Windows 7

[Florin]

You know, half of those features really *should* be part of the basic operating system. Defrag, backup, CD/DVD writing, and I'll add unpacking ZIP/RAR/TGZ/7z/yes_because_the_world_needs_another_bloody_archive_format files.

The implementations of some of those features in Windows is most definitely sub-par, but IMO they should all be available out-of-the-box, properly and seamlessly integrated into the OS and user interface. Third-party apps to do the much of the above seem to have got themselves into a spiral of adding more and more bling and bloat to compete with each other.

Well that is one of the few options they have.

Other stuff (eg. movie makers, instant messenger clients, etc.) I could agree with not being in the basic install. But fundamentally though that's just my personal preferences, I'm sure there's lots of people glad to get all this stuff for free with Windows.

They are not getting it for free.

You pay for their development one way or another.

Not if you don't need them in the first place, or prefer more fully featured alternatives.

It's the same drill every time, and my pick for the next target for extinction is virtualisation solutions. Windows 2008 Server now includes a hypervisor. Sure, the first implementation is not very good, as it only has limited guest OS support and it can't move running guests to another host server. But that's ok, with 40 billion in cash from OS and Office sales, you can afford a subpar solution. It will get better over time.

And before you know it people will claim that virtualisation should be a standard part of an operating system and that it is unfair to criticise Microsoft for it.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I have personally been looking for a solution similar to BitLocker but though I have not used it yet i have seen Ubuntu installed with disk encryption and there is virtually no performance hit. In fact it is blazing fast. My question to you is have you felt in general if there is a performance hit when enabling BitLocker? Linux filesystems are just so darn advanced especially ext4 and ReiserFS...I am curious to know. Thanks!

Maybe truecrypt is a option? As far as I know that also does not have any performance hit as soon as you did the initial encryption.

 

[Albuquerque]

Yeah the market for media players has been quite succesfully destroyed by a company exploiting their monopoly on operating systems. The same goes for many other programs.

I love how everything Microsoft does is because they're a monopoly. They wrote the first iteration of "Media Player" back for Windows 3.0 because they were a monopoly, right? They included a zip compressor because they were a monopoly, they included CD and DVD burning features because they were a monopoly, they even went so far as to put virtualization into their server operating system for the sole reason that they were a monopoly.

I'm actually glad that your life is so starkly black and white, it has to make all kinds of decision processes in your life far easier. Wish I had that kind of luck, but unfortunately, I still see in a wide color gammut, and so things aren't nearly so clearly defined for me.

It is my opinion that Microsoft wrote media player back in Windows 3.0 because it was around the same time as audio cards and CD players were starting to creep slowly into consumer-grade x86 PC's. It's my opinion that they included a ZIP function because more and more people were starting to get online and ZIP is the far-favored compressor on the x86 platform. CD and DVD burning are similar obvious movements as an answer to what's going on in the consumer market -- CD burning was prolific by the time XP hit; DVD burning became just as prolific when Vista was released.

Virtualization made no sense in 2000, and made very little additional sense in 2003. But it's now common, so I'm sure the basic featureset will piss you off because I could've gotten it for free elsewhere at the same time. So?

 

[Florin]

I love how everything Microsoft does is because they're a monopoly. They wrote the first iteration of "Media Player" back for Windows 3.0 because they were a monopoly, right? They included a zip compressor because they were a monopoly, they included CD and DVD burning features because they were a monopoly, they even went so far as to put virtualization into their server operating system for the sole reason that they were a monopoly.

The fact that they are a monopoly is not the reason, actually. The fact that they want to maintain that monopoly and extend it to other areas is. It would be much more accurate to say that they put these things in despite the fact that they were a monopoly.

I'm actually glad that your life is so starkly black and white, it has to make all kinds of decision processes in your life far easier. Wish I had that kind of luck, but unfortunately, I still see in a wide color gammut, and so things aren't nearly so clearly defined for me.

I'm glad that you're glad, even if your happiness is based on an incorrect assumption. Happiness is good

It is my opinion that Microsoft wrote media player back in Windows 3.0 because it was around the same time as audio cards and CD players were starting to creep slowly into consumer-grade x86 PC's. It's my opinion that they included a ZIP function because more and more people were starting to get online and ZIP is the far-favored compressor on the x86 platform. CD and DVD burning are similar obvious movements as an answer to what's going on in the consumer market -- CD burning was prolific by the time XP hit; DVD burning became just as prolific when Vista was released.

No doubt, they put this functionality in because it made sense to add value to Windows. It can certainly be helpful for some users, particularly home users.

Virtualization made no sense in 2000, and made very little additional sense in 2003. But it's now common, so I'm sure the basic featureset will piss you off because I could've gotten it for free elsewhere at the same time. So?

Well yeah, it's unfortunate that VMware as an innovative company is now under threat from Microsoft. There are other players on the virtualisation market, but of course those are not comparable to Microsoft because they are playing on an even field and not benefitting from an existing monopoly.

 

[pcchen]

The fact that they are a monopoly is not the reason, actually. The fact that they want to maintain that monopoly and extend it to other areas is. It would be much more accurate to say that they put these things in despite the fact that they were a monopoly.

Being a monopoly does not prevent someone from making new things, you know.

The case of Netscape is a very good example. Netscape failed because Netscape was a very bad product. It's inferior to IE in many ways at that time. Firefox is a very good counter example. When a product is good enough, people will use it despite Microsoft have a similar product in Windows.

Skype is another example: despite the fact that Microsoft messenger is in Windows, many people are still using Skype.

Well yeah, it's unfortunate that VMware as an innovative company is now under threat from Microsoft. There are other players on the virtualisation market, but of course those are not comparable to Microsoft because they are playing on an even field and not benefitting from an existing monopoly.

Is there anything wrong when someone is under threat from another one? There are many different companies making virtualization softwares. VMware was under threat from Virtual PC (which is made by Connectix before it's bought by Microsoft), for example.

"Abusing Monopoly" does not mean that a monopoly can't do anything if other's already doing it. It means that a monopoly can't deliberately impair its competitions. For example, if Microsoft makes Explorer to support some functions in its Media Player and no other software vendors can do the same, then it's abusing monopoly. It's not just that by bundling a media player automatically becomes abusing monopoly.

Actually I would say that Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to others is a kind of monopoly abuse. With iPod's (and iTMS's) market share, Apple is a monopoly in portable media player market. Yet, Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to other media player manufacturer didn't seem to ignite similar hatred toward Apple as the case of Microsoft.

 

[Albuquerque]

The fact that they are a monopoly is not the reason, actually. The fact that they want to maintain that monopoly and extend it to other areas is. It would be much more accurate to say that they put these things in despite the fact that they were a monopoly.

So what would you have them do? When sound cards on the x86 just started making their way into larger scale inclusion for big-name PC manufacturers, why shouldn't they put simple media services into their OS?

When CD burning made it's similar turn from obscurity to mass acceptance, why wouldn't they put simple burning services into the OS? DVD burning is the same way, and now so is the flavor of virtualization included in Server 2008.

The problem we have here is that you want them to stop providing things that could otherwise be purchased for a cost. I find this akin to asking Wal Mart to stop selling things for only a 1% profit margin... Yes, it might somehow drive the rest of the market place to be more competitive, but there will always be a viable market for people who want more than what Wal Mart is able to provide.

The day that Microsoft's media player has the full featureset of iTunes, or Microsoft's CD/DVD burning capabilities extend to the full featureset of Roxio's Easy CD Creator, or that their free virtualization client meets or exceeds the featureset available in VMWare GSX will be a more worrisome day.

But we're ridiculously far from that day, in every aspect mentioned. So when you're bitching about how much Walmart and Microsoft are providing for reduced cost, remember that it's still incredibly far away from driving Target and VMWare out of business.

 

[Florin]

Being a monopoly does not prevent someone from making new things, you know.

The case of Netscape is a very good example. Netscape failed because Netscape was a very bad product. It's inferior to IE in many ways at that time.

Well that's actually a double edged example that you bring up. I mean IE was not a very good browser at all before version 3 or arguably even version 5. But Netscape as a company did not have a highly profitable OS business on the side to subsidise their browser development, and given the amount of resources that Microsoft brought down on them, their exit from the competition is in hindsight practically inevitable.

Firefox is a very good counter example. When a product is good enough, people will use it despite Microsoft have a similar product in Windows.

Yeah but after the perceived cost of such a product has been reduced to zero as it has been usurped into the Windows fold.

Skype is another example: despite the fact that Microsoft messenger is in Windows, many people are still using Skype.

Another example where they have to give away the product, though.

Is there anything wrong when someone is under threat from another one? There are many different companies making virtualization softwares. VMware was under threat from Virtual PC (which is made by Connectix before it's bought by Microsoft), for example.

Well Virtual PC was and is an inferior product to VMware Workstation, but it was bought and then given away for free. A clear example of the destruction of value which is made possible by having subsidies across separate product groups.

Actually I would say that Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to others is a kind of monopoly abuse. With iPod's (and iTMS's) market share, Apple is a monopoly in portable media player market. Yet, Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to other media player manufacturer didn't seem to ignite similar hatred toward Apple as the case of Microsoft.

I would say they're pretty damn far from a monopoly yet both on online music sales and players, but yes this is a situation that should be closely monitored by the antitrust authorities.

 

[Florin]

The problem we have here is that you want them to stop providing things that could otherwise be purchased for a cost.

The problem as I see it is that the cost of these items is being hidden in the purchase price of Windows, which is not getting cheaper and is now a larger percentage of total system cost than back in the DOS days.

What's wrong with having a much less expensive Windows with fewer gimmicks included rather than silly artificial limitations like only supporting a gig of memory? Most businesses just run one or 2 applications on most desktops and they don't need most of the added luggage at all.

 

[pcchen]

Well that's actually a double edged example that you bring up. I mean IE was not a very good browser at all before version 3 or arguably even version 5. But Netscape as a company did not have a highly profitable OS business on the side to subsidise their browser development, and given the amount of resources that Microsoft brought down on them, their exit from the competition is in hindsight practically inevitable.

Actually, Netscape tried to sell their product for profit, but it didn't work at all. People did not expect to pay for a web browser, even before IE appeared on radar. Many web browsers before Netscape were provided for free. So IE is not the reason why web browsers were perceived to be free.

Another example where they have to give away the product, though.

Again, Windows messenger is not the first freely available online chat program. There were already many online chat programs provided for free before Windows messenger.

Well Virtual PC was and is an inferior product to VMware Workstation, but it was bought and then given away for free. A clear example of the destruction of value which is made possible by having subsidies across separate product groups.

I don't get your logic. Virtual PC was a inferior product to VMware workstation, so even after it's bought and provided for free, VMware workstation is still alive and kicking. Now Virtual PC has progressed a lot, so if VMware is "threatened" then it's not just because Virtual PC is free, it's also because the gap between their functions are closing fast. So it's hardly that just because Microsoft have a monopoly. For example, if another big company, say IBM, decided to buy Virtual PC and provided it for free, and augment its functions, VMware will still be threatened.

I would say they're pretty damn far from a monopoly yet both on online music sales and players, but yes this is a situation that should be closely monitored by the antitrust authorities.

iPod's market share in mobile media player is more than 70% IIRC, that's more than enough for a monopoly. I don't know about iTMS, but from the disclosed sales number, I'd say it's probably many times better than any other on-line music stores.

 

[Florin]

Actually, Netscape tried to sell their product for profit, but it didn't work at all.

Well yeah they had to didn't they? I mean they didn't have a lot of other profitable business to pay for development?

People did not expect to pay for a web browser, even before IE appeared on radar. Many web browsers before Netscape were provided for free. So IE is not the reason why web browsers were perceived to be free.

What? No. Mosaic was the only web browser before Netscape, and that became Netscape.

Again, Windows messenger is not the first freely available online chat program. There were already many online chat programs provided for free before Windows messenger.

Indeed, and curiously enough none of them managed to grow to Live messenger's market share

I don't get your logic. Virtual PC was a inferior product to VMware workstation, so even after it's bought and provided for free, VMware workstation is still alive and kicking.

Well, sort of. For the time being at least.

Now Virtual PC has progressed a lot, so if VMware is "threatened" then it's not just because Virtual PC is free, it's also because the gap between their functions are closing fast.

I'm not so sure if is has actually progressed all that much, but yeah sure with a corporate sugar daddy like Microsoft, finding some money to pay developers to add functionality to the 'free' product is quite possible.

So it's hardly that just because Microsoft have a monopoly. For example, if another big company, say IBM, decided to buy Virtual PC and provided it for free, and augment its functions, VMware will still be threatened.

Yes. But it wasn't IBM, was it? And considering that IBM is also a convicted monopolist, though not currently under active investigation, they should be careful with that. Now if you had said Sun, who did the same with the excellent Virtual Box, it would've been a better example but Sun is a niche player and not a monopolist, so the same rules do not apply.

iPod's market share in mobile media player is more than 70% IIRC, that's more than enough for a monopoly. I don't know about iTMS, but from the disclosed sales number, I'd say it's probably many times better than any other on-line music stores.

70% is a lot less than Windows desktop market share, and the music store has some very credible competition like Amazon for instance.

 

[Albuquerque]

The problem as I see it is that the cost of these items is being hidden in the purchase price of Windows, which is not getting cheaper and is now a larger percentage of total system cost than back in the DOS days.

I don't think that's a fair assessment either. The cost of a machine back in "Dos Days" was many thousands of dollars; it was not even technically feasible to have a $499 workstation with monitor at the time. Further, even if we had a ridiculously stripped-down version of Windows to the point of just driver interface and a text-driven shell, you're still talking about several orders of magnitude more complexity than DOS. So if it took 5,000 man-hours to write DOS 5.0 and they priced it at $50, I think it's generally fair to soak up 50,000 man-hours to write a modern OS kernel and charge $99 for it.

So comparing a 1990's system comprised of $4000 hardware and $60 OS license to a 2008 system comprised of $499 hardware and $100 OS license cost is a relatively ridiculous viewpoint. You can't "shrink" man hours, if anything they can only go UP in terms of cost per-person and in terms of total work effort needed.

What's wrong with having a much less expensive Windows with fewer gimmicks included rather than silly artificial limitations like only supporting a gig of memory? Most businesses just run one or 2 applications on most desktops and they don't need most of the added luggage at all.

Where is there an OS since Windows Me that supported 1Gb of memory or less? You'll have to point me in that direction. I think your argument is pretty silly -- for the cost of the OS, you're getting a whole lot more for your money today than you ever did from any of the flavors of MSDOS.

 

[Florin]

So comparing a 1990's system comprised of $4000 hardware and $60 OS license to a 2008 system comprised of $499 hardware and $100 OS license cost is a relatively ridiculous viewpoint. You can't "shrink" man hours, if anything they can only go UP in terms of cost per-person and in terms of total work effort needed.

So basically all technology has gotten a lot cheaper over the years, but Microsoft's bottom line is the only constant. They can now buy their development workstations for less, they can leverage all the programming work that has already been done for previous releases, and paid for, and they sell many more OS licenses than ever before, but somehow economies of scale don't kick in. That's strange.

Where is there an OS since Windows Me that supported 1Gb of memory or less? You'll have to point me in that direction. I think your argument is pretty silly -- for the cost of the OS, you're getting a whole lot more for your money today than you ever did from any of the flavors of MSDOS.

Well, Vista Starter Edition for instance.

And as I've been arguing, that more that we're given is not always what we want or need.

 

[pcchen]

Well yeah they had to didn't they? I mean they didn't have a lot of other profitable business to pay for development?

Actually they have many ways to find profit. They tried to sell a web server, unfortunately people find IIS and Apache better. Furthermore, they would have a better case if Netscape was a great browser. Unfortunately, it wasn't. You really can't expect to make much money from a mediocre product.

What? No. Mosaic was the only web browser before Netscape, and that became Netscape.

Mosaic was free. I used it. Lynx was free. Netscape was free at first. Netscape was probably the first one who tried to sell a browser, and failed.

Indeed, and curiously enough none of them managed to grow to Live messenger's market share

Are you sure? I don't have more recent number, but two and half years ago AOL messenger was the most popular IM client in the US, which had roughly twice users than MSN. MSN was bundled in Windows XP since 2001. That means even after 5 years of "bundling" MSN still didn't reach AOL messenger.

I'm not so sure if is has actually progressed all that much, but yeah sure with a corporate sugar daddy like Microsoft, finding some money to pay developers to add functionality to the 'free' product is quite possible.

Of course, but this has nothing to do with monopoly. It just about money. Anyone with a lot of money and want to invest in virtualization can do this.

Yes. But it wasn't IBM, was it? And considering that IBM is also a convicted monopolist, though not currently under active investigation, they should be careful with that. Now if you had said Sun, who did the same with the excellent Virtual Box, it would've been a better example but Sun is a niche player and not a monopolist, so the same rules do not apply.

IBM is just an example for some one who is very rich. Any rich company applies in this example.

70% is a lot less than Windows desktop market share, and the music store has some very credible competition like Amazon for instance.

40% is enough for EU to think one is monopoly. Furthermore, in the days DRM-ed musics were the mainstream, if you have an iPod, you can't buy music from Amazon or other music stores because they use WMA (which iPod does not support). On the other hand, since Apple refused to license FairPlay to anyone, you can't buy a portable media player from other vendors if you already have a large collection of music bought from iTMS.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well, Vista Starter Edition for instance.

And as I've been arguing, that more that we're given is not always what we want or need.

Which is only available in a selected few countries that generally dont have money for high spec systems anyway. So that doesnt really count. They probably put in the limit so nobody would be thinking of trying to sell it in the west at dirt cheap prices.

Anyway, I dont think MS needs to drop alot of their software. Afterall the general person buys a OS and expects to be able to do just about anything you can expect from a modern pc. I'd much rather see the option during install to chose exactly what you want to install or not. This way the average joe will still have a fully functional system out of the box and system admins/more advanced users can install what they want and install other software instead of the ms software.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Starter should be called "Windows Ridiculous Edition", I mean, even with crap specs you shouldn't be that crippled. Atom w/ 1GB is enough to run a browser, text editor, IM, music player and other kind of software all at the same time.

 

[Florin]

Actually they have many ways to find profit. They tried to sell a web server, unfortunately people find IIS and Apache better.

Yeah, and IIS was 'free' after all.

So did Netscape have a monopoly on web servers? Or on any profitable product line? No sir, and they got outdeveloped by someone who did.

Furthermore, they would have a better case if Netscape was a great browser. Unfortunately, it wasn't. You really can't expect to make much money from a mediocre product.

They had to try something to stay afloat, didn't they. Of course they never stood a chance.

Mosaic was free. I used it. Lynx was free. Netscape was free at first. Netscape was probably the first one who tried to sell a browser, and failed.

Inevitably so.

Are you sure? I don't have more recent number, but two and half years ago AOL messenger was the most popular IM client in the US, which had roughly twice users than MSN. MSN was bundled in Windows XP since 2001. That means even after 5 years of "bundling" MSN still didn't reach AOL messenger.

MSN has won. AOL messenger managed to ride AOL as an Internet provider for a long time, but as a standalone product it never had a presence anywhere outside of the USA to begin with.

Of course, but this has nothing to do with monopoly. It just about money. Anyone with a lot of money and want to invest in virtualization can do this.

Yep. Only in the case of convicted monopolists, antitrust guardians are going to come knocking on your door. Thankfully.

40% is enough for EU to think one is monopoly.

Do you have any further information to back up that claim, because it sounds dubious to me.

Furthermore, in the days DRM-ed musics were the mainstream, if you have an iPod, you can't buy music from Amazon or other music stores because they use WMA (which iPod does not support). On the other hand, since Apple refused to license FairPlay to anyone, you can't buy a portable media player from other vendors if you already have a large collection of music bought from iTMS.

Well you don't need to convince me, I'd happily see Apple taken to task for the whole FairPlay situation. But I don't think you should have your hopes up for antitrust action there any time soon, to be honest.

 

[Florin]

Which is only available in a selected few countries that generally dont have money for high spec systems anyway. So that doesnt really count.

Those systems are equally ill suited to running the likes of moviemaker and virtual PC, though. I'd rather have more memory but to each his own.

They probably put in the limit so nobody would be thinking of trying to sell it in the west at dirt cheap prices.

As long as we're offering guesses, I think a more likely reason for the limit is that it doesn't eat into sales of other Vista editions.

Anyway, I dont think MS needs to drop alot of their software. Afterall the general person buys a OS and expects to be able to do just about anything you can expect from a modern pc. I'd much rather see the option during install to chose exactly what you want to install or not. This way the average joe will still have a fully functional system out of the box and system admins/more advanced users can install what they want and install other software instead of the ms software.

And still pay for the software they don't need/want?

 

[Richard]

Wild guess: perhaps it's about the price? If you sell the same thing under different pricetags people who paid more will get upset. You will be forced to lower the price for them as well.

Well, the starter is OEM only, so what would happen is a customer goes into a store and sees a netbook with Home costing 500 euros and a notebook with Home costing 1000 euros. So he'd be getting extra value from the hardware, not the OS version.

I see no reason in changing Vista's 1GB cap. Supposedly Win7 works much better than Vista on low-to-mid specs, so why would you increase the cap?

We have a miscommunication here. I'm not advocating changing the caps. I'm saying the hw caps should drive the OS limits, not a specific sw-capped verison. Even if users add more ram later on, the upgrade wouldn't radically change the experience where you could say "see, starter edition would be much more effective at limiting the experience" or even "people are buying a 1gb netbook and then upgrading to 2gb just so they get a cheaper Home version instead of buying a proper notebook with a 'full-priced' Home version".

 

[pcchen]

So did Netscape have a monopoly on web servers? Or on any profitable product line? No sir, and they got outdeveloped by someone who did.

They got outdeveloped by someone who did not have a monopoly, called Apache.

They had to try something to stay afloat, didn't they. Of course they never stood a chance.

They never stood a chance because their products are inferior. Not every browser companies failed, you know. Opera is a fine example.

MSN has won. AOL messenger managed to ride AOL as an Internet provider for a long time, but as a standalone product it never had a presence anywhere outside of the USA to begin with.

Actually no. I just found another data which is from last year. In the US, AOL is still the most popular IM client. Yahoo is second.

In many countries MSN leads by a large margin, but there are some countries other IM clients are much more popular. For example, in China QQ is the most popular IM client. In Germany and Russia ICQ is the most popular one. In India and Indonesia Yahoo messenger is the leader.

These examples tell us that you don't automatically win just by bundling something into Windows.

Yep. Only in the case of convicted monopolists, antitrust guardians are going to come knocking on your door. Thankfully.

This does not make sense at all. These guardians don't care how rich you are. They care about whether you use your monopoly advantage to impair your competitors. This does not include "investing more money to create a better product."

Do you have any further information to back up that claim, because it sounds dubious to me.

In a 1998 case (Case IV/D-2/34.780) British Airways has 39.7% market share while the second largest one (Virgin) has only 5.5%, and they consider it's "dominant" and liable to anti-monopoly law.

Well you don't need to convince me, I'd happily see Apple taken to task for the whole FairPlay situation. But I don't think you should have your hopes up for antitrust action there any time soon, to be honest.

My point is Microsoft, in some sense, does not deserve the sheer amount of hate toward it. Some other companies are much eviler than Microsoft (Intel, for example, is worst than Microsoft in many cases) but they don't attract so much hate.

Of course, I'm not saying Microsoft should be let loose. It's still better to watch these large corporations closely. But people should still have a resonable standard, and it should be fair to everyone.

 

[Florin]

They got outdeveloped by someone who did not have a monopoly, called Apache.

Yep, open source is probably the only hope of breaking the Microsoft vicious circle. But still quite far removed from making serious inroads into the bastions of the desktop + office suite.

They never stood a chance because their products are inferior. Not every browser companies failed, you know. Opera is a fine example.

Yes, that's a great example. They're the ones currently asking the EU for the investigation into Microsoft's antitrust practices when it comes to browsers.

Actually no. I just found another data which is from last year. In the US, AOL is still the most popular IM client. Yahoo is second.

In many countries MSN leads by a large margin, but there are some countries other IM clients are much more popular. For example, in China QQ is the most popular IM client. In Germany and Russia ICQ is the most popular one. In India and Indonesia Yahoo messenger is the leader.

These examples tell us that you don't automatically win just by bundling something into Windows.

That's true, but you're in a very comfortable position to keep trying. Because after all your product doesn't need to be better than anyone else's, it doesn't need to make a profit, and you get a paycheck straight out of Windows revenue. It's a sweet deal.

This does not make sense at all. These guardians don't care how rich you are. They care about whether you use your monopoly advantage to impair your competitors. This does not include "investing more money to create a better product."

What you're describing is actually just one way of using one's monopoly advantage to impair competitors, so sorry to say, yes it does.

In a 1998 case (Case IV/D-2/34.780) British Airways has 39.7% market share while the second largest one (Virgin) has only 5.5%, and they consider it's "dominant" and liable to anti-monopoly law.

Well that 40% seems to mainly be talking specifically about slots for flights in and out of Heathrow, and BA as the largest domestic airline operation in the UK surely pulls a lot more weight than that, but alright alright. Sounds great to me. Go for Apple's throat

My point is Microsoft, in some sense, does not deserve the sheer amount of hate toward it. Some other companies are much eviler than Microsoft (Intel, for example, is worst than Microsoft in many cases) but they don't attract so much hate.

Apple is also worse in many respects, but let's face it. If you're working in technology, you can pretty much avoid dealing with Intel, IBM, Apple, Dell, HP or anyone else without too much effort. But aside from a few niche positions, sooner or later you're going to be up to your elbows in Microsoft

Of course, I'm not saying Microsoft should be let loose. It's still better to watch these large corporations closely. But people should still have a resonable standard, and it should be fair to everyone.

Well, hate or not, opposition or not, Microsoft seems to be doing really well! I mean c'mon, they've recently had their first round of layoffs ever.