Well, yes actually. That was part of the first anti-trust lawsuit against
MS. Computer distributors (e.g. Dell, Compaq) had to pay for a copy of
Windows for every PC they sold even if the customer did not want Windows.
In addition, they used their place in the marketplace to beat the computer
distributors over the heads. Basically, if they did not include Windows and
office etc. they were not going to get the deal at all or they would have to
pay a high price to supply Windows to their customers. This is illegal in
the US. You cannot force a retailer (or basically induce them by making an
offer they can't refuse) to buy one product based on selling another.
Jim
--
"Robin R Handler" <rrhandle_at_my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92b84v$42e$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> You are exactly right: " they simply forced the customer to use it "
>
> In article <92b3as$6f61v$2_at_ID-62141.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
> > That will definitely not be MS. They are now for many years trying to
defeat
> > Oracle and they still didn't succeed.
> > Also they uprooted several other products not because of the quality
of
> > their own products, they simply forced the customer to use it (as you
> > probably are aware in the DOS era OEM were forced by MS to give away
Windows
> > with any new PC, at the expense of the OEM. As you are also probably
aware
> > they uprooted Wordperfect in the Netherlands by almost giving away
Word)
> > So one of the reasons MS will not defeat Oracle, is Oracle is simply
too
> > rich: they will survive such an attack.
> > The only option also for MS to defeat Oracle in the database field, is
to
> > provide a port of Sqlserver running under Unix: anyone who knows
anything
> > about the capabilities of NT and Win2K knows their scalability is too
> > limited.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
> >
> > "Robin R Handler" <rrhandle_at_my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92b1s2$vcv$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > I think you are all missing something. I have no doubt MS's aim is
to
> > > product a database as good as for better than Oracle. They uprooted
> > > WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, . . . Who do you think will have the
> > > database market in five years?
> > >
> > >
> > > In article <922712$24s$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > sybrandb_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <t494l2nsrgp32c_at_corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > "Michael A." <banana_boat_x_at_x_1stconnect.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Can anyone provide me some insight into the relative merits of
Oracle
> > > > > > vs SQL 2000?
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't used SQLServer all that much myself, but I know it's
usually not
> > > > > mentioned in polite company in the firms for which I've done
work in
recent
> > > > > years. Mostly things having to do with table corruption and
scalability.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, it's a Big Red Flag when I see a so-called
enterprise-
level DBMS
> > > > > including, and even relying upon, a utility for recovering
corrupted
> > > > > database tables. Why is it even needed?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > If you mean Oracle by a 'so-called enterprise level DBMS' and you
would
> > > > know anything about the transaction concept in relational
databases,
> > > > you could have answered this question yourself. How do you expect
to
> > > > recover from failure in Sqlserver if your last backup was several
days
> > > > or more ago? You probably know the answer: you can't!
> > > > If that's ok with you stick to sqlserver or other Microsoft
provided
> > > > toys like Access which should never been used for enterprise level
> > > > information systems.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
> > > >
> > > > All standard disclaimers apply
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > > http://www.deja.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Received on Tue Dec 26 2000 - 20:11:39 CST
