# Bill Gates worst fears realized!!



## edX (Dec 24, 2002)

from the sf chronicle today.



> In a move that could weaken Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, a federal judge said Monday that he will order the software giant to include Sun Microsystems' Java -- a technology Bill Gates once said "scares me to death" --
> 
> in every copy of Windows XP.
> 
> ...


----------



## kendall (Dec 24, 2002)

and how many java programs do you currently utilize?  0?  i think bill gates can rest easy.


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 24, 2002)

... java itself, i hope it will not be the microsfot version of it!!!(like in past)


----------



## Powermaster (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *....he will order the software giant to include Sun Microsystems' Java*



:') I assume its not the Micro$haft Version.


----------



## edX (Dec 24, 2002)

> ...ordering Microsoft to include Sun's latest version of Java in its operating system, rather than the 6-year-old, Microsoft-modified version now included.


----------



## Powermaster (Dec 24, 2002)

I know its a little off topic but, Dose anyone have a darned bottle of pesticide? There are rumors of an annoying butterfly flying around the net.


----------



## Powermaster (Dec 24, 2002)

Micro$haft is appealing the Java Ruling.

Url:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56985,00.html


----------



## Jason (Dec 24, 2002)

i could have sworn they went through this with the java orders a long while ago....


----------



## edX (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *and how many java programs do you currently utilize?  0?  i think bill gates can rest easy. *



i think the cost and time investment in an appeal speaks for how seriously m$ feels threatened by this. Bill must be panicking at the idea of having to give up that much control.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *and how many java programs do you currently utilize?  0?  i think bill gates can rest easy. *



For the last few years I have been using TextEdit, and that version was written in Java (there was also a Objective C version). Currently Cocoa apps can be written in either Objective C or Java, and as of version 5, Web Objects is now exclusively Java based (originally you could use either Objective C or Java). As that is an Enterprise solution that is designed to work on a number of platforms (including Windows and Solaris), Web Objects would be hurt by poor Java support in a Windows only environment.

Actually I would have to answer "I don't know" currently to your question, but I can tell you that "0" would be incorrect. I guess I would have to take the time to check on _all_ of my Cocoa apps to see which are using Objective C and which are using Java.

The main reason that Gates can now rest easier was the years of work that Microsoft did to undermine what they saw as a threat to their monopoly. When Microsoft saw that Java was a cross platform applications solution, they feared that people would no longer feel the need to stick with Windows/DOS. One of the reasons of the browser wars was that Java was being included with with Netscape. When killing Netscape didn't stop Java, they decided to pollute the code by making their own proprietary version that only worked on Windows (Visual J++), though Sun was finally able to put a stop to that legally.

Microsoft doesn't want Java to work because it would provide the possibility of people moving from Windows to any other platform with very few consequences. Java still poses an unacceptable risk as far as Microsoft is concerned. Anything that is cross-platform is a risk to Microsoft. Flash, Java, Quicktime, PDF, MP3, HTML... anything. They expend more resources trying to make proprietary changes to cross-platform solutions (possibly buying Flash, making a Windows-only version of MPEG4, trying to get people to use MS-HTML instead of the W3C compliant HTML) than they do in developing innovative products or making existing ones better to compete fairly.

Microsoft feels that the most dangerous thing to their business is a level playing field. The amount of money it takes to compete is far greater than the amount it takes to remove the competition (even with court cost included  ).


----------



## chemistry_geek (Dec 24, 2002)

Isn't there an open source java-based office suite somewhere.  I thought I read it about it somewhere, and it costs something like $50.00.  It works, but runs a little slow.  Well, in two years time java programs will be just as fast as regular apps are now.  The only reason I have M$ Office version X is because the University student discount was $20.00 for the educational version.  If it wasn't that cheap I would have purchased another alternative.  If I recall correctly, some major PC manufacturers are putting Corel Office Suite (WordPerfect) on low cost consumer PC's.  This is good as it removes some power from M$.


----------



## fryke (Dec 25, 2002)

well, two years from now non-java apps will e a bit faster, too. 

java is an important programming language for enterprises - ask Sun, IBM, Apple (certainly not Microsoft, of course).

but the nice thing about this ruling is that it shows that although MS has only been slapped on their fingers a bit in the BIG trial, they're now continued to be slapped on their fingers. And I sure hope the European court will make them cry after the US court babied them.


----------



## stijnsmets (Dec 25, 2002)

They are making .net,  with has a java-like platform inside, actually it's pretty much the same but only changed the language al little...
Microsoft just looks for good technologies ( MacOs, Java, .... ) and copies them, but they copy it badly ... 

The day they make something good themselves I will walk naked around my city


----------



## chevy (Dec 25, 2002)

Microsoft made pretty good things. Excel (a copy of Visicalc, but realy improved). Word was also good (even if it is completey left unattended now). There only one problem: Microsoft lacks competition.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Dec 25, 2002)

I just read that Micro$oft is taking aim at Adobe with it's PDF document platform.  Apparently M$ is developing a new format similar to PDF called XDocs.  Adobe is supposed to be developing some new technologies for retreiving information from PDF documents once they're created.  PDF is the defacto standard for government documents (IRS tax forms, College applications, and plain old document sharing).  I hope Adobe develops something that M$, with its shortdightedness, never thought about.  It would be nice if Apple bought Adobe, no harm done there.  I'd like to see the European court system run M$ through a meat grinder, forwards and backwards, to make sure the job is done right, the second time!


----------



## Pengu (Dec 25, 2002)

If Apple bought Adobe, things would go up sh!t creek. As it stands, Adobe develop PDF to be a universal standard. same with Macromedia and flash, the W3C with HTML, etc. if apple bought Adobe, support for windows, would, i hate to say it, be minimal. have you seen the Windows version of quicktime? quite frankly, it sucks ass. but. it does what it's intended to do. it makes Quicktime compatible. Win32 QT doesn't play MPEG movies, or whatever else. it's sole purpose is to play quicktime movies. if each company, can develop it's own technologys that are platform independent, then it will better the experience for everyone. personally i think microsoft SHOULD be split up. sure, make an OS. make office/internet apps. but make two companies. two SEPERATE companies. do NOT let them automatically bundle it all together again.
i think if microsoft were told they could no longer produce an operating system, things would improve. they would have to rely on platform independant products, such as Mac/UNIX/Linux/Irix/Etc versions of Office, that are actually FIXED
im sure somewhere within microsoft, there are some great programmers. just like SOMEWHERE within the Chev/GM/Holden/ETC group of companies/subsidaries there are probably some decent cars. i just haven't seen one yet.


----------



## Pengu (Dec 25, 2002)

ok. and now i have realised that my last post was completely off topic. my bad. 

Pengu


----------



## RacerX (Dec 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Pengu _
> *If Apple bought Adobe, things would go up sh!t creek. As it stands, Adobe develop PDF to be a universal standard. same with Macromedia and flash, the W3C with HTML, etc. if apple bought Adobe, support for windows, would, i hate to say it, be minimal. have you seen the Windows version of quicktime? quite frankly, it sucks ass... *



Actually the reason Quicktime doesn't work as good on Windows is that Microsoft doesn't want it to. Part of the findings against Microsoft showed that it went out of it's way to make sure that Apple wouldn't have a level playing field on the Windows platform. They have been trying to do the same type of thing to Real Player for the same reasons. Microsoft wants Windows users to only use Windows Media Player.

Apple was the *only* champion for a free and open MPEG4 standard of all the companies involved with it's creation. Microsoft (which was *not* one of those companies) quickly rewrote MPEG4 so that their version wouldn't work on other platforms. 

Apple has always tried to provide the same quality of products for what ever platform they are writing for. Apple has always been committed to make the best products they could, and would never cripple one of their products... specially if that product may be the first look at Apple that people get (as Quicktime for Windows often is).


----------

