So Microsoft doesn't seem to learn it's lesson

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Yeah, only IE for windows 8

[Ashal]

On Windows ARM, which is a different sku of windows 8 and meant for tablets. This will have literally zero impact on windows desktops.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Still seems likely to cause lawsuits like in the past.

 

Now, personally I think Microsoft SHOULD be allowed to do it, even on their desktop OS.

 

It's their software, they own it, they make it, if they want to restrict what can run on it, their call.

 

Of course I'd also fully support people finding ways to bypass it as well, since my view is its fine for people to mod their own shit too.

 

Actually, it'd almost be great if they DID do this for desktop OS too.

 

Yes it would suck for users of that OS, BUT it would encourage new players in the OS market to step up.

 

Hell, I bet a linux version with a GUI and other ease of use functions replacing the command line prompts I recall from my last foray into it could be sold cheaply and do quite well if this were to occur.

[Ashal]

You chastise them in your thread title, then immediately turn around and say you support them on doing it?

[adrenaline]

I don't use IE because there are too much viruses created for IE.

IE users might have to install a heavy firewall and a antivirus software to avoid viruses infecting their computer,

and they may consume too much power, so I guess it's not good for tablet.

 

Poor tablet user:-/

[Guest Gandalf]

You chastise them in your thread title' date=' then immediately turn around and say you support them on doing it?

[/quote']

Well you're the Admin and he's willing to change his opinion for you.

Some are afraid of the higher ranks,indoctrination you know?

[Ark of Truth]

Still seems likely to cause lawsuits like in the past.

 

Now' date=' personally I think Microsoft SHOULD be allowed to do it, even on their desktop OS.

 

It's their software, they own it, they make it, if they want to restrict what can run on it, their call.

 

Of course I'd also fully support people finding ways to bypass it as well, since my view is its fine for people to mod their own shit too.

 

Actually, it'd almost be great if they DID do this for desktop OS too.

 

Yes it would suck for users of that OS, BUT it would encourage new players in the OS market to step up.

 

Hell, I bet a linux version with a GUI and other ease of use functions replacing the command line prompts I recall from my last foray into it could be sold cheaply and do quite well if this were to occur.

[/quote']

 

Nope South Korea will most likely tell them not to do it. Besides Microsort can't do this due to something to do with Monopoly years back. They tried creating software that would only work on Windows and they could fined and told to change it by some world authority.

[thesapien]

You chastise them in your thread title' date=' then immediately turn around and say you support them on doing it?

[/quote']

 

He's saying they should be allowed to fail. No contradiction. It's a sound position often voiced by those who lean toward liberty from government and more capitalism.

[thesapien]

Nope South Korea will most likely tell them not to do it. Besides Microsort can't do this due to something to do with Monopoly years back. They tried creating software that would only work on Windows and they could fined and told to change it by some world authority.

 

Seems to be ongoing issue. The last big coverage I remember was when the EU forced MS to not include all of their handy apps within their OS because it then discouraged user from buying third party apps to use in the OS. All the while, Apple was doing exactly that, including all the basics you might need in their OS. I also seem to remember a not as big issue, but more entertaining, was when MS really got serious with security built into their OS, but had to lighten up because security software companies took them to court over the loss of future customers. It would be funny if it weren't so... okay, it's still funny.

[thesapien]

You chastise them in your thread title' date=' then immediately turn around and say you support them on doing it?

[/quote']

 

He's saying they should be allowed to fail. No contradiction. It's a sound position often voiced by those who lean toward liberty from government and more capitalism.

 

I was thinking... I shouldn't have to explain that. Anyone reading KT's posts should be able grasp that on their own, unless they were personally biased against KT and looking for contradiction (thus finding one that is not there).

 

I see that KT was posting in another thread that was locked. However, KT was in good behavior in that thread, not saying anything worthy of a warning, and even did well by mostly ignoring any ugly accusations.

 

I also see that KT started a new thread related to the tangent in the locked thread and that this thread is now locked, as well, included with a ban threat to KT by you. What to make of this? Does this mean we're not allowed to talk about Obama? Or just those of us who posted in the first locked thread? Or just wait like a couple of weeks? Or we just can't if we happen to be named KT?

 

I'm just really confused as to why those, actually, quite tame threads were locked and equally so why KT is being singled out and attacked.

[MonkeyShoulder]

Only IE for W8?

 

I don't think so, the EU has already told Microsoft that this is against the law, if they try to do it again the EU will fine Microsoft enough to pay off the Greek debt.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

You chastise them in your thread title' date=' then immediately turn around and say you support them on doing it?

[/quote']

Well you're the Admin and he's willing to change his opinion for you.

Some are afraid of the higher ranks,indoctrination you know?

 

And some use Tor

 

You chastise them in your thread title' date=' then immediately turn around and say you support them on doing it?

[/quote']

 

 

 

Yes, I think they should be legally ALLOWED to do since they're simply making something. If they want to make it only work with their stuff they should be able to; in my view it's the same as a guy who fabricates custom bikes who wants to alter certain parts so only replacement parts he made will fit.

 

Not the perfect analogy, but yes, I think it should be fine legally, as they are not a monopoly in the type that existed to get the laws started in the first place, which was one company controlling most of the supply, manufacture, and distribution methods.

 

In this case the supply is the people coding the software, unless you control most of the people who can program you fail to control the supply.

The manufacture is putting it on CDs or other distribution method, and there was nothing to keep other companies from making CDs or other digital medium to distribute it.

The distribution method was stores as well as online, there was nothing to keep other companies from distributing their software to sell as anyone who wanted to could and did buy their software, the fact that companies stayed in , just not in the numbers they wanted.

 

Simply put, Microsoft didn't have control on ANY part of the industry to protect competition.

 

All they had was APIs, and getting exclusive contracts with OEMs.

So APIs, they make their parts work with their bike better than parts they didn't make.

And OEMs: They hired companies to ONLY make stuff for them, this was a bit closer, however they didn't have those contracts with a massive amount of those companies, there were others without such a contract.

 

So going with the bike analogy and microsoft it'd be like IE was the seat.

They designed the bike so other seats fit, but not as good as their seats, and they had contracts with a few manufactures to make bike seats ONLY for them.

Other bike seat shops can still go to manufactures, there are still more than enough of those left.

 

So yeah, the MS monopoly was basically a company who wade a peripheral item for their product, it just so happened that there were other companies whose ENTIRE business was making that item that was a peripheral for their product, and those companies sued because they think that guy with the bike shop should be required to let them sell a part of that guys product.

 

A bit simplistic of a description, but it does it's job.

 

Now, I say it should have been legal however I think it's really crappy ethics.

 

 

Seems to be ongoing issue. The last big coverage I remember was when the EU forced MS to not include all of their handy apps within their OS because it then discouraged user from buying third party apps to use in the OS. All the while' date=' Apple was doing exactly that, including all the basics you might need in their OS. I also seem to remember a not as big issue, but more entertaining, was when MS really got serious with security built into their OS, but had to lighten up because security software companies took them to court over the loss of future customers. It would be funny if it weren't so... okay, it's still funny.

[/quote']

 

 

 

Yeah, or to turn my bike analogy to a car analogy: What if a car company was told it couldn't include wheels because it may impact a tire companies buisness.

[Guest Gandalf]

And some use Tor

Yes we know you brag about how you can't be banned on the other sites.

[thesapien]

Tor is there for anyone who can reach its servers. So anyone can use it. Thus, anyone who knows about Tor can't be ip blocked.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Yeah Tor is why I'd laugh if the nexus banned me, I'd just make a new account over tor to DL mods.