whatever edition. No different than WinAMP, Realplayer, or quicktime that all "suggest" to the user to switch from a free version to a pay-to-use install with full features. WMP doesn't do this, because it was already bought with the OS. Infact unlike other media players, you don't need to pay to ugrade WMP. I've gone frum version 9 to WMP11 without a hassle, and can remove WMP11 anytime I wish.


Ok, didn't you just prove my point? By MSFT bundling WMP with Windows, you are already paying for the full version. On the other hand, if other companies want to get their MP on there, they have to create two versions; free and "deluxe". They pay to have the free bundled, and it becomes nag-ware. How is this an even playing field?

The majority of people I know use webmail... though Microsoft's Outlook Express program. The one friend I know that doesn't do this instead uses Microsoft Outlook instead. There are similar programs that come with some linux distros. Using my college email account is such a pain that I simply tied it into Gmail as well...

Ok, you completely missed my point. My school features a solid webmail interface to access your email, as well as an IMAP connection to access your folders through an actual mail client. The majority of students on campus, when given those two options, go with webmail. And I'm not saying "most of the people I know". I'm saying, 70% of the campus.

The "choice" of a webrowser is exactly that, You get the same choice with XP, and while IE can't be completely removed from the system it can still be locked down, so the system can't use it at all.

What? Windows Explorer is built around Internet Explorer. You can't completely remove either from the system without eliminating your desktop interface/filesystem explorer. And the fact remains that in buying windows, you already purchased internet explorer. How is a software designer that creates a web browser supposed to compete with IE, a browser that is built into the OS? I will concede this point though, because every OS needs a web browser by default, at least for the average user.

Those linux distros do come with a browser already installed in the installtion, and it is no different than changing browsers in Windows than it is in Linux. For example that is why there us Ubuntu, and Kubuntu as one uses KDE and the other has Konqueror.

Those browsers are coming bundled in the desktop environment (Gnome, KDE). However, you typically get options to install other browsers as binary packages in the process of installing the operating system.