View Full Version : MicroShaft Is a Monopoly

7th November 1999, 08:15
For all of those who think MS is not a monopoly, and has been looking out for them, the consumer:

Q.What did Windoze 95 cost when it came out? What does it cost now?

A. The same.

Who but a monopoly has that kind of pricing power in the computer industry? MS has wielded their power to our disadvantage, and they deserve to get smacked.

Someone on another forum put it very well :"We support a race to the top of the hill, but the person who gets there first cannot be allowed to roll boulders down on top of the others."


7th November 1999, 08:35
And we on the Matrox forums care because..?

For all those "MS in a monopoly" whiners, I have to say that make your own OS and start to sell it! Then you can price it the way you want.
What should MS do then? Stop making operating systems because they have no heavy competition? Or give it out for free? What please tell!


7th November 1999, 09:03
You should care because MS has stifled and strongarmed competition, giving US fewer choices. It's one thing for them to protect their vested interests. It's a whole other thing to deliberately undermine other products.

Who knows how many fewer video problems and API's we would be discussing today if MS had not been allowed to run roughshod on programmers with potentially better ideas?? Look what AMD and their partners have been able to do for gamers with MS and Intel up their collective backsides. Think where we could be if the playing field had been level.

Also, I don't doubt for a minute, that if a G400 MAX cost $250 FOUR YEARS from now, that you wouldn't be telling Matrox to kiss off. If Matrox isn't competitive, they die. If MS isn't competitive, we still line up to buy Windoze 2002.

This affects you, and all Matrox users. That's why you should care. But I guess it's easier to just be a smartass.


7th November 1999, 09:38
I don't really think it's about cost so much as being stuck with an inferior product. Ask anyone who has ever used AmigaOS if Windows is perfect. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif If you start off with MSDOS as a base for your OS you know how it will turn out. There is so much legacy and accumulated crap in Windows it's not funny, it's one big make work project to keep MS in business, that's about it. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

7th November 1999, 13:07
Let's all switch to Linux,it's free!
Then we can start a whole new forum.
How do I configure anything with this operating system?
This action will definitely teach Microsoft a lesson.
The very nerve of them to charge so much money on a product that without would render our computers as a pile of useless junk.
It is true that windows has plenty of shortcomings,msdos based,limited irq's,etc.
Let's all figure out a new os,shall we?
And let's make sure it's bug free.
Perfection! Now all techs will be out of work,not!
Furthermore what about Matrox, heck!They want more than $200.00 for a g400 max.
I say we start an outcry we want free OS's and free maxes.
Furthermore for evey problem a Matrox user has an automatic rebate of $20.00
Let's not stop there how about soundblaster,any problems?No problem,free soundcard.
Get real,Microsoft's business practices suck,but people should open their eyes and see this is a way for the DOJ and states to get money,worked on tabacco,why not Microsoft?They have plenty of it.
Do you hear an outcry against Intel?Perhaps they are next.
If you honestly believe the hype about protecting the consumer,perhaps you are living in a blissful state! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

7th November 1999, 13:21
Microsoft gonna louse his Monopoly in the future. Ther are a Marx philosophie that say "The beger you are from the toper you will foll". Linux is the arme that gonna kill Microsoft but not now because Linux is not a very youser frendly OS.

Sorry for my English.
A G400 in a new G4 have wing's

7th November 1999, 14:54
IMHO, I believe that many people are missing the key point. MS has harassed and harangued and muscled and threatened their competitors. This keeps us, the consumers, from ever getting to make a choice in the first place.

I say more power to Bill Gates and Microshaft IF they can win in the marketplace. That doesn't mean stop the other guy before he can come to market. It means let the competition present their product and let the market decide who makes the better product. Nothing has to be given away -- people will pay (and, in most cases, pay well) for a superior product. Why do you think we're on this website???

Bill Gates is not on the hotseat just because the DOJ doesn't like him. Antitrust laws are sometimes contradictory, but they have their basis in protecting honest competition and consumers. MS has not played fair, and that is painfully obvious.


Chris Blake
7th November 1999, 15:42
So MS is a monoploy, so f**ing what?!!!!

As usual the American legal system has wasted an awful lot of time and money to prove that the sky is blue. Perhaps if they concentrated their efforts on something that actually mattered the world would be a better place.

Chris Blake

Epox MVP3G5, K6III450, 192Mb RAM, G400Max DH, SBLive! Value and whole load of other stuff

7th November 1999, 15:57
Hey Himself, AmigaOS Rocks! I loved the "guru meditation" mombo jambo http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif But why canīt I remember installing AmigaOS countless times? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

7th November 1999, 21:01
Just my view:

1) GTE is my phone company. I have no choice.
2) VA power is my electric company. I have no choice.
3) The county supplies my water. I have no choice.
4) Microsoft is a tough business opponent. I can buy Linux (in a 100 flavors), BeOS, Mac, OS at a retail store, online, from computer manufacturers and at computer shows.
5) When the DOJ broke AT&T, customer service went down and prices went up.
6) I feel sorry for IBM, DOJ tied them in court long enough for their business to plummet.
7) There are ALOT of business that have, or wish they had transacted business just like MS.
8) Business isn't church, it's Darwin. Only the strongest, smartest, and most willing to adapt survive.
9) Microsoft used every weapon in it's arsenal to protect itself. Some view that as EVIL. I view that as business.
10) As a friend of mine in the UK said: "You Americans are fools, you are taking a company [MS] that is your best global performer,that is driving the industry, and is the envy of other countries and corporations, and bringing it to it's knees."

7th November 1999, 21:32
were you around when windows first came out?.
It was a complete lump of %$%^%. But enough retards bought because it was the "standard" PC OS. So MS improves it by coping a lot of the functionallity out of apples gui(not enough to legaly enable apple to pull there court case off). Then they do a complete copy (apple has already blown its bolt on the first legal case).
At the time apple/amiga/atari all had better more efficient and easeir to use gui's ( but not a single standard, and all the managers buy PC's with windows, because they r thick)
Most of the user interface improvements for windows 95's are derived from X-windows type stuff (context menus...etc).
Windows is the standard OS because the people who make the decisons buy it to keep compatible, not because it is better.
Things like trying to hijack JAVA (THE OS independant programming language) to produce the windows only variant are very obvious attemts to maintain their monopoly.
Microshafts completely unethical business practices help to keep them their, That and an excessively large legal budget.
Personally I think the latest crop of linux 6.x distribution has the ease of use that could enable it to be a genuine alternative.
(its reliability and functionality has been their for years)
But I am not holding my breath.

In My Humble Opinion

7th November 1999, 22:00
Barney, barney barney....

Microsoft won the marketplace.
I'm truly sorry very few people know the command 'ls -ltr' vs. a right click, guess 'ease of use' vs 'stability' is a battle with a known outcome..

I'm not sorry about this though:

Capitalism won..

The best company (of multiple non-idylic choices) has been chosen.

Now, Capitalism can kick in again and chose a new winner-as soon as someone develops and sells better or more popular software.....
But the courts can make that happen sooner, by making the underdogs providing non-compatible software the ONLY choices.

Think about it...

There can be only one, and I ain't him-and campers suck

7th November 1999, 22:03

everettes rox, read his posts

There can be only one, and I ain't him-and campers suck

7th November 1999, 22:46
I agree with the so what that Microsoft is a monopoly. If Microsoft is broken up then the computer market will slide back, not progress.
Microsoft may not have the best operating system, but it is a known standard. Direct-X has now become the source of choice for game programmers, and all cards (especially the G-400) support it. If there were not a standard then you would have to decide on a card based on what games you wanted.
Besides, card makers have a tough enough time developing one set of drivers for Windows. Can you imagine having to develop for 5-10 different operating systems?
This goes for all hardware. Instead of having a Real good Driver for Windows, we would have 5-10 half assed drivers for all operating systems.

7th November 1999, 23:42
Maybe I'm completely missing the boat here because I'm not a programmer, but I feel the end effect of Microsoft's strategies is that the consumer has won.

All right, before you laugh me out of this thread, hear me out. My first computer was an Atari 400 with a whopping 16K RAM and a 600 bps cassette recorder as the storage device (and pretty darned expensive for a student, let me tell you!). At the time, Windows was (I believe) just a fledgling version 1.01, there was the Apple II, Sinclair, Texas Instruments, IBM, TRS-80, VIC-20 (Commodore 64 came a bit later), and probably a number of other less well known microcomputers. The point is, each had its own operating system, hardware, etc. Programs written for one system would absolutely not work on another (you couldn't even get an Atari floppy disk drive to read an Apple disk).

Let us suppose that Microsoft had never existed (or had existed in a kinder, gentler incarnation). Do you suppose for one minute that at this point in time, that ANYTHING would be standardized (okay, maybe ASCII)? Computer companies as a rule did not get along. Try and use an AtariDOS diskette in an Apple II drive (I dare ya!) or program a TRS-80 from Sinclair source code. Hell, even AtariBASIC and Commodore 64's Basic were different enough that both required some major tweaking to get a program to run on both systems. Does anyone think for one minute that a "superior" operating system would have been able to shine through, to which everyone would have said, "Ah! Company X has produced something with great features; let us emulate them in our next release so we shall be compatible!" Not bloody likely. And if we would have a dozen or so "popular" operating systems and hardware configurations today, hands up how many people would think software wouldn't be double or triple the price (or completely unavailable for the system you were unlucky enough to have picked) because the programmers would have to do extra duty to make applications and games compatible with a mosaic of OS's? HOW MANY MORE Y2K PROBLEMS WOULD WE HAVE RIGHT NOW?

Microsoft, by its tactics to become number one, have (by design or by accident) more or less unified programming architecture. Best of all, my older programs can still run on the new machine (gee, I couldn't say the same for either my Atari 8-bit or my Amiga software 2 years after I originally bought those machines).

The point is, Microsoft has shaped the computer world we have today. Small comfort to those who were bought out/squashed in the process, granted. But is it a bad thing overall? Would Linux be in the position it is right now if Microsoft were a small (or non-existent) player? Would there be an operating system serving as the "benchmark" beyond which others try to excel, or would there simply be a hodge-podge mess of operating systems, all incompatible with each other because no one wants to pay royalties?

In closing, I would like to paraphrase some words of Richard Garriott, founder of Origin Systems and patriarch of the 20-year old Ultima series of computer games. When interviewed on the newest Ultima game and asked about the Direct 3D support, he said it was frustrating because while D3D has a set of standardized calls and utilities, no 3D card responds the same way as another. Hence, more overhead in the program, more work for the programmers, more costs to cover. A lack of standardization for graphics cards can be frustrating. A lack of standardization in operation systems can be a nightmare, for the programmer and for the consumer.

(who really has no idea how this topic relates to Matrox hardware)

8th November 1999, 00:33
Barney, is that the best analogy you have?

As I recall, MS-DOS was about $100. Now Win98, to those of us builders, costs about $70. Now the way I figure it, we now have 1000 times the functionality with 1000 times the ease of use with 1000 (easy) times the hardware\software vendors. For less.

Even if you take into account inflation, Windows SHOULD cost more.

Figure into that the EXTRA's that MS built into Win95\98\2000 that used to cost extra...a word processor, defrag prog, disk cleanup, e-mail prog, browser, Solitaire (NO ONE can live without that), Dial up networking, backup, newsreader, imaging, media player, fax software, and countless more.

Now, if you want to go buy Wordperfect, Norton Utilities(I shiver), Eudora, Navigator (anyone know why Navigator is free now?), Hoyles Card Suite, some off the wall DUN prog, Seagate or Conner Backup, a newsreader (it'll come with your $50 Netscape purchase), some 3rd party imaging software,Real Player G2 Plus, Winfax, and who knows what else then go ahead.

For the PC's you buy, Windows is a small part of the total price yet COMPLETELY feature complete for the average user. AT NO EXTRA CHARGE.

MS may have strong armed a few companies, that's business. The OEM's could have put their money elsewhere but knew that the customers WANTED what MS had.

We're at this juncture because of everyone wanting a standard. MS didn't pull this off alone.

Chris Blake
8th November 1999, 02:33

Good points, well made. I totally agree.

Chris Blake

Epox MVP3G5, K6III450, 192Mb RAM, G400Max DH, SBLive! Value and whole load of other stuff

8th November 1999, 03:31
Excellent points by all. I personally feel many of you are too willing to cut MS slack, but that's what discussions are for. Anyway, as consumers, the best we can do is vote with our feet and our wallets.

I've been dual-booting for about three months (W98 and RedHat), and I agree with Marshmallowman that Linux may have a real shot now. Time will tell.

On a more Matrox-related note, I just checked my UPS shipping #, and my G400 MAX is in town, and will be on my doorstep this afternoon. Please don't be too harsh on me if I need to post any problems.

Thanks again for the dialogue.


8th November 1999, 14:42
It is funny how some complain about the price of Windows.
A new version only comes out every 2-3 years.
Even at 100.00 that is still a LOT less than we spend on hardware upgrades and games.
I spend over 100.00 a month on games alone.

8th November 1999, 16:34
Glad to hear it, Barney! This really is the place to be if you have any problems with your card.


8th November 1999, 16:41
yep ms is a monopoly, and i care becuase.....

just leave ms alone, i might not like the companys policys but hey lets fluck with the one company that all 90% of our computers run on and that 90% of the software out thire that is worth any thinng to most of us gamers and bussiness is writen for and see what happens in a few months. oh ya and where would we be if we did not have this monopoly on the os of desktop pc's ? let me think? still gameing on dos with no priority apis like direct x for video sound ect... or open gl on a widely uniform platform (windows)

oh forget it you don't care this is all fiction could never happen. (isn't that what they said before we landed on the moon????)

8th November 1999, 16:53
All MS-bashers, please show me:

1. An OS that runs my apps AND my games in a scalable, user-friendly manner.

2. An OS that supports ALL my hardware for no extra cost.

Can't do it, can ya? Linux may be wonderful, but until I can boot into a graphical environment that allows me to manipulate files through a method other than command-line interaction... until I can play Warcraft and render in 3D Studio MAX (both available only for Windows) at the same time...

Gimme a break. Yes, MS is evil. Yes, their business practices are horrible. Yes, they've been unfair. But what do you want now? What does this ruling of the supreme court help to prove? Please, tell me.

My last copy of Windows cost me about $75. Please enlighten me as to what other commercial OS can be priced like that and run as well on my hardware?

I'm waiting.

- Ash

Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

This signature is not Copyright by anyone. Especially not some guy named Steve. Yeah. That's it. Please don't kill me, Holly.

8th November 1999, 21:38
There was a time, when the railroads were young, that each railroad had its own track gauge (width between the rails on the track). There were MANY railroads. Each railroad chose its gauge because it thought it was best, but when freight came to the end of the line, it would have to be transferred to another freight car on another line, which was pointless and cumbersome, wasting time and money. The standardization of rail gauges streamlined things so much, there was a huge jump in the GNP and the standard of living. Simply by standardization.

The points made in Microsoft's favor seem to hinge on this value. The value of having one thing as the standard. In this way, Windows is certainly a good thing. But Windows is not the standard because a responsible group of industry leaders met to make it such (as happened with the railroads). If this had been the case, surely Unix and X Windows would have gotten the nod. (And would have been developed much further by now)

Windows is the standard OS for the same reason Latin was the universal language 2000 years ago. Conquest. Ruthless, bloody, unprincipled conquest. Sure, the Roman Empire brought a lot to the world, but it did so by destroying anyone who opposed it, and oblitterating countless other cultures. Same with Microsoft. There was no free market decision making MS-DOS or Windows the standard. Only the licensing and legal conquests of a ruthless General Bill Gates.

Unix is not a commercial product. It was developed by a group of computer people simply for the sake of creating the best operating system that could be created. Where the "free market" really operates in the world of computer operating systems (the server market, where the administrators can pick an OS based solely on merit), the winner was chosen long ago. It is a form of Unix known as BSD.

As a practical matter, yeah, Windows9X is the way to go now. But with some support and development, FreeBSD or Linux, with a better developed X Windows system, should be able to challenge Microsoft from the professional end down.

Kind Regards,


[This message has been edited by KvHagedorn (edited 09 November 1999).]

8th November 1999, 23:07
Hey Gurm..
Linux can (and as a standard option) boot directly into a GUI. And I like my GUI file managers as much/more than explorer.
Warcraft? I don't know. StarCraft (the Windows version http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif: yes! Heretic,Doom,Quake,QuakeII, Civilization, Myth II, they're already ported. Q3, native. Plenty of other porting going on, too. Just check out Loki games.

Everything else is just coming along with time.

9th November 1999, 17:44

Cheers! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Anyone see that Guiness book of world records show? There was one episode when a woman had this huge tumour growing out of her side. Basically, it was a minor problem that she didn't take care of because she had a phobia of some sort. She finally had it removed and is doing fine, but just think of how many years of her life, pain, etc, she could have saved by going to the hospital earlier. You'd figure her friends or relatives would have forced the issue instead of letting things drag on. Windows is a lot like that tumour. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

18th October 2000, 10:44
Originally posted by Nuno:
I loved the "guru meditation" mombo jambo

I obiously was wery drunk at the time(I can't remember anything)! How exactly did it look like when I was meditating and doing the "mombo jambo" at the same time?

Join the MURC SETI team! (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678) | SETI @ MURC (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/seti/)

[This message has been edited by Guru (edited 18 October 2000).]

18th October 2000, 12:53
What an original Thread!

Last time I saw a thread like this I fell off my Dinosaur

Last time I quoted that phrase It was 1969. GOd I miss the '60's heheheh http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

18th October 2000, 13:14
BTW what hapend to Buuri?

Join the MURC SETI team! (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678) | SETI @ MURC (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/seti/)

18th October 2000, 13:16

18th October 2000, 14:02
Here's what the Jammrock says (I'm still recovering from a nasty cold so this probably won't make any sense):

1) Windows works...most of the time. Is Windows as good as it could be? No. Can someone make something better? Yes. Will anything better make it to the standard users computer anytime soon? No. Will it ever happen? Eventually.

2) M$ holds a monopoly on the consumer OS market. I don't care what arguements you ramble off, they use their business power to stiffle competition and SUCCEED. And that's why they are a monopoly, IMO. Example, if Corel went to Compaq and said we're going to raise the price of WordPerfect Suite 2000 (when Compaq used to load it) if you load Office 2000, would Compaq cave? No. If Microsoft went up to Compaq (which they have) and said if you load Netscape's browser on your computers, we're going to raise the price of Windows on you (which they did), would Compaq cave? Yes (which they did). When a company can threaten another company as large as Compaq, Dell, Gateway and Micron and win, you know they have a monopoly.

3) Should M$ be broken up? Depends on what they will do with M$. If they split it up between the OS and Applications company, I say no. The only way I can see M$'s strangle hold on the OS market (which they have, because everything is written for Windows) is to force M$ to release the OS kernel to other companies for a 'small' fee (as in, pay per kernel you load). That way you could have an OS loaded with Symantec tools and Corel if you wanted, without any M$ products, and still have the compatibility, because you would be running the OS kernel. Now when I say kernel, I mean the bare bones OS and hardware interface components. Will this ever happen? No.

Quite frankly, I've heard these arguements so much it hurts my head reading them anymore. There are better products out there, it's just that there are none to little support software written for them. Which is why Windows will maintain it's stranglehold for the forseeable future. So in the end it doesn't matter what you think, because M$ rules the OS world, and there ain't crap you can do about it.


18th October 2000, 17:26
I'm with Jammrock. What happens if the supreme court breaks up Microsoft?

Let's see:

Possibility 1:

The break the company up into OS and Apps. This is fine, unless they decide that Internet Explorer is an app. If this happens, the OS goes back to the performance and compatibility level of Windows 95. In other words, crap.

Possibility 2:

They decide to make MS "license" the windows kernel. If this happens, nobody will use anything except Windows ME and 2000. We won't see another OS evolution for 5-10 years, and the industry will fester.

In NEITHER of these situations does Linux somehow rise up like a phoenix from the ashes, because it's NOT A DESKTOP OS. How many bloody times do we have to go over this? My grandma will never EVER EVER use a Unix-based OS. BeOS, maybe. Linux, no.

- Gurm

Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

19th October 2000, 01:32
MS will not be broken up for one. And god forbid they did, the courts would not make MS open up the kernel. That is ridiculous. Almost as silly as the idea that Linux is a consumer OS. Linux is fine for a server, but for a consumer desktop OS it doesn't cut it. No application or hardware support. First of all, X is the biggest pile of crap and the way's it is being used is not it's intended purpose. If Linux every figured out their target market then they could focus their efforts and give MS a headache. But too many people want it to be something it's not nor ever will be.

19th October 2000, 06:21
Yeah, the Linux people need to realize that being a desktop OS and being Open Source are mutually exclusive goals. The current situation is DETRIMENTAL to the goals of the OS. Having Red Hat support and sell their own distribution is bad bad bad for OpenSource, even if it's good for consumers.

They need to make up their mind - is it going to be powerful and stable and 100% Open, or is it going to be closed, fixed, perhaps less stable, and targeted to consumers? Once they decide, they might get somewhere.

- Gurm

Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

19th October 2000, 07:01
Maybe the creation of two versions, one open source and the other for the consumers...

19th October 2000, 08:45
Ahem, let me explain the kernel thing a little more clear. M$ would still control the kernel. It would still control all the hardware layer stuff, like Direct X (which is a legitimate part of the OS) and the development of the kernel. M$ would still be allowed to create whatever extras for the OS they wanted, BUT other companies would be allowed to license the kernel and make software for the kernel, instead of via a M$ API.

That way Symantec and Netscape/AOL could get together. They could integrate their own tools and browsers into the kernel and modify portions of it to fit their software or vise versa. M$ would still make their money and still have their own version of the OS.

The only thing this does is allow people to make competing OS's that are still compatible with Windows. It would be like the Linux distribution thing, but the Windows kernel would not be open source in any form.


19th October 2000, 10:32

20th October 2000, 13:43

The point is that even if that occured nobody would buy it. I don't mean nobody as in "zero people", I mean nobody as in not a statistical amount of people.

As an example - what you describe was quite possible (and even commonplace) with Windows 3.1 - at my work Norton Desktop was the standard windowing shell for Windows.

HOWEVER, we had to patch it religiously, because every new program that came out crashed it. Eventually, they stopped patching it and we were just SOL.

If they had continued to patch it, we would very likely have given up anyway, since there comes a point after which it is just easier to use MS's shell.

So, like I said - if they are forced to license the kernel, nobody will buy anything other than MS's shell. If the government prevents MS from selling their own shell, nobody will upgrade from WinME and Win2k - and things will stagnate for 5 years minimum.

Of course, maybe by then Linux will have finally died of old age and BeOS will be viable.

- Gurm

* How old are you? *
* Thiry. *
* Thirty what, revisions? *
* No, thirty YEARS! *
* What's your name, old-timer? *
* Linux! *

Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.