How to Beat Microsoft

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | May 28, 2003 | Rachel Alexander

[narses]

Companies should look to AOL, the leader in Internet service, as a role model for taking on Microsoft. ... AOL stays at the top by providing fairly cheaply ...

Clueless. Totally clueless

[isthisnickcool]

If "techie" companies like Linux really want to bring down Microsoft's monopoly.....

Doesn't even understand the basics.

[Chad Fairbanks]

And some of us use both Linux AND Windows, and are quite happy thank you very much...

[Redcloak]

So what's the stock symbol for Linux anyway? I'm interested in investing in the company; but, I'll need to know a bit more about the management team. Anyone got a mailing address for Linux? A phone number?

Have I laid it on thick enough? Or should I grab a shovel?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Now, if we could just get the Linux Menstrual Calendar integrated with Microsoft Outlook's Appointments Scheduling System, I think scheduling meetings at work would be a lot more efficient and avoid a lot of unnecessary difficulties....

[ikka]

There's dumb, dumber, and Rachel Alexander when she writes about Linux.

Linux is completely cleaning MS' clock when it comes to server based applications. Only a durn fool would tie themselves to MS' .Net initiative.

[isthisnickcool]

So what's the stock symbol for Linux anyway? I'm interested in investing in the company; but, I'll need to know a bit more about the management team. Anyone got a mailing address for Linux? A phone number?

ETHER <---???

Hey, I swiped your "white" font color stuff. See below:

Formatting your hard drive. Please hold - Just kidding:)

[Jay D. Dyson]

Lawsuits by the government and competitors against Microsoft have failed to break down Microsoft’s monopoly within the software industry. This has just reinforced the free market argument that the real way to beat Microsoft is through competition.

What is this clueless, pollyannic tripe? Microsoft didn't get to the top of the heap by competition...it got to the top of the heap by short-selling, buying out and gutting the competition!

The author of that piece of rubbish really needs to do better research.

-Jay

[RLK]

I need a 32 bit DOS that uses memory linearly and will take windows programs. That way if something goes wrong I don't need to reinstall the world.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If "techie" companies like Linux really want to bring down Microsoft's monopoly...

Linux is not a company.

It is an operating system published under the GNU open source license.

Nobody owns Linux. Anybody can burn CDs of the latest release of their favorite Linux distribution and sell them.

But since you can download Linux for free you have to sell them pretty cheap.

[brianl703]

If you really want to nitpick, Linux is only the kernel (about a megabyte in size; the source code for it is around 20MB compressed these days)

[Richard Kimball]

Oh, good. I thought maybe I was mistaken in thinking that (1)AOL started way before MS in selling internet access, which was why it had a bigger share, and (2) that AOL lost so much money last year that I could have turned a better year by shutting down the company and paying all the subscribers a thousand dollars each to go away, making it a company that no SANE person would recommend as a business model.

[Redcloak]

Nah... That's Redhat. What about this Linux Co.?

Grabbing the snow shovel...

[zeugma]

The person who wrote this is a doofus. She hasn't a clue of the history of the software industry or microsoft in general. Several posters above noted her ignorance regarding 'Linux' being a company.

... sell easier to use products, at a cheaper price, using mass simple advertising, and address compatibility issues adequately. ...

1. Microsoft products aren't easy to use. Have you ever tried navigating the weird, confusing and changing menus of microsoft software when you are trying to accomplish anything beyond the most basic of things?

2. Cheaper price - waaaay back in the day, before they'd driven their competition into the ground by subsidizing their money-losing and clunky office software with the OS cash cow, microsoft was really price-competitive with their 'competitive upgrades and other such gimickry. Now that most of their effective competition has been either bought out or driven to the fringes they aren't so competitive any more price-wise. Why? Because when you a monopolist, you don't have to be.

3. Marketing - microsoft has the premire marketing agency on the planet. They could sell ice to eskimoes and make them think they got a bargain in the process. They have in the past - and continue in the present - to market VaporWare that was, as its primary purpose, nothing but FUD to keep corporations waiting until the next big product release, and at the same time, not commit to a competitors product because of the huge promises being made by microsoft personnel.

4. Compatability - microsoft products are seldom compatible with their own products! Everyone who tries to encourage others to leave the evil clutches of the beast is constantly barraged by cries of 'backwards compatibility!' and 'we must be able to access our old word docs and not lose any of the formatting information!', amongst other things. Those of you who have been around this industry long enough remember the massive compatibility problems that have endlessly plagued microsoft product upgrades. The new version of word wasn't able to deal well at all with files from the previous version and you had to go back and reformat the document after converting it to the new, improved version. Despite this, every other program out there is expected to completely and flawlessly convert a document format that has no publicly released specifications, or they get dinged on reviews as not being 'microsoft compatable'.

   I fully expect to see similar issues with the next format for documents to come out of microsoft. As usual, their marketing department is spreading its usual misinformation and lies. It is claimed by microsoft, that word docs will be an open XML format. Well, this would appear to be true until you actually look at things. Only the 'professional' (i.e. obscenely expensive) version of msOffice will produce this new 'open' format. Then, when you look yet closer at the situation, you discover that the xml format they are using is completely useless to anyone but microsoft from a compatability standpoint because they not releasing their schema! For those of you unfamiliar with XML stuff, if they don't release the schema for the format, it might as well be an encrypted document as far as formatting information is concerned. I've ranted enough on this, so I'll stop.

I just really do not understand why people are still willing to do business with the company after its proven and consistand disregard for its customers.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

This has just reinforced the free market argument that the real way to beat Microsoft is through competition.

If MS continues on with their Palladium and DRM schemes, they're going to beat themselves. They're in fantasyland if they believe people will be flocking to that idea. It's the best argument for Linux I can think of.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

And some of us use both Linux AND Windows, and are quite happy thank you very much...

Or did/were until a reinstall of Mandrake 9.1 smashed the master boot record. So much for dual booting ...

[Russian Sage]

Unfortunately, most of Microsoft’s most promising competitors have failed to do the four things necessary to beat Microsoft...

What most application competitors have failed to do is produce products that integrate to the Microsoft OS because Microsoft hides API features from competiters. 

It makes no sense whatsoever, from any perspective of OS product competition, for an OS to have hidden APIs - running applications is the primary purpose of an OS. Hidden APIs only make sense when the OS is a monopoly product (OK) and is being used to kill application competition (not OK).

Severing the application business from the OS business would have restored competition to both the application and OS markets in a way that would cost Microsoft nothing but its ability to stifle competition.

[exDemMom]

Microsoft can be beaten because it fails badly in one of these three categories, cheaper prices...

I purchased Office XP for $99. It seemed pretty cheap to me. Windows XP came on my computer. Also, apparently, cheap. Perhaps this lawyer defines "cheap" differently? You never can tell with lawyers...