# Would it be a good thing if Microsoft disappeared ?



## toast (Jun 29, 2002)

I'd like to know if my opinion is shared or not:

As a programmer, I think that it would be a great thing if a giant meteor could just cross Microsoft® out of the map.
As a designer, I appreciate (for business reasons) the existence of a standard, the Word file.

So I think Microsoft should and should not disappear. Your ideas ?

PS: there is no will to offend anyone in my question.


----------



## fryke (Jun 29, 2002)

It would open up the game again, and I'd like that. Of course the American economy would go down (or so they tell us), but that wouldn't be THAT bad for the world either. So, yes, let 'em go down if you can.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 29, 2002)

hypothetically speaking:

If microsoft ceased to exist, wouldn't it be possible for Apple to turn _into_ microsoft (*gasp*)? that would be a bad thing. I say If M$'s main HQs were wiped out it might not be too bad, then they would exist, but less.


----------



## lethe (Jun 29, 2002)

i don t think apple would become microsoft, the philosophies of the company are just to different.  but it is possible

i think the existence of the word format is bad for business.  it ties businesses to one platform, it limits their flexibility.  it forces businesses to upgrade when it might otherwise be unnecessary, just so they can read the latest word files.

i am in favor of microsoft disappearing


----------



## azosx (Jun 29, 2002)

If MS disappeared, somebody else would just take their place.

Whether it be Apple, AOL or maybe even IBM and Linux, who's to say.

I think to a degree it's good that MS exists.  It creates competition and forces others to strive harder.  Unfortunately, due to anti-competitive practices, MS hasn't allowed  for much competition in recent years.

I hope to see our legal system  stop pussyfooting around MS though and come down on them like they have other monopolies before them.

A browser seems like a trivial thing, but we're all here typing through one and because of that, it significantly shifted the market in Microsoft's favor.

Nobody can stay on top forever, and it'll only be time before MS is replaced by another. 

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so anyone who is strong enough to take Microsoft's place will likely find themselves in the same boat, hellbent on world domination.

As for the the Word file format, I think there should be an open standard for computer documents.  This would aleviate the headache of trying to work between different platforms and lessen Microsoft's stronghold in the professional, consumer and education markets as well.  This should be something the 9 states are fighting for, not just the removal of IE and WMP.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 29, 2002)

I would think that if microsoft ceased to exist, there are 3 scenarios
1) lots of standards, incompatibility
2) lots of OPEN standards, compatibility
3) Another company takes M$'s place


In case 1, really bad. Imagine having apple, SGI, sun, Amiga, linux, and all the other OSes taking over and equally splitting up the M$ market. Incompatibility left and right and lots of headaches for us IT people.

In case 2 --- HEAVEN!  People will use what they want to use, and lets say I make a .doc file on my mac, my friend on a SUN machine can read and edit it, who can in turn send it to our person X and me, and who might use it on an amiga, and we can still use that document!

PLUS in cases 1 and 2, less viruses, right now its easy to cause lots of probs in the world cause people use the same platform, windex, however if a virus is written, it couldnt really be effective unless the programmer used java or a "write once run everywhere" langauge 

in case three we are back in square one.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 29, 2002)

Nah, a meteor is much too quick of a death and not nearly painful enough. 
But if Microsoft did just up and disappear I think it would be awesome for computing and for world economies.  At first everyone would probably panic, but people do that all the time anyway.  After the initial screams, stampedes and such died down people would realize that they could still get a hold of copies of Windows 2000 and Windows XP and that those two should be plenty good for at least another couple years.

People buying new computers would start migrating en masse to Mac's, but not all of them because there are an awful lot of Intel boxes out there that wouldn't just go away, and Intel/AMD would still be around to make new processors.  So, in the next couple years the Linux community would kick it into high gear to give the world some decently-user-friendly software to run on Intel boxes.  This would result in massive investment and development in the technology sector.

Apple might decide to port OS X to Intel but Linux would have the jump on them.  Lindows would too, and would skyrocket since it can already run MS Office and other Windows software alongside Linux programs.

By the time Windows XP and 2000 were too out-of-date to use, there would be other, better alternatives and a whole lot more Mac users.  Compatibility, especially backwards compatibility, would be a prime focus for everybody (to make it easier for people to switch over) and since Apple would have a larger market share it would wield more power and many more programs would be multi-platform and more formats would be platform independent.

Competition between operating system makers would rise to a level not seen for a long time, and we all know what healthy, cutthroat competition can do for innovation. World peace would soon follow, and Microsoft would be safely cast into, well, wherever old operating systems go when they die.

The only down-side to the whole gig would be that we would be robbed of the opportunity to look MS users in the eyes and say "See!  We told you we'd win!" because, though we'd have won, it wouldn't have been a fair fight.  I am, however, willing to live with that.  So if any paranormal or extraterrestrial forces are wondering what I think of dropping a big one on Redmond, I'd like to give them a big, hearty, green light.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 29, 2002)

Has anybody ever read the foundation trilogy, this whole concept reminds me of it somehow...


----------



## azosx (Jun 29, 2002)

> In case 1, really bad. Imagine having apple, SGI, sun, Amiga, linux, and all the other OSes taking over and equally splitting up the M$ market. Incompatibility left and right and lots of headaches for us IT people.



While it sounds good in theory, none of those companies would be content sharing equal pieces of a pie.  We can pretend all we want, but every major corporation, even Apple, is hellbent on world domination.



> In case 1, really bad. Imagine having apple, SGI, sun, Amiga, linux, and all the other OSes taking over and equally splitting up the M$ market. Incompatibility left and right and lots of headaches for us IT people.



This senario is much more likely.  With MS gone, there would be little holding anyone back from creating an open standard document file format.  Right now, everyone is just trying to reverse engineer MS to become somewhat compatible with *.doc.



> PLUS in cases 1 and 2, less viruses, right now its easy to cause lots of probs in the world cause people use the same platform, windex, however if a virus is written, it couldnt really be effective unless the programmer used java or a "write once run everywhere" langauge



This is kind of a misconception.  When you control 95% of the desktop market and 60% of the server market, who do you think a*sholes are going to try and exploit? BeOS?  If MS was gone these idiots would just find the next dominant platform to attack. Unix was plagued with worms and exploits way before MS was ever thought of.  Also, I run Linux, I get my list of packages to update weekly due to security holes and buffer underruns.  I certainly don't see how that's any different than the patches in Windows Update.


----------



## JetwingX (Jun 29, 2002)

I think that apple would become larger. but then i would hope that everything would become compadable with Linux Apple Sun Micro and the whole bunch, that would be the day when there would no longer be war between anyone.....ok maybe not the war thing but it would end a lot of headaches


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Jun 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by lethe _
> *i don t think apple would become microsoft, the philosophies of the company are just to different.
> *



 Yeah right.  That evil business men, the "suits" at Apple would LOVE to be like M$.  Everyone is there to make money right?  Most people are anyway.  Those greedy S.O.Bs


----------



## themacko (Jun 30, 2002)

Think about it this way:  If Microsoft, Apple's largest competitor, were to dissappear, Apple would not have to work so hard to please it's current customers and impress it's possible-customers.  I know we'd all like to think that Uncle Steve would take care of us the same way, but a business is a business and Apple's quality-per-computer would go down in order to fill in for the PC world.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Jun 30, 2002)

nice.  I could not have said it better myself.


----------



## fryke (Jun 30, 2002)

There would still be 95% with a PC that couldn't run Mac software. Linux would rule those computers, soon. Macs would still have to compete with 'Wintel' hardware, which is still cheaper. Linux would gain drivers for the hardware *instantly*, because the hardware companies must sell their stuff, too. The Mac would, I'd say, gain market share more easily, but it'd certainly NOT be the sole and clear successor.


----------



## azosx (Jun 30, 2002)

If Apple were to port OS X to Intel, they would be years ahead of what any Linux distribution has to offer.  Their market share would triple within the first week of release.  Apple is far more familiar to Joe Average Consumer than Linux and it's many different faces, KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment, WindowMaker, etc.

Then of course they would create their own Office suite and web browser and become the "Microsoft" of the new millennium.


----------



## voice- (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> Then of course they would create their own Office suite and web browser and become the "Microsoft" of the new millennium. *



Funny thing is the we on this board seem to love the thought of an Apple browser and Apple Office...


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 30, 2002)

It would be a very good thing is M$ disappeared.  M$ makes one decent product - Office, nothing else is worth saving.  It's monopoly is hurting corporate America.  And the economy would not go down if M$ went down.  M$ claims that the breakup of M$ would hurt the US economy, nothing could be further from the truth.  I don't think one company would replace M$, but a few others would get larger (more market share) and fill-in the hole.  Apple would grow a little, Red Hat would grow some more, AOL might grow the most. 

With regard to file standards, M$ does have a monopoly on that.  What I think will eventually happen is that we will see a universal open standard file format that will incorporate text, images, mathematical expressions / equations, and sound into a single format that all programs will be able to handle.  In short, it would be like combining HTML and PDF, and possibly Word and Excel-type formats.  The file format would be cross platform.  There is no need for a word processor to have a different file format from a web page, they both do the same things now.  Most good web design software looks like a high-end word processor anyway.  And it all deals with putting your ideas in print - publishing.


I think that Linux has the best chance of overtaking M$ for 3 reasons:

1. M$ security and licensing agreements are problematic.  Virii spread rather quickly through M$ operating systems and programs.  There simply are too many security holes.  I don't know if hackers are fortuitously or unfortuitously, depending on how you look at it, taking advantage of possible M$ "features" / spying pathways in M$ software.  M$ seems to be playing catch-up to plug the holes and create new paths for software monitoring.  The recent update for M$ Windows Media Player gives M$ Digital Rights Management.  If you AGREE, you give M$ the ability to remove and or disable software from your computer that prevents DRM.

2. Linux is a more stable platform than Windows, it doesn't crash as much, and it is getting more user friendly with regard to installation and plug-n-play.  With the United Linux standard, it will be easier for businesses to install software on different distributions without surprises and hacking.  It is also cheaper to install on a generic PC.  Walmart nows sells a PC on their website for about $400 to $500 that you put together yourself and install Linux.

3. Cost & Control.  M$ is expensive and it exerts too much control over the user.  The operating system and programs simply cost too much.  Whoever said a Macintosh costs more than a PC needsto look at TOTAL cost, not just the upfront cost of hardware, but software, support, trouble shooting, etc... Too much third party software is "broken" by M$ software.  I think Kodak had issues with M$ with regard to some photo editing software a while back.  You would tell the OS that you want these images to be associated with Kodak's programs, but double clicking on the file brings up M$'s photo editor.

The foundations of UNIX, BSD, Linux, etc... are well established and have been a part of the academic world for a long time.  It works, and it works very well.  This is where I think the next big software explosion id going to be, simply because it works so well and is open standard.


----------



## themacko (Jun 30, 2002)

Apple can't just port OS X over to Intel and say that's that.  They still would have TONS of driver issues to go through and it may end up being more of a mess than Linux would have.


----------



## azosx (Jun 30, 2002)

I think you'd be surprised how easy it would actually be to port OS X to Intel.    Rhapsody, an early version of OS X, actually did run on the Intel.  You could actually run OS 9 apps through it on Intel as well.  That's the beauty of Unix, power and portablility.

If Apple was to port OS X to Intel, it would no longer be completely their responsibility to create driver compatibility, since most of the hardware would no longer be theirs.  

Since they would essentially be the only game in town if MS was gone, I say this because their desktop market share is 10x greater than Linux, hardware companies would be much more willing to work with Apple in making their products compatible.

Apple is also a lot more unified than the dozens of different Linux distributions.  The could hammer out compatibility and driver issues a lot more quickly.

The transition wouldn't happen over night but gradually within a few years.  

Microsoft ported NT and 2000 to Alpha and SPARC hardware, and Sun ported Solaris to Intel so it's obviously not impossible.


----------



## toast (Jun 30, 2002)

As I write this I look at the poll: it's about 60/40

What is true, it seems, is that there MUST be a Microsoft company. Whatever the name. #And what is true is also that we all LIKE to HATE it ! #


----------



## azosx (Jun 30, 2002)

> What is true, it seems, is that there MUST be a Microsoft company. Whatever the name. #And what is true is also that we all LIKE to HATE it !



Well of course, it's known as capitalism.  It's the American way.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 30, 2002)

I don't think Linux would be Microsoft's successor because the average consumer wants simplicity, not command line. Linux is too difficult for many people i think...


----------



## changomarcelo (Jun 30, 2002)

If Microsoft disappeard thousands of people would become unemployed.
I think Microsoft must change its policy and the quality of their products, that's all.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 30, 2002)

If microsoft disappeared, all those unemployed people could go work at Apple


----------



## lethe (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nummi_G4 _
> *
> 
> Yeah right.  That evil business men, the "suits" at Apple would LOVE to be like M$.  Everyone is there to make money right?  Most people are anyway.  Those greedy S.O.Bs *



not every company is as aggressive and unfair as ms in their policies.  for example cisco has had complete dominance over the router market for quite a while, and they have lots of proprietary technologies, and they go to great length to insure interoperability, unlike microsoft, which goes out of its way to exclude the possibility of interoperability.  Sun also has created technologies like java NFS, and NIS that it wants to enhance interoperability between platforms, instead of restrict it.

on the other hand, there is a long list of technologies that came out of cupertino that were proprietary and used to further their own market share.  lemme make a small list:  appletalk and ethertalk, NuBus, ADB, ADC.  on the other hand, they also created IEEE1394 (firewire) and opened that spec to the industry.  so they haven t been too bad.  they had a movement a while ago to open up lots of hardware specs to allow linux to be ported to their platform, but i suspect they mostly wanted to get the open source community to work on that for the sake of OSX.  because they have since killed that policy.

anyway, someone probably would replace microsoft, even if it weren t apple.  it most certainly would not be linux.  even if linux took 99% of the market, the nature of the licensing does not allow the sort of greedy hiding of technology specs that microsoft uses.  it is open source, and will remain so.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *I don't think Linux would be Microsoft's successor because the average consumer wants simplicity, not command line. Linux is too difficult for many people i think... *



People wouldn't have to learn to use the command line.  There are already several Linux-based PDAs on the market.  You don't need to know how to use Linux to use one of those.  The open source people need to get their priorities straight, build a consumer-friendly GUI similar to Aqua by Apple where the user doesn't have to learn to use Linux.  Right now Linux is great for geeks and servers.  It's getting better with the installers so that the above average Joe can buy it at Best Buy and install it on his computer at home and tinker with it.  There are even a few games for it, I think Quake 3 Arena is available for x86 Linux.  If just one of the distributions came out with something close to being user friendly, easy to install, the software base would dramatically increase as people started buying a PC with a lower cost (NO M$ License).

Hell, I've thought about getting a PC just for Linux.


----------



## toast (Jun 30, 2002)

Linux seems to be the good side of the Force here...

Am I the only one to think MacOS X could well be ported to Intel ? By the way, if Microsoft disappears, don't you think IBM will turn towards Apple ?


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 30, 2002)

I think Apple and IBM should team up, maybe even merge:
Apple does all the software and makes the Hardware look "nice"
IBM makes the Hardware, and makes it "fast, strong, and powerful"

wouldn't a Power4 w/OS X be great?


----------



## toast (Jun 30, 2002)

That's it, xaq, you made it ! It's sooo true a Mac with some Pentium in it would be great and the difference between Motorolas and Pentiums is soo thin


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 30, 2002)

exactly, I don't think OS X should be ported to intel, but if IBM and Apple teamed up, we'd get DDR ram and the Power4 architecture etc. while still being as cool as the mac is


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *exactly, I don't think OS X should be ported to intel, but if IBM and Apple teamed up, we'd get DDR ram and the Power4 architecture etc. while still being as cool as the mac is *



The only problem I see using a Power4 processor from IBM is that it might increase the cost another $10K to $20K for a Macintosh, require some SERIOUS cooling components aside from the your typical garden variety cooling fan, and of course, power management...what is that?  IBM puts the Power4 in its mainframe computers and servers, it will NEVER see the inside of a consumer desktop PC.  And, AND, what about Altivec?  IBM HATES Altivec.  It would rather ramp up the clock rates like Intel does rather than do vector processing, though I do know IBM is playing around with it.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 30, 2002)

could someone explain how altivec works and why IBM hates it so much? thanks

what is power management? does that have anything to do with the wall outlet?

 If Apple and IBM team up, I'm sure they could lower the prices a whole lot, and make a very quiet fan, etc...


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *could someone explain how altivec works and why IBM hates it so much? thanks
> 
> what is power management? does that have anything to do with the wall outlet?
> ...



For info on what AltiVec (Velocity Engine) is:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html

AltiVec (Velocity Engine) isn't IBM technology, it's Motorola technology.  Many times manufacturers don't like to support other companies' technology for licensing costs, etc...  M$ rings a bell.

Powermanagment is being nice to the environment by not requiring as much electricity to use, and hence less coal, oil, and nuclear fuel.  Laptops notoriously conserve power by shutting down parts of their processors that aren't being used.

IBM puts the Power4 into mainframes and servers.  This means NO ONE CARES about power managment whatsoever.  The only thing the customer is concerned about is that the darn thing NEVER shuts down, breaks down, crashes, hiccups, coughs, wheezes, etc...  you get the idea here.  Basically, once it's up and running it NEVER goes down.  And the only way to make sure the computer is happy is for all the components of the system be built with space-station-like specifications.  Components are redundant; check out Apple's XServe to get an idea of what I'm mentioning here.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by lethe _
> *
> 
> not every company is as aggressive and unfair as ms in their policies.  for example cisco has had complete dominance over the router market for quite a while, and they have lots of proprietary technologies, and they go to great length to insure interoperability, unlike microsoft, which goes out of its way to exclude the possibility of interoperability.  Sun also has created technologies like java NFS, and NIS that it wants to enhance interoperability between platforms, instead of restrict it.
> *



That is correct. To see what a company will do, you need only at what they company has done. Apple and Microsoft were both pioneers in the microcomputer revolution. Apple's main goal was to change the world. Microsoft's main goal was to own it.



> *
> on the other hand, there is a long list of technologies that came out of cupertino that were proprietary and used to further their own market share.  lemme make a small list:  appletalk and ethertalk, NuBus, ADB, ADC.  on the other hand, they also created IEEE1394 (firewire) and opened that spec to the industry.  so they haven t been too bad.  they had a movement a while ago to open up lots of hardware specs to allow linux to be ported to their platform, but i suspect they mostly wanted to get the open source community to work on that for the sake of OSX.  because they have since killed that policy.
> *



Here, you are just plain wrong. Appletalk ADB, and ADC are examples of Apple's inventing technologies to solve problems where there were no comparible solutions available.

As for NuBUS, this was not an Apple technology. MIT developed NuBUS for AI workstations. The university farmed it out to Texas Instruments. Apple licensed NuBUS from TI for use in the Macintosh II. At the time, the PC compatible vendors were searching for a replacement for the ISA. Apple lobbied them to adopt join in its adoption of NuBUS. Instead, they developed EISA.



> *
> anyway, someone probably would replace microsoft, even if it weren t apple.  it most certainly would not be linux.  even if linux took 99% of the market, the nature of the licensing does not allow the sort of greedy hiding of technology specs that microsoft uses.  it is open source, and will remain so. *



Microsoft would have you believe that the world will collapse without its dictates. However, those of us who remember the shape of computing before its dominance know better.

The buyer should have three concerns:

*1. If I buy your computer hardware, will I get the support that I need?* Today's market is much bigger than it was before Microsoft became dominant. Buyers of Apple, Radio Shack, Commodore, and the plethora of S-100 OEMs did OK then. There is no reason why a similar diverse group cannot be supported in the future.

*2. If I buy your computer hardware, how will I commicate with computers and peripherals from other vendors?* Today, we have numerous industry standard protocols such as TCP/IP, USB, FireWire, et. al. that allow transparent hardware communication. If you buy a computer that doesn't support these standards, it is not likely to survive very long.

*3. If I buy your computer software, will I get the support that I need?* Again, today's software market is much bigger than it was before Microsoft became dominant. If the software you buy is good, it is likely to be around for a while. Your real concern should be for sharing files having a variety of formats. Conversion filters exist to convert one format to another. Simply avoid products with closed formats.


----------



## azosx (Jun 30, 2002)

> Microsoft would have you believe that the world will collapse without its dictates. However, those of us who remember the shape of computing before its dominance know better.



Before Microsoft and Apple, there was no personal computer market.  Yes, your Radio Shack TRS-80, Commodore 64 and several others existed, but only as hobbies to geekie adults and kids.

Before MS there was IBM, dominating the big iron server market.  Companies were helpless to them, just as they are to MS today.



> not every company is as aggressive and unfair as ms in their policies. for example cisco has had complete dominance over the router market for quite a while, and they have lots of proprietary technologies, and they go to great length to insure interoperability, unlike microsoft, which goes out of its way to exclude the possibility of interoperability. Sun also has created technologies like java NFS, and NIS that it wants to enhance interoperability between platforms, instead of restrict it.



Cisco's founders developed much of their technology at Standford, then went off, formed their own company and stole it without any compensation.  Not the best example of good business ethics.

Every big business is twisted and perverse in their own special way.  If they weren't, they wouldn't be a big business.

It's a dog eat dog world.  To get to the top, you've gotta screw over everyone above you, then continue to screw over everyone below you to insure your dominance in the market place.  But before long, you're always going to make that one wrong turn, and another big business is going to slip right past you.


----------



## neutrino23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Nothing personal, but it would be an excellent thing if MS disappeared. It would open up a lot competitive forces in the market. Ideally, you would see lots of open standards for documents (like .pdf, png, .jpg) which could be shared across many platforms and applications. 

Have a diverse computing environment would make life more difficult for virus writers. Not impossible, just much more difficult.

Actually, I think the shareholders would benefit if the government were to split up MS. Imagine an OS company, one or two applications companies and maybe a server OS company. Facing real competition and not having monopoly power they would have to get busy and crank out some useful products in order to stay in business.


----------



## edX (Jul 1, 2002)

ok, everybody get a firm grip on your mouse because i voted no. 

i wouldn't want to see m$ just completely go away. i would however love to see them become 'just another software company'. i would certainly love to see the demise of word and office and ie. i would like to see a standard format that all word processing apps use with companies differentiating themselves with features, ease of use, quality of interface, etc. 

but let's be a little bit real here shall we - m$ isn't really creating the problem. well, they are, but the real problem is all the users who go along with it. without everyone forcing everybody else to use what they use, the problem wouldn't exist. 

yes, i know the whole story and how m$ refuses to share and has pushed themselves onto the market place. but until the pc users wise up and break free of m$ on their own, m$ will continue to be the company that it is, no matter how many chunks it gets chopped into. (lots of slivers i hope!!)


----------



## lonny (Jul 1, 2002)

Unfortunaltely most people are not computer litterate enough to understand what they're buying.

Computer market is different. It's a market where people buy something they can't use, nor understand fully. That's why companies like M$ find it easy to fool them.

Users need to be educated. But that's not going to happen.


----------



## toast (Jul 2, 2002)

It doesn't need to happen. Some people give $ for useless things, this $ fuels the software/hardware companies, and we 'learned' users can benefit of the new powerful stuff these companies create with this $. I like that.


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *If microsoft disappeared, all those unemployed people could go work at Apple *



Yeah I'm sure Apple has a few hundred thousand openings. A friend of mine was considering by both Nvidia and Microsoft for a job (he got the Microsoft job). Apple never even called. In fact, they never show up at our University's career fair.

Andre


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Annihilatus _
> *
> 
> Yeah I'm sure Apple has a few hundred thousand openings. A friend of mine was considering by both Nvidia and Microsoft for a job (he got the Microsoft job). Apple never even called. In fact, they never show up at our University's career fair.
> ...



What university do you attend?  I know for a fact that certain companies recruit only from some of the best schools.  It depends on the candidates the company is looking for and what is expected from them.  If you're looking for the best programmers in the world, you're not likely to find them at Bob's Community College or some poe-dunk mediocre state university.


----------



## xoot (Jul 7, 2002)

Before reading this post, I want you to read this: Humans like what is bad for them.

I don't want M$ to go because viruses will appear for Mac. Otherwise, there would be another reason. I think.


----------



## Sychreus (Jul 17, 2002)

Personally, I think that our economy wouldn't be able to handle a sudden meteor to MS.  Sure it would be great if it did get an order to stepdown, but there would need to be some sort of transition period, so that Lindows or some other PC-OS could step up and support all of the current MS software, etc, while maintaining security levels to protect the simple user.

With Mac OSX being unix-based and XP being horribly fisher-pricey and controlling, and with the rising generation of kids being computer-savvy, that MS is going to lose user support for their OS.  Unless Longhorn turns out to be the huge new MS OS it is supposed to be then I think tides will begin to turn a little at least.

Plus, think of all the hotmail accounts that would be lost...


----------



## karavite (Aug 8, 2002)

If anyone is interested in a real expert on this question, search on Lawrence Lessig. He is actually a legal expert who specilaizes in information technology, networks, software and copyright laws and was an advisor to judge Jackson in the MS trial (too bad he didn't advise him to keep his mouth shut with reporters prior to his judgement!). Lessig's basic theme - the most innovation occurs when a system is open (desktop to network - you name it).


----------



## JetwingX (Aug 9, 2002)

then what about the :scarcasm: poor windows users who don't own there operating system...? would it stay or would it be droped


----------



## glassfish (Dec 27, 2002)

If Microsoft ceased to exist, I could finally stop griping!!!

Then again, who would I complain about anymore...???


----------



## edX (Dec 27, 2002)

glassfish - i've a got a pretty good list started. aol would be a good choice for starters 

just because m$ is at the top of my bitch list, doesn't mean they've got a monopoly on it


----------



## fryke (Dec 27, 2002)

Hmm... 

That would be an alternative, though. The courts should have said: "Okay, we'll take all your monopoly power, but we'll _let you have_ a monopoly on being number one on the top-5-companies-to-bitch-about list."


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 27, 2002)

some more time... and macromedia and adobe starting to do builds of their apps for linux and we'll see a lots of people moving to linux!! my cousin needs stuff that is only for mac and pc but she cant buy a mac at the moment so if she found what she needed (for special video editing, dont ask me) she won't use MS stuff at all..!!


----------



## kendall (Dec 27, 2002)

Linux people don't like to pay for anything.  Its not a profitable platform.  At least not in the PC market.


----------



## Arden (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sychreus _
> *Unless Longhorn turns out to be the huge new MS OS it is supposed to be then I think tides will begin to turn a little at least.*



Who are they kidding?

Longhorn promises "new features" like an easier way to find your files, a search box in the explorer bar, an interface that takes advantage of 3D performance, and increased security, all by 2005, according to that article.  Of course, all of these are features currently found in Mac OS X, right now.  All Longhorn promises is that it will be the next OS X, but years after X has blown way past it.

Plus, it will be client-only, which is something that X is not.  Sure, you can get Mac OS X Server, but many server features (Apache, PHP, Perl, MySQL, etc.) are found in the base version of X, not to mention the developer tools.  (If you can't figure out how to use the abovementioned technologies, you shouldn't be using them.)  Longhorn is simply Microsoft copying Apple yet again, even though it will not be released for another 2 years, by which point Apple will be 2 years ahead of where it is now.  (Think of what Mac OS was like 2 years ago, and think of what Windows was like.  Which OS has run a marathon, and which is virtually unchanged?)


----------



## fryke (Feb 19, 2003)

Yet, the idea of basing the file system on a database might really change how we handle our documents. If we assume that Microsoft succeeds in doing this, this might really be an issue.

However, I'm not yet sure whether MS' way of doing this is right. Maybe we'll see a better approach. And maybe it will come from Apple or the Open Source community (and Apple will implement it in OS X).


----------



## Cat (Feb 20, 2003)

I agree a lot with what EdX said:


> i wouldn't want to see m$ just completely go away. i would however love to see them become 'just another software company'. i would certainly love to see the demise of word and office and ie. i would like to see a standard format that all word processing apps use with companies differentiating themselves with features, ease of use, quality of interface, etc.




Most of the problem isn't M$' crappy software, but the momentum given to it by marketshare and the ensuing enormous money they are making. If M$ would be just a competitor among many, we would have a healthier situation: more competition, better products. 
It would be good to see the monopoly disappear, not the company who has it.


----------

