RE: Off topic: New Microsoft suit [B*LLSH*T]

From: Yexley Robert D SSgt AFIT/SCA <Robert.Yexley_at_afit.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:57:42 -0400
Message-Id: <10605.115977@fatcity.com>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0135B.D01BFA20
Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Outstanding response Chris, I completely agree with you. And btw.....thank you for also more thoroughly censoring out part of the subject. I thought that was a bit unnecessary for a public forum. Thanks again for your opinions. MS bashing has just gotten way out of hand in my opinion. I really like Oracle and their products, but when it comes right down to it, and if you compare closely, they really aren't a whole lot better than Microsoft, and that ESPECIALLY applies when it comes to pricing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bowes, Chris [mailto:Chris.Bowes_at_kosa.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:00 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Off topic: New Microsoft suit [B*LLSH*T]

Wow... I didn't even get my flame suit on yet and boom, I'm a pile of goo... I'll respond to this one and no more. Where do I start:

>No, MS was using *various* means to destroy
>competition, including forcing OEMs to only
>install MS products on their hardware.

Various methods, yes. INCLUDING as the judge put it: Pricing items below what the competition could reasonably be expected to compete with. The California suit said they were too high. The feds say too low.

>Also, $400 for MicroSoft Office Pro is cheap?
Word, Powerpoint, Access, Outlook exp, etc all in one? Averages less than 100/program. Doesn't sound too outrageous to me. A bit pricey maybe, but not all that bad. There are games and such are costing 50-70 bucks nowadays. Professional software that helps to run

my company for 100/program? I guess it depends on what pricey is to you. I think a copy of Sqlnavigator is pricey at 500 dollars. I think Oracle is pricey. I don't expect a lawsuit to bail me out...

<Snip>
>When I pissed and moaned about the
>unfairness of MS' stated upgrade policy, another tech here told me
>the SIMPLE means to work around the problem so that I could use the
>$90 "Win98 upgrade" CD instead of the $190 *full* Win98 on a clean
>disk install.
>Now, you might argue that the *THREE* seperate MARKETING BOZOs I
>called at MS headquarters couldn't figure out how to "correctly"
>answer the question I was asking, but then I have to ask why, if he
>has such VAST WEALTH at his disposal, Bill Gates can't figure out how
>to hire and train people that know what the hell they are suppose to
>be doing!

Win98 for 90 or 190. Neither is unreasonable. If it helps the people of my company do their jobs better. Navigator from Quest cost us 3000 with all the bells and whistles and it's for pl-sql programming. What does IBM charge for OS licenses? I'd wager a lot less thanks to Microsoft, but probably not less than 200 per seat. Microsoft's support is a discussion for another day. The California suit is just to get some cash from the guy with the deep pockets.

>Giving away the browser?
>That was to destroy Netscape, whose founders, if you remember,
>*invented* the "mass market" web browser (Mosaic), and therefore
>perhaps arguably, invented the "popularized" web as we know it.

Actually, I thought Al Gore invented that (sorry, couldn't resist)... Really though, this goes back to my question. Yes, they did give it away to destroy competition. That being said, the California suit suffers yet another hit. How can free be too pricey when talking straight dollars?

>Also, if you remember, at the time MS blantantly took action to
>DESTROY Netscape as competition, it was anticipated that *due to
>their market presence* Netscape and/or others (Oracle/Sun?) would
>come up with an alternate desktop OS (NC?) that would be the
>beginning of the end of the MS WinBloat monopoly/domination.

Just like Walmart is destroying Kmart and Sears and Penny's. I knew someone

who worked in the world hdqtrs of Kmart. He told me that Kmart couldn't buy from the vendors for the price that Walmart was selling the same vendors

product. I know he was exageratting, but you get the point. Walmart's private deals with the vendors was crushing Kmart. One look at the sorry state of
Kmart shows it's working. Your goal as a business is to beat the competition.
Just like IBM tried to do to HP and DEC. Just like Ford tries to do to GM and Chrysler.
There will be competitors to Microsoft that will win too. I mean how's your Linux setup?

>Not mine.
>If you are so stupid and/or unethical as to participate in a
>retirement inventment instrument that is heavily based in MS stock,
>you deserve to get screwed when the govt finally gets around to
>putting its boot down on Bill Gates' neck for the long accumulative
>evil of destroying HUNDREDS of software companies.

Petty insults are not needed, Eric. They don't add to your arguement. I don't own
Microsoft stock. I own mutual funds like Janus 20 and Spectrafund and the like. Some own microsoft, some do not. That's irrelevent because they are
into the tech market and as Microsoft went, so went the tech guys. Do not forget what
happened in the spring. Once the Microsoft stuff blew through and Microsoft got
crushed, they took most of the market with them and a lot of it isn't recovering
very well. Right or wrong, the market is fairly emotion driven. What happens to
the giants tends to happen to the rest. One bad earnings report, tends to trickle to others. Is the tech sector (companies like Cisco or Intraware or Oracle) evil?
Please.

>Please try to pick investments that are good for the environment and
sensitive
>to social justice issues, and be a responsible, activist citizen-consumer
>instead of buying into the arrogant ethos of wretched excess and
>corporate greed that MS epitomizes.

Like lawfirms suing microsoft? Find me that stock and I am there. This may be
because I am pigheaded, a yankee, or someone who just likes to argue, but I see this
newest suit as a "let's get the guy with deep pockets" suit. Nothing more. That was the
whole jist of my original post. This suit is to get the guy with the cash. Plain and
simple.

To the list, I am sorry guys. I'll take my thread and go home and will post no more to the
list on this. Eric, if you want to continue this, email me direct.

--Chris
Chris.Bowes_at_Kosa.Com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0135B.D01BFA20
Content-Type: text/html;

charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>RE: Off topic: New Microsoft suit [B*LLSH*T]</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4207.2601" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>

<BODY>
<DIV>Outstanding response Chris, I completely agree with you.  And btw.....thank you for also more thoroughly censoring out part of the subject.  I thought that was a bit unnecessary for a public forum.  Thanks again for your opinions.  MS bashing has just gotten way out of hand in my opinion.  I really like Oracle and their products, but when it comes right down to it, and if you compare closely, they really aren't a whole lot better than Microsoft, and that ESPECIALLY applies when it comes to pricing.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Bowes, Chris [mailto:Chris.Bowes_at_kosa.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:00 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Off topic: New Microsoft suit [B*LLSH*T] </DIV> Wow...  I didn't even get my flame suit on yet and boom, I'm a pile of goo...  I'll respond to this one and no more. Where do I start:

  <P><FONT size=2>&gt;No, MS was using *various* means to destroy 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt;competition, including forcing OEMs to only 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt;install MS products on their hardware.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=2>Various methods, yes.&nbsp; INCLUDING as the judge put

it: Pricing items below what the competition could reasonably be expected to compete with.  The California suit said they were too high.  The feds say too low.

  <P><FONT size=2>&gt;Also, $400 for MicroSoft Office Pro is cheap?</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>Word, Powerpoint, Access, Outlook exp, etc all in one?&nbsp; 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>Averages less than 100/program.&nbsp; Doesn't sound

too outrageous to me. A bit pricey maybe, but not all that bad.  There are games and such are costing 50-70 bucks nowadays.  Professional software that helps to run my company for 100/program?  I guess it depends on what pricey is to you.  I think a copy of Sqlnavigator is pricey at 500 dollars.  I think Oracle is pricey.  I don't expect a lawsuit to bail me out... <Snip> >When I pissed and moaned about the >unfairness of MS' stated upgrade policy, another tech here told me >the SIMPLE means to work around the problem so that I could use the <FONT

  size=2>&gt;$90 "Win98 upgrade" CD instead of the $190 *full* Win98 on a clean 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt;disk install.&nbsp; </FONT><BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt;Now, you might argue that the *THREE* seperate MARKETING BOZOs I 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt;called at MS headquarters couldn't figure out how

to "correctly" >answer the question I was asking, but then I have to ask why, if he >has such VAST WEALTH at his disposal, Bill Gates can't figure out how >to hire and train people that know what the hell they are suppose to >be doing! Win98 for 90 or 190.  Neither is unreasonable.  If it helps the people of my company do their jobs better.  Navigator from Quest cost us 3000 with all the bells and whistles and it's for pl-sql programming.  What does IBM charge for OS licenses?  I'd wager a lot less thanks to Microsoft, but probably not less than 200 per seat.  Microsoft's support is a discussion for another day.  The California suit is just to get some cash from the guy with the deep pockets. >Giving away the browser?  >That was to destroy Netscape, whose founders, if you remember, >*invented* the "mass market" web browser (Mosaic), and therefore >perhaps arguably, invented the "popularized" web as we know it. Actually, I thought Al Gore invented that (sorry, couldn't resist)... Really though, this goes back to my question.  Yes, they did give it away to destroy competition.  That being said, the California suit suffers yet another hit.  How can free be too pricey when talking straight dollars?  >Also, if you remember, at the time MS blantantly took action to >DESTROY Netscape as competition, it was anticipated that *due to >their market presence* Netscape and/or others (Oracle/Sun?) would >come up with an alternate desktop OS (NC?) that would be the >beginning of the end of the MS WinBloat monopoly/domination. 
 Just like Walmart is destroying Kmart and Sears and Penny's.  I knew someone who worked in the world hdqtrs of Kmart.  He told me that Kmart couldn't buy from the vendors for the price that Walmart was selling the same vendors product.  I know he was exageratting, but you get the point.  Walmart's private deals with the vendors was crushing Kmart.  One look at the sorry state of Kmart shows it's working.  Your goal as a business is to beat the competition. Just like IBM tried to do to HP and DEC. Just like Ford tries to do to GM and Chrysler. There will be competitors to Microsoft that will win too.  I mean how's your Linux setup? >Not mine. >If you are so stupid and/or unethical as to participate in a >retirement inventment instrument that is heavily based in MS stock, >you deserve to get screwed when the govt finally gets around to >putting its boot down on Bill Gates' neck for the long accumulative >evil of destroying HUNDREDS of software companies. 
 Petty insults are not needed, Eric.  They don't add to your arguement.  I don't own Microsoft stock.  I own mutual funds like Janus 20 and Spectrafund and the like.  Some own microsoft, some do not.  That's irrelevent because they are into the tech market and as Microsoft went, so went the tech guys.  Do not forget what happened in the spring.  Once the Microsoft stuff blew through and Microsoft got crushed, they took most of the market with them and a lot of it isn't recovering very well.  Right or wrong, the market is fairly emotion driven.  What happens to the giants tends to happen to the rest.  One bad earnings report, tends to trickle to others.  Is the tech sector (companies like Cisco or Intraware or Oracle) evil?  Please.  
 >Please try to pick  investments that are good for the environment and sensitive >to social justice issues, and be a responsible, activist citizen-consumer >instead of buying into the arrogant ethos of wretched excess and >corporate greed that MS epitomizes. Like lawfirms suing microsoft?  Find me that stock and I am there.  This may be because I am pigheaded, a yankee, or someone who just likes to argue, but I see this newest suit as a "let's get the guy with deep pockets" suit.  Nothing more.  That was the whole jist of my original post.  This suit is to get the guy with the cash.  Plain and simple. To the list, I am sorry guys.  I'll take my thread and go home and will post no more to the list on this.  Received on Thu Aug 31 2000 - 09:57:42 CDT