Comment Re:Monopoly (Score 2, Interesting) 1159
First, Microsoft is no more a monopoly than Sun Microsystems. I wonder, where was all the complaining over Sun's dominance and some would say monopolistic control over the university and government mainframe market? I see a double standard being played here.
Second, what exactly defines an "evil" company? One that dares to challenge the established world of the computer science elites? Or simply one that happens to be innovative and successful? Using this standard of measure, then, most well-known products would come from an "evil" company.
Third, examine the alternatives to a Microsoft OS or MS based system. For the causal home user, one finds that the dominance of Windows has nothing to do with Microsoft distribution practices. Here's the home PC alternatives to Windows:
Macintosh - good machine, stable OS - however, not a good deal of software choices, and those that do exist are maddeningly expensive.
Linux - If you're a computer scientist, no problem. However, your average user does not want to deal with that much hassle everyday.
BeOS/OS2/etc. - Incompatible with majority of other systems; lack of software for platforms; no longer exists, etc.
If MS's dominance in the home PC market is to be diminshed, someone has to develop a product that can actually compete with Windows - instead of running to the Justic Department everytime someone else makes a better product.
Now, for business-, and especially government-based systems, any argument that MS has a monopolistic dominance there has no solid foundation in fact. Yet, even here MS software has an advantage over its counterparts. Many businesses and government agencies employ UNIX (usually some version of Sun's Solaris breed) as a standard as opposed to MS's Windows NT/2000. Now, granted that WinNT required a maturation period (as did UNIX in the 1970s/early 1980s), from a performance and functionality perspective, one can get just about the same results from Windows 2000 or a Solaris system. The difference to a business, however, is productivity and cost. To build a mainframe system, Sun can charge tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Microsoft's Win2K? Just a few thousand with all the bells and whistles. As far as development goes, It is clearly more cost-effective to develop software on a Windows platform than a UNIX system for 4 reasons: 1) The process is faster under windows - researching, development, coding, and testing are done far faster with MS tools than in a UNIX environment. 2) There are more resources available - Many more people can develop in, and/or administrate Windows systems than UNIX systems. 3) The cost of development tools is far lower for MS systems, even with MSDN support, than for UNIX systems. 4) There is a greater base of third-party development in existence for MS tools and systems than for any UNIX brand.
Therefore it stands to reason that it is the product, that has generated Microsoft's success. The only "evil" out there is born of envy - either from other, less successful (but sneakier) corporations, or from socialist politicians who see nothing but deep pockets.
Second, what exactly defines an "evil" company? One that dares to challenge the established world of the computer science elites? Or simply one that happens to be innovative and successful? Using this standard of measure, then, most well-known products would come from an "evil" company.
Third, examine the alternatives to a Microsoft OS or MS based system. For the causal home user, one finds that the dominance of Windows has nothing to do with Microsoft distribution practices. Here's the home PC alternatives to Windows:
Macintosh - good machine, stable OS - however, not a good deal of software choices, and those that do exist are maddeningly expensive.
Linux - If you're a computer scientist, no problem. However, your average user does not want to deal with that much hassle everyday.
BeOS/OS2/etc. - Incompatible with majority of other systems; lack of software for platforms; no longer exists, etc.
If MS's dominance in the home PC market is to be diminshed, someone has to develop a product that can actually compete with Windows - instead of running to the Justic Department everytime someone else makes a better product.
Now, for business-, and especially government-based systems, any argument that MS has a monopolistic dominance there has no solid foundation in fact. Yet, even here MS software has an advantage over its counterparts. Many businesses and government agencies employ UNIX (usually some version of Sun's Solaris breed) as a standard as opposed to MS's Windows NT/2000. Now, granted that WinNT required a maturation period (as did UNIX in the 1970s/early 1980s), from a performance and functionality perspective, one can get just about the same results from Windows 2000 or a Solaris system. The difference to a business, however, is productivity and cost. To build a mainframe system, Sun can charge tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Microsoft's Win2K? Just a few thousand with all the bells and whistles. As far as development goes, It is clearly more cost-effective to develop software on a Windows platform than a UNIX system for 4 reasons: 1) The process is faster under windows - researching, development, coding, and testing are done far faster with MS tools than in a UNIX environment. 2) There are more resources available - Many more people can develop in, and/or administrate Windows systems than UNIX systems. 3) The cost of development tools is far lower for MS systems, even with MSDN support, than for UNIX systems. 4) There is a greater base of third-party development in existence for MS tools and systems than for any UNIX brand.
Therefore it stands to reason that it is the product, that has generated Microsoft's success. The only "evil" out there is born of envy - either from other, less successful (but sneakier) corporations, or from socialist politicians who see nothing but deep pockets.
