Google desktop search SUCKS. Can you metatag things with google search? No, you cant. I'm sick of seeing people who use second rate things like google desktop search talking crap. Can you create virtual folders with google desktop search? As for draw issues, you've exposed your own ignorance. I don't know of anyone who uses XP regularly who has NOT experienced exactly the kind of draw issues I mentioned, and more.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What are the actual advantages Vista has over XP?
- Thread starter rmed64
- Start date
Google desktop search SUCKS. Can you metatag things with google search? No, you cant. I'm sick of seeing people who use second rate things like google desktop search talking crap. Can you create virtual folders with google desktop search? As for draw issues, you've exposed your own ignorance. I don't know of anyone who uses XP regularly who has NOT experienced exactly the kind of draw issues I mentioned, and more.
what sucks even more is the hypocracy of the consumers who can't make up their mind whether something is good or not.
remember back when Microsoft wanted to add all kinds of features and built-in support and capabilities for anything and everything? What happened?
They got sued left and right and was accused by companies and customers alike for anti-trust violation and that they're trying to shut down third party software.
Nobody bothered suing Steve Jobs.
Microsoft left alot of stuff out to appease the customer and other companies and the judges.
Now these very same people criticize Microsoft of being "slow" bringing features to their operating system. Of "copying" other operating systems and software like MacOS, Linux, Firefox, and so as illustrated in the quote above, Google Desktop Search.
Do people really have this short memory? Microsoft TRIED to be innovative before! Noone would let them!
Vista is full of stuff like this. What happens is folks, as shown on this thread, selectively pick out a few items and go to town talking crap about it.
Like I said before- Vista doesn't offer one single advantage over XP for me (Although UAC is a big one for me), rather, a ton of smaller features and perks that make it all worth it.
I have hardly had to install any third-party applications on my Vista machine as I was forced to do in XP. DVD burning, building, iso, etc- sure. 7Zip went on here as well. Otherwise, Vista has done everything I need it to right out of the box.
I thought I was the only one that realized the whole tidbit on Apple... I swear- they do a great job at getting the public to think however they want them to think (Some think Bill Gates is trying to "take over" our computers? Get real... Apple has been forcing stuff into their systems for years now). That's another discussion though
But your last point is a good one as well.
People gripe and complain that Windows doesn't have a feature, and then gripe and complain when it DOES because it is "stealing" someone else's idea.
It is a lose-lose situation, and one which I think most people don't see.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, but anti-trust law only applies to trusts and monopolies. It would be quite difficult for the FTC to launch an anti-trust suit against Apple when they clearly don't have a monopoly.
Oh, btw, I have no interest in discussing the merits of the cases brought against MS; I just wanted to point out why nobody has sued Apple for leveraging their monopoly in unlawful ways: it's because they don't have one.
I would beg to differ. When you dictate both hardware and software on your product: that's a monopoly.
Microsoft sells an OS for a ton of different hardware configurations. They leave the hardware side open. They support tons of software- as long as the vendors write something that works with the system (This is like OS X to a degree, but look at the iPhone).
Nay, I would say Apple has more of a monopoly than Microsoft. (Edit- and FWIW, Apple and Microsoft aren't competitors... two different markets, really.)
I'm going to post my reply and then move off of this topic since it isn't really on topic...
The definition of a monopoly, in legal context (which is the only relevent context when considering to whom anti-trust law applies), has nothing to do with with how you control the usage of your product, and everything to do with marketshare.
In the operating systems market, MS arguably has a monopoly having ~90% of it. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to argue that Apple has a monopoly on the OS market having ~3% of it. It is possible to narrow the scope of the "market" you are examining, to suggest that Apple does have a monopoly (of say the "fruit named OS market"), but that would be ignoring the intent of the law and its definitions.
Anyway, you might think that anti-trust laws are bad; certainly many people have compelling arguments to support that (myself not included). However, it's fairly easy to see how Apple isn't a target of current anti-trust law.
The definition of a monopoly, in legal context (which is the only relevent context when considering to whom anti-trust law applies), has nothing to do with with how you control the usage of your product, and everything to do with marketshare.
In the operating systems market, MS arguably has a monopoly having ~90% of it. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to argue that Apple has a monopoly on the OS market having ~3% of it. It is possible to narrow the scope of the "market" you are examining, to suggest that Apple does have a monopoly (of say the "fruit named OS market"), but that would be ignoring the intent of the law and its definitions.
Anyway, you might think that anti-trust laws are bad; certainly many people have compelling arguments to support that (myself not included). However, it's fairly easy to see how Apple isn't a target of current anti-trust law.
but the anti-trust law against Microsoft had nothing to do with the OS's marketshare whatsoever.
The people that were suing them were software makers FOR the Windows OS.
Netscape, Sun, RealAudio, and so on.
Microsoft can't really control people buying their operating system. What are they going to do? Beat people up for picking their product?
Apple is a completely different market. It's like comparing a computer with a typewriter.
In Apple's world, Apple is a monopoly. Apple controls everything.
In Microsoft's world, Microsoft is very flexible with hardware and software developers.
The people that were suing them were software makers FOR the Windows OS.
Netscape, Sun, RealAudio, and so on.
Microsoft can't really control people buying their operating system. What are they going to do? Beat people up for picking their product?
Apple is a completely different market. It's like comparing a computer with a typewriter.
In Apple's world, Apple is a monopoly. Apple controls everything.
In Microsoft's world, Microsoft is very flexible with hardware and software developers.
I don't want to sound rude, but I get the idea you're not that familiar with anti-trust law.
It is illegal for a company to leverage a monopoly in one market, to enter another.
In the case of companies like Netscape, the claim was that MS was using its monopoly in the OS market (remember in a legal context that means they have "practically" all the marketshare of the OS market which they did), to enter the web browsing software market by bundling their software.
In a legal context, whether or not the company controls the usage of their products is irrelevant to whether they are monopoly.
It is illegal for a company to leverage a monopoly in one market, to enter another.
In the case of companies like Netscape, the claim was that MS was using its monopoly in the OS market (remember in a legal context that means they have "practically" all the marketshare of the OS market which they did), to enter the web browsing software market by bundling their software.
In a legal context, whether or not the company controls the usage of their products is irrelevant to whether they are monopoly.
Hmm, I seem to recall that reading that there are a number of anti-trust suits pending re Apple/iTunes
*sigh* some people REALLY need to find out what is soo bad about a monopoly
FACT! there is actually nothing wrong with being a monopoly
Look at ARM a fantastic company and they very much so in a monopoly and they stay their because the market (ie companies who make products using RISC) decided they were to be a monopoly. Many a company has tried to break into the ARM market and pretty much all of them have either died or ended up licensing IPR from ARM
Did ARM do anything (apart from designing the best portfolio) to influence this in anyway? no! and remember ARM is a Cambridge-based company as as such falls under UK&EU monopoly laws
Now look at MS they did some dodgy things to not only get themselves into a monopoly position BUT also to hold themselves there. There were a number of practices that they were attacked on BUT it was the browser-case that got them really convicted (concider it like Al Capone getting done for income tax evasion as opose to all the murders and rackatering cause the cases wouldn't stick).
I don't want to get into the other practices since as past court have shown all other allergations were thrown out (well there is the mediaplayer one in EU and the whole SAMBA thing as well in the EU but well we got better anti-monopoly laws [anti-monopoly laws ~= anti-trust laws])
So lets look at the statement made by zacdl saying that Apple is a monopoly cause they control both the hardware & the software... Well ok fair point they *are* a monopoly (on apple hardware) BUT
1) They are a hardware vendor so obviously they control it thats like saying Ford have a monopoly on Ford:Escorts.... (well Duuur....)
2) being a monopoly isn't bad, its how you got their and how you stay there that is the problem.
Now looking at the hardware do they stop you putting another operating system onto their hardware? NO! they have booted linux since someone ported the kernel to the PPC and now they are using x86 based CPU's you can even put Ms-Windows on their (as well as BSD, as well as....). So now lets swing back to MS for a moment.... They do an Os and bundled parts into the OS... ie InternetExplorer not only that, they made it really hard for other browser to play nice in windows.... Anti-Trust here we come!!!
Se the difference.
Now in some senses I feel sorry for MS, they did practices which every company does to try to gain market share, look at Citroen they came up with a silly bolthead to assemble their cars so that they could gain a monopoly on the aftermarket care for their cars (well bad example the EU stung Citreon for that and ordered them to make available the tools to traders). They then get themselves into a monopoly situation (again not bad on its own) BUT Microsoft then try to leverage their stay BUT also have all their legacy API they must keep going and that is where all these nasty lockin stuff exist (office files badly compatable between version, networking badly compatable between versions....)
Saying that I am only a very tiny,little bit sorry for MS, their piss-poor interoperability between themselves (and others) makes my life a living hell every single effing DAY!
Anyway back on monopoly, MS and Apple
Ms are branching into hardware as well (Xbox, surface,zune) Now quick question for those that think MS is innocent (or no less guily then others)... How many different operating systems does the Zune work on and how many different OS's does all versions of iPod work on
answer that and you will see the problem that is rift within MS and competition. IF they competed on a level playing field (said field is [attemted] managed by anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws]) and it was purly down to their merits of their software we would have better software AND more advancements in products (look at the stalled advancements in web-browsing untill Mozilla came along to open the field again...)
Just for the record I personally think MS-office is a great piece of software and if MS ever deviced to release a Linux-native version (no reason why not) I would buy it in an instant!
FACT! there is actually nothing wrong with being a monopoly
Look at ARM a fantastic company and they very much so in a monopoly and they stay their because the market (ie companies who make products using RISC) decided they were to be a monopoly. Many a company has tried to break into the ARM market and pretty much all of them have either died or ended up licensing IPR from ARM
Did ARM do anything (apart from designing the best portfolio) to influence this in anyway? no! and remember ARM is a Cambridge-based company as as such falls under UK&EU monopoly laws
Now look at MS they did some dodgy things to not only get themselves into a monopoly position BUT also to hold themselves there. There were a number of practices that they were attacked on BUT it was the browser-case that got them really convicted (concider it like Al Capone getting done for income tax evasion as opose to all the murders and rackatering cause the cases wouldn't stick).
I don't want to get into the other practices since as past court have shown all other allergations were thrown out (well there is the mediaplayer one in EU and the whole SAMBA thing as well in the EU but well we got better anti-monopoly laws [anti-monopoly laws ~= anti-trust laws])
So lets look at the statement made by zacdl saying that Apple is a monopoly cause they control both the hardware & the software... Well ok fair point they *are* a monopoly (on apple hardware) BUT
1) They are a hardware vendor so obviously they control it
thats like saying Ford have a monopoly on Ford:Escorts.... (well Duuur....)2) being a monopoly isn't bad, its how you got their and how you stay there that is the problem.
Now looking at the hardware do they stop you putting another operating system onto their hardware? NO! they have booted linux since someone ported the kernel to the PPC and now they are using x86 based CPU's you can even put Ms-Windows on their (as well as BSD, as well as....). So now lets swing back to MS for a moment.... They do an Os and bundled parts into the OS... ie InternetExplorer not only that, they made it really hard for other browser to play nice in windows.... Anti-Trust here we come!!!
Se the difference.
Now in some senses I feel sorry for MS, they did practices which every company does to try to gain market share, look at Citroen they came up with a silly bolthead to assemble their cars so that they could gain a monopoly on the aftermarket care for their cars (well bad example the EU stung Citreon for that and ordered them to make available the tools to traders). They then get themselves into a monopoly situation (again not bad on its own) BUT Microsoft then try to leverage their stay BUT also have all their legacy API they must keep going and that is where all these nasty lockin stuff exist (office files badly compatable between version, networking badly compatable between versions....)
Saying that I am only a very tiny,little bit sorry for MS, their piss-poor interoperability between themselves (and others) makes my life a living hell every single effing DAY!
Anyway back on monopoly, MS and Apple
Ms are branching into hardware as well (Xbox, surface,zune) Now quick question for those that think MS is innocent (or no less guily then others)... How many different operating systems does the Zune work on and how many different OS's does all versions of iPod work on
answer that and you will see the problem that is rift within MS and competition. IF they competed on a level playing field (said field is [attemted] managed by anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws]) and it was purly down to their merits of their software we would have better software AND more advancements in products (look at the stalled advancements in web-browsing untill Mozilla came along to open the field again...)
Just for the record I personally think MS-office is a great piece of software and if MS ever deviced to release a Linux-native version (no reason why not) I would buy it in an instant!
yes there is, because iTunes (more specifically the fileformat) has produced vendor-locking via DRM (and there are ppl that say DRM aint evil... how nieve). and THAT is bad and hence why France and a few others (and now the EU) are really looking into it and also that was one of the driving reasons why apple started selling flat MP3 files via iTunes, so they could be sold on any player and thus making an individuals life easier if they want to change brands.
This wouldn't be an issue if Apple would just licence mp4 tech to others.. but that is the catch-22 with DRM... security via obscurity make if freely available and workarounds become transparent (admitidly MS are a bit better then APPLE with the WMF as in they have licensed it out BUT only to a few ppl) but still lockin to WMF-based players
Actually that is a rather poor comparision.1) They are a hardware vendor so obviously they control it
I may be wrong (Show me if I am), but I am somewhat certain that Apple doesn't allow other OS to install on their machines. And going back to the hardware they use- it isn't like Windows in which the device vendors just readily give up drivers for it (Apple controls that as well).
You ignore the flip-side of that: the operating system.
Apple only allows OS X to be installed on their own hardware. And you don't call that unfair advantage?
I call BS. Firefox, Opera, Avant, Maxthon, the list goes on: they ALL play well in Windows. It is nothing like Apple in which they dictate out all other software competition (in the case of the iPhone, which since you seem to focus on OS, is running OS X just the same as a Mac).
You also forgot to mention with this quote, "And so is every other maker of gaming consoles". It isn't a monopoly of which just Microsoft is a part of. See, in this one, I have a choice between (largely), Playstation, Xbox, or the Wii. Each one regulates their whole system- and is a fact of life. But they are all in direct competition here, unlike Microsoft and Apple.
And right here is where so many people think Microsoft and Apple compete.
They have two different products. Microsoft's can run on millions of different combinations. It supports any software- as long as somebody is there to write it.
Apple, on the other hand, dictates that you can only install the OS on their machines, which they also control. See the difference here?
Apple sells an all-in-one, complete package. You really cannot change it (in a large sense here...)
Microsoft sells SOFTWARE, and that's it. It can run on any number of combinations of hardware.
Apple is not as open to software developers, either (iPhone is classic example. It runs OS X and Apple has locked out third-party software. Macs are not as bad, but they are not good with it, either).
Show me another hardware/software vendor that controls both hardware AND software on their machines (I cannot think of any). If you can, we can say that Apple isn't a monopoly. Otherwise, Apple has a death-grip on their market.
LMAO!!! you do make me laugh. You have some EXTREAMLY zealot's view of what a monopoly is.
Actually that is a rather poor comparision.eeyrjmr said:1) They are a hardware vendor so obviously they control it
It is actually a good comparison, Ford are the only ones to make Ford:Escorts and from your zeolot interpretation of what a monopoly is, they have that. You really seem to have a very big problem understanding what hardware is and as such wouldn't last 5min in my world.
So lets break it down into (I hope) some comparisons that you can relate to
ZOMG!!!! Nokia only allow symbian-OS to be "install on their smartphones"
ZOMG!!!! Dell only allow their BIOS to be flashed to their mobo's/Laptops
ZOMG!!!! Intel only allow their microcode to be loaded into their CPU's
ZOMG!!!! nvidia cards only work with nvidia drivers
(yes to some extent there are exceptions)
Welcome to the world of hardware... software can't operate without hardware and (more so these days) hardware cannot function (to some degree) without software... it is a symbiotic existence between two factions of engineering
I swear you are a living oxymoron, from what you have been saying in this thread you want open-standards and access for all YET in other threads you have openly defended Microsoft (even though they are the biggest offenders when it comes to inter-interoperability... even with themselves...). If It wasn't for the fact you are a Vista funboy I would recommend Debian to you and point you towards the FSF mailing list.
Oh I dunno maybe a little thing called... BootCamp Allowing Microsoft Windows to be installed and work on Apples Mac hardware platform.
Also there is a MASSIVE difference between what you say as "doesn't allow" and what actually occurs which is Doesn't support!
Massive difference!
You want to talk abt "doesn't allow" have a look at any non-internetExplorer browser on windows when you try to connect to Windows update... can you use the auto-update your PC when using Opera? or Firefox? and you then have the gaul to not only say
Ill make it easy for you, I have highlighted the significant word... There was a time when another browser on windows just would not play well with windows...
Oh and it gets better!!! getting back to ZOMG!!!! Apple are the evills cause they control the hardware...
From yr zealot's view MS have a monopoly over the Xbox cause they are the only ones that can control it... YET in the gaming market they arnt a monopoly... WTF ever heard of consistant arguement.. lets sort that for you
Yes Apple have a monopoly on THEIR!!!! hardware... they designed,manufactured,marketed,distributed it... HOWEVER they are NOT and nowhere near being a monopoly in the PC market or are you now saying 5% of the total market share is a monopoly?
and just to finish off
Yes MS sells software which may work on any number of combinations of hardware (which conform to the extension of the IBM-PC spec mind) BUT work ONLY with one Operating system. Does office2007 work on any other OS? Does IIS work on any other OS?.... the list continues.
You really need to learn what a hardware vendor & a software vendor is
Sun and their workstations? But even then you can install linux on it, just like you can install linux onto an Apple-Mac (intel or PPC) and just like you can install linux onto and IBM-compatable PC (but this isn't abt linux, this is abt your false statement that Apple have a monopoly on the PC market...)
Nokia and their phones and thats even before you start entering into world of engineering, seriouly do you think Airbus would allow/permit a boeing runtime onto the Flightcomputer?
The more specific the hardware, the more specific the software that runs on it. The modern day PC is an advancement of the IBM-PC where everything is known abt and thus anyone can build for it. BUT when you extend the capability of the hardware via software it starts to converge on itself and thus only specific software will run on a specific os on a general hardware platform
The only reason Apple isn't a true monopoly, is because of their small percentage of market share. If you separate the PC market into Wintel and Apple, like it used to be, apple becomes more hienous that anything Microsoft has been able to do. What really scares me is the amount of people led by branding, rather than common sense.
Let's say you want a Wintel PC. You have choices all over the board with respect to hardware. The software market is a little less open, because Microsoft does dominate in this area, but you still have choices.
Now, let's say you are in the market for a Mac. What are your choices? Exactly...see how easy that was? Do we really need to argue this point? How is it, that a Mac Pro workstation costs so much more than a similar Wintel machine? Who determines that? Apple, that's who. If Apple decided to charge $1000 for their OS alone, what choices do you have? If Apple decided that they next iMacs would cost $5000, what choices do you have?
Apple controls their market MUCH more than Microsoft can even dream about. If Dell decided to raise their hardware prices, consumers have other choices, without making any software changes.
As an open plea, can we stop this bullshit? Arguing of logical, common sense facts is a complete waste of time, and destroys any credibility the debaters might have.
Let's say you want a Wintel PC. You have choices all over the board with respect to hardware. The software market is a little less open, because Microsoft does dominate in this area, but you still have choices.
Now, let's say you are in the market for a Mac. What are your choices? Exactly...see how easy that was? Do we really need to argue this point? How is it, that a Mac Pro workstation costs so much more than a similar Wintel machine? Who determines that? Apple, that's who. If Apple decided to charge $1000 for their OS alone, what choices do you have? If Apple decided that they next iMacs would cost $5000, what choices do you have?
Apple controls their market MUCH more than Microsoft can even dream about. If Dell decided to raise their hardware prices, consumers have other choices, without making any software changes.
As an open plea, can we stop this bullshit? Arguing of logical, common sense facts is a complete waste of time, and destroys any credibility the debaters might have.
This is what I am referring to. Every company has a monopoly on their specific products. Is it really that important for you to argue back, that you dispel any notion of rational thinking? See, this is what happens. Tempers rise as logic decreases, and in the end, no one wins.
odoe
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Messages
- 9,796
Cut it out before I abuse my monopoly on locked threads.