Antitrust concerns over Vista now?

User Comments: 15

1. February 9, 2006 6:25 PM
   gamingmage said:
   This is a lose:lose situation. If the objections stick then Vista is delayed EVEN MORE! If they don't Microsoft might just limit our use of third party programs which is bad. I think that the objections should stick, if we've waited this long how bad is another year?
   Reply
2. February 9, 2006 6:36 PM
   djleyo said:
   please microsoft delay Vista and this time get it right not like xp its not like you have lindows catching up so make a solid product that we can depend on and not all paraniod to get the lates updates to save our files
   Reply
3. February 9, 2006 7:05 PM
   JMMD said:
   Come on Microsoft. Just give people the ability to uninstall IE and MP or at the very least the ability to disable them AND make the third party programs "default" applications. Everyone will be happy.What percentage of people are actually going to take advantage and uninstall or disable the apps. The average user is going to use IE and MP.
   Reply
4. February 9, 2006 8:05 PM
   Need_a_Dell said:
   As long as they're getting more time to work on Vista, the better. I have an "antitrust" for programs, especially OSes, that have been rushed out the door.
   Reply
5. February 9, 2006 8:36 PM
   MonkeyMan said:
   Well they just had to come out with something to try to ruin Microsoft before Vista is released don't they? You know, I can see why they are so concerned about this, because Microsoft could get rid of all the competition. Microsoft is the largets company in world history, no company in the world has ever reached their level of success. But when your on top, someone is always out to get you, and this is just an example.
   Reply
6. February 10, 2006 6:09 AM
   Kaleid said:
   Bah, Halo 2 only for Vista:[url]http://www.bungie.net/News/TopStory.aspx?story=ha
   o2vistaannounce&p=6136047[/url]DRM-DRM-DRM
   Reply
7. February 10, 2006 6:15 AM
   cyrax said:
   Right, the fact they pigeon holing people into buying vista is even more shameful than anything they have done before. Actually the only reason i would care for vista is halo2.
   Reply
8. February 10, 2006 7:18 AM
   Masque said:
   I personally think the "lawmakers" are confusing antitrust with competition. They're using any means they can to get at the "big guy". Don't get me wrong, I know M$ has done some stupid things in the past, but at what point do you tell a company what they can or cannot put into their product. If you don't like it, then dammit, don't buy it.[Edited by Masque on 2006-02-10 08:43:02]
   Reply
9. February 10, 2006 8:14 AM
   otmakus said:
   Don't forget that they delay Win XP SP3 until more than half a year after Vista...
   Reply
10. February 10, 2006 2:16 PM
    Cartz said:
    [b]Originally posted by Masque:[/b][quote]I personally think the "lawmakers" are confusing antitrust with competition. They're using any means they can to get at the "big guy". Don't get me wrong, I know M$ has done some stupid things in the past, but at what point do you tell a company what they can or cannot put into their product. If you don't like it, then dammit, don't buy it.[Edited by Masque on 2006-02-10 08:43:02][/quote]Seriously, a decade ago, when there were no real alternatives, maybe this would have merit... But now there is a very attractive and reasonable alternative OS that lets you be equally as productive.I dislike how viciously the lawmakers are going after a corporation that has positioned itself to deliver the best product package available, simply because other firms have some supposed 'right to compete' within that package... If MS was actively preventing other companies from providing software for the OS, thats one thing, but thats not what they're doing. It really is nothing but a discouragement to the developers.Seriously, if you can't make money developing for Vista because MS has included FOR FREE a product better then the one you're going to provide at A COST, develop for Linux, or develop your own OS. Other companies don't have a god given right to develop for Vista, it's not in the freaking constitution! It's like the government intervening on behalf of Pioneer Stereo with an antitrust suit against Acura because Acura includes a good stock stereo in its vehicles, it doesn't make any sense.
    Reply
11. February 10, 2006 4:20 PM
    Nic said:
    I feel that the lawmakers go too far and may seriously affect the capabilities of Vista. How can you guarantee a baseline spec for an OS if the user has a choice on which media player or browser to install? It makes things much more difficult for content providers and software developers if they have to support every conceivable 3rd party option that might be installed.If content providers know that all windows PCs will have Windows Media Player installed, then testing for compatability becomes simple. What about all the 3rd party software that comes supplied with Quicktime and will not work without it? Shouldn't these software companies be forced to write software that will work on any media player, rather than the one they supply?
    Reply
12. February 11, 2006 1:34 AM
    nathanskywalker said:
    [quote]Whenever a new version of Windows approaches, there are intense negotiations among Microsoft, PC makers and other companies vying for a presence that will eventually face hundreds of millions of computer users.[/quote] You don't say? Some interesting comments have been left on this topic, i see we all have our opinions. And mabye there is an inbetween. What i mean is, the delay is really just an incoveince, right? No one really needs it yet. And this will give them more time to work on it. While i am sure we are all itching for Vista to come out, it is not like we can't wait a few more months.
    Reply
13. February 11, 2006 3:20 AM
    CrossFire851 said:
    Well I hope everyone has a decent due-core and a 7.2K+ rpm hhd, and 2 gb of ram, oh one more thing a pci-e w/128mb for hd-content.But from x64 beta 2 it's smoking fast 400%-900% faster than any version of xp.:-D
    Reply
14. February 12, 2006 1:48 PM
    crossfire851 said:
    This Bull snap, I mean that make good sense to what others were saying about vista. Good points!!!
    Reply
15. February 13, 2006 11:28 AM
    Skip said:
    MS is in a different position than other software publishers because of their size. That size gives them a huge advantage if they want to enter a market and stifle competition. That is why the anti-trust rules apply to them. They did it with IE and they are doing it with WMP. All the government was asking for - and what the EU is telling MS it wants - is a way to turn off parts of the OS that have nothing to do with the OS. Part of the reason XP is so big (and Vista will be even larger) is that MS applies a one-size-fits-all methodology to its OS install. Instead of, say, just installing a kernel OS and allowing extensive customization of which utilities or apps to install.Why is this bad? After all if all MS sold you was a basic OS and you had to go out and buy third party utilities for everything, you would probably spend more than the cost of XP. So where is the harm? The harm is that MS can use its size to remove competitors from the paying field and not allow the consumer a choice. A truly customizable OS would allow you to remove anything you don't want or don't need, making the OS you run as lean as possible. But there is no reason for MS to make such software without government intervention because there is no competition for its OS. Linux is only an option for gearheads and Apple is dependent on proprietary hardware (the Intel switch notwithstanding, Apple doesn't intend you to buy an Apple OS and install it on your Dell).This is why MS faces anti-trust issues. It is a major player in the software industry with a monopoly on open-hardware Intel OSs, so any anti-competitive tactics are subject to government oversight. Those are the rules every company plays by in the US. The rules are slightly different, but the intent is similar elsewhere.
    Reply

Recently commented stories