I can hear lawyers cashing cheques

If this is an April's fool joke I think they left this a bit late.
http://www.psystar.com/index.php?&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=1&category_id=3&manufacturer_id=4&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=72

It's pretty clear, Apple have no legal claim, Apple will loose !

Apples EULA states that Max OS X/Server can only be used on Apple Hardware.

I know but they have no laws backing up that clause,
hence they can't stop others from installing their
OS on non-Apple equipment ! See ?

I could make a clause for a program I made, like saying
it can only be played after dark, I still can't legally
persue anyone playing it in broad day light since no laws
allows me to enforce such a claim !

Are you a lawyer?

This could be interesting. I can't decide if they have a case or not.

Wait, they clearly DO have case, it just won't be getting sold because there's that cheap one right there!

I will be watching this! I recon they might have a case.

You know what makes me laugh about this? If Microsoft had the same clause that Apple have in their EULA, forcing people to buy Microsoft hardware in order to use Windows legally, the EU would be fining them billions of dollars and forcing them to break the company up or be put out of business. Again.

Pretty much, this is caused by microsoft. How else are Apple going to get a bigger market chunk?

Apple have one BIG weapon- Snaz! They're snazzy. A user will quite happily buy a Mac to use MacOS. But if they let any old computer run MacOS they'd lose out on cash.

So, where MS have eaten up most of the market, with IBM compatible PC's, Apple have started to try to get themselves better known in the only way they can- Aggression.

Gabriel is on to something.

Like Microsoft can't force all people to buy, let's say Dell,
equipment (if MS wanted to) to use their stuff, the same
way Apple cannot demand people to use Apple equipment
(if there are alternatives).

It's the same way with console-game emulators, they can't
stop you using the emulator if you already have paid for
the right to use their software. In this case an ORIGINAL
Apple version of Leopard comes with the machine and all
is ok :o)

I'm not a lawyer Cygnus, but I can still think :P

If Microsoft weren't a monopoly, and hadn't been caught abusing that monopoly, maybe they'd be treated like Apple.

Not like you should invoke Microsoft in a discussion about EULAs anyway, they're not exactly known for their permissive EULAs.

That aside I wouldn't mind if this went to court so we could actually find out whether EULAs like this are enforceable. I doubt it'd get there though.

I just gotta wonder if psystar has the money to even THINK about taking this to court if a cease and desist order is declared. If not then it's a moot point because they'll be out of business before the fight even begins.

I don't see how this could ever be considered illegal.

Craig,

Would you mind stating what Microsoft has a monopoly on.

Thanks,

Darkheart

Is this computer really $400? That is ridiculously cheap.

Shizers!

Im getting one of these before apple squashes 'em :D
Although i think the only thing apple can do is persue the fact that they are installing leopard. They wouldnt be able to do anything if they supplied the hardware in one hand and a boxed copy of leopard in the other as they have no hope of getting anyone for installing it themselves.

Thats the best one ive heared all week! :D

That's not the way it works.

Yes they do! In Denmark it's called "Aftaleloven" and similar laws exist in Sweden and Norway, and most likely similar laws in other countries. It expressly states that you can enter any agreement, no matter how ridiculous, providing it does not violate preceptive laws. Since there is no preceptive laws stating that an OS must be able to run on anything that can charitably be called a computer, Apple is in their full rights to restrict what hardware their OS can run on. Whether it's a good idea or not, is another issue entirely, but stupidity itself is not cause to invalidate the agreement.

Uh, hello? Operating Systems?

*edit* changed my mind.

Flameduck,
Surely there are other OS's available if you want to buy them, one of them is the main subject of this thread and another, I believe you may already heard of it called, "Linux" and that's before we get to "obscure" OS's like Solaris. Microsoft might hold a dominante position but it is not a monopoly.

The only law that will matter at all in this case will be US law as both companies are operating in the US.

Darkheart

Unlike lawyers we think outside the bank :)

I can's speak for USA but in Norway the "Avtaleloven" have exceptions for ridicolous claims, it is the "Forbrukerombud" (Consumer Ombudsman) who can set an EULA aside in such a case (which I'd say this is).
Taking the case to court is not necessary.

Actually it was the norwegian Consumer Ombudsman who started the raid against Apple regarding the possibility to play iTunes music on other hardware than Apples.
And he won, you can now play iTunes on anything, I SERIOUSLY doubt the norwegian Consumer Ombudsman (Erik Thon) will completely make a U-turn and support Apple in this case (which pretty much is exactly the same deal).

I'd say it's just a matter of (short) time before EU rules against Apple in this matter.
(As they have taught Microsoft who is in charge before!)

In the USA, EULAs are not legally binding. Even Adobe lost years ago in the Supreme Court.

In the USA, IBM has been doing this for decades (limiting the OS to a single machine - and to a single owner). So here it most likely will pass muster.

I love it. Hope Psystar win!

Just so you know, you don't have to buy from Psystar to get a clone mac. Google hackintosh or osx86project and you will see that people have been building their own macs for a while now.

Here is one a recent user put together:

$100 Gigabyte P35-DS4 motherboard (open box) with 8 USB 2.0 and 2 Firewire ports
$60 aluminum case with 11 drive bays
$70 80-Plus rated 500w power supply
$65 4GB of DDR2 800 RAM
$40 GeForce 7600GT PCIe video card with both DVI and VGA outputs
$30 CPU cooler
$200 Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz CPU
$89 Leopard from Amazon
$25 Philips SATA 20x DVD burner
$115 Samsung 750GB 7200rpm 32MB cache hard drive

There is a differece between making it yoursef
and selling a complete solution, but in this
case it's pretty much the same thing...

They can hold the dominant position in the operating system market. Nothing wrong with that.
The OPERATING SYSTEM which by definition is simply a platform with which programs talk to the bios and the hardware with basic tools for administration and configuration.

It does NOT by definition include media players, browsers, speech recog, cd burners, A/V codecs, video editors, email clients, zip programs, paint programs or any other APPLICATIONS which because bundled satisfies most peoples need and so blocks competition. Ironically, this doesnt seem to apply to apple as they are not the dominant ones, but it should IMO.
This practise has put numerous companies (who actually did "their thing" better) out of business. If they bundled other companies software or supplied their own a downloadable optional extra then that would be a little more acceptable, but to bundle their own is plain market abuse and plain antitrust. Im not even going to go in to their horrible abuse of the patent system.

Imagine a company being virtually the only ones selling houses but they bundle it with furniture, a car with a tv, a fridge, a microwave, a set of tools, a bicycle, a caravan, a set of spare tires and a new wardrobe full of clothes, all made by same people. Would that be fair??

And no its not just US law that applies. They are an international entity and have to abide by any countries laws in which they operate or suffer consequences.

So you agree Microsoft don't run a monopoly on operating systems, or in fact, anything else?

I've never really seen the point of the "They souldn't be able to give stuff away free with their OS" arguemnt. Does paint stop people using more advanced packages? Does giving away IE stop people using Firefox? I don't see why this blocks competition, surely if someone has a good product, people will pay for it. Paint doesn't seem to have harmed Adobe's sales of Photoshop.

To be honest I think most people EXPECT a browser, text editor and other basic applications with an OS in order for it be useful and this was just a natural evolution of the OS. I thinki most people would object to having to buy every small application as an add-on and would rather get it for free with the OS, they can always change if they want to. For example I don't use Windows Media PLayer because I prefer Winamp.

I don't understand why so many people just want to bash Microsoft at every opportunity for no reason or evidence. Just saying "Microsoft, Bad!" is overly simplistic and stupid. People accept fallacies like "Microsoft has a monopoly on Operating Systems", when it's obviously not true.

Microsoft makes many, many changes to the business which (depending on your point of view on each facet) can be viewed through a kalediscope of different viewpoints depending on how you feel about each subject. What your expressing is merely prejudce, which is always bad.

Darkheart

Correct term:
Microsoft WANT a monopoly. They're close, but they'll never get there.

People are saying its a monopoly because of how they're attacking the market!

> I've never really seen the point of the "They souldn't be able to give stuff away free with their OS" arguemnt.

In the US, it is technically illegal to offer something at a price where you are losing money just to put a competitor out of business. The actions of MS could be (and legally were, at least by one judge) considered using their OS profits to undercut a competitor in the browser market.

No there aren't. A monopoly is defined as:
In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure monopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Thus as MacOSX is apparently only allowed to run on Apple computers, and Linux isn't a commercial product, Microsoft does have a monopoly on Operating Systems.

That's nice. "Obscure" OSe's don't count as they pose no competitive threat to Microsoft Windows.

Yes they do, and yes they are.

That's not the arguement. The arguement is "They should not be allowed to use they position in the OS market, to drive out competition in other markets".

Yes it does. More importantly it was good enough to stop people from buying Netscape and Opera.

Your analogy is absurd. Paint is in no way the substitute for Photoshop as IE was for Netscape.

I agree. So bundle free software contributed by 3rd parties. They way you won't be breaking the law.

Well I use SongBird. In fact of all the shovelware that comes with Windows I only use calc. Personaly I'd rather not have to subsidize that cost of crap like WMP, IE, OutlookExpress and all the other junk that ships with Windows. Oh you thought they where giving it away for free? How cute.

Really? How many non-Micorosft Opertaing Systems do you see/use on the average day? More than 2? 3? How many non-ford cars do you see/use every day?

Being a monopoly is not about being the only player on the market. It's about "Nobody ever being fired for buying a Microsoft product". It is the exact same situation IBM faced all those years ago, except Microsoft managed to beat the system, obviously no thanks to large campaign contributions to a certain Mr. Ashcroft, who on his first day in office dropped the MS anti-trust lawsuit like a bad habit.

It never made sense to me that you aren't allowed to build into an OS what you like to. It should be allowed to Microsoft as well as Apple, it also makes the life of everyone a lot easier except those who make tools which are already included in the OS but then it's like with any other application out there too, if you write such a tool then you have to do it better and provide an additional benefit.

But if they take Microsoft to court for these things then they obviously should do the same with Apple.

There are plenty of Linux based OS's for sale (Suse, Mandiva, Redhat Enterprise), you can kid yourself if you want but if your paying for the software/support whatever the only difference is somantics. For example:

http://store.mandriva.com/index.php?cPath=88

or

http://shop.novell.com/store/novelleu/DisplayCategoryProductListPage/categoryID.3422100

or

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/

You know it really does look like they are selling Linux there, all those "Buy Now" signs, maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think so.

I think Websters (my previous link for the definition), Dictionary.com (Random House) or in fact any of the other professional sources carry more weight than Wikipedia (which is only as good as the last edit).

If you take a monopoly as this:

mo·nop·o·ly Audio Help /məˈnɒpəli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-nop-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

It's pretty obvious Microsoft doesn't have one on the OS market. There are plenty of other commercial OS's available, that they arn't very popular is NOT Microsoft's fault. Apple's OS does count as a commercial OS, if they want to include T&C's on the hardware you can use then they need to be legal but that doesn't make it not an alternative. Neither does Solaris's comparitively small market share (~2M) make it irrelevant, it's still a choice there, IF you want it.

Microsoft have argued (and I think it is justified) that the small utility programs they include in the OS are part of the OS and are not intended to shtudown competitor companies and I don't see this as being so. Netscape went out of business because it didn't evolve, get over it.

Cygnus, how can you know what Microsoft want? Who is Microsoft? Where are you getting your info from ?

Can you think of any business where a company is compelled to supply competitor products with it's own product? Wouldn't it be like Mc Donald's being compelled to offer KFC chicken as well as their own if they include chicken on their menu?

As long as you can choose whichever media player you want, what't the problem? Microsoft give you one for free, don't like it, use another or write your own, they don't care and they won't MAKE you use anything. What's wrong with giving people a Media Player for free out of the box and letting them choose? Or do you think people too stupid to decide for themselves, or are you worried they won't make the "right" choice? My daughter really likes Media Player because she likes the visualisations it does, is that wrong?

If you don't want to buy Windows, you don't have to, nobody is going to make you and there ARE alternatives there, if you want them, so why all the crying foul?

Darkheart

It wouldn't surprise me if apple are behind this them selves just to take a bigger bite out of the market.

Many people got there first taste of Mac OS X by using a "hacked" Intel version on a PC and went on to buy a Apple computer. (I did and now I own a Mac).
Rumor has it that it was Apple (or someone from Apple) who seeded the developer version of Mac OS X as a torrent. But then it's only a rumor.

No they only expect that because MS did it in the first place. A text editor is an essential tool for administering the operating system. A browser is an application and has no business being there. Natural evolution is going from text based to gui or prehaps to even VR in the future to create an environment to enable programs to do their job. This evolution should not include bolting on every Joe's application which has nothing whatsoever to do with file & driver / hardware management.


They are the market leader by far in the OS market, but you asked why you think people believe they hold a monopoly and your list above is spot on. The problem is that they use that position as OS leader DIRECTLY THROUGH this platform to squash and conquer other markets, which is forbidden under antitrust laws.

That is what a monopoly is to take over EVERYTHING even remotely related to what you do, almost completely blocking out everyone else. Each time they decide to slap their own version of an application or in-your-face-service like MSN (how about yahoomosoft anyone?) to the side of the operating system lots of smaller businesses (usually who developed it in the first place) suffer terribly.

Windows, OSX etc are operating systems and should be sold as such. You cannot really compare the fact that linux is sometimes for sale or that it comes bundled with software, because every APP thats included was written by different people/companies. They are simply selling their version of the kernel and gui (& optional support).

While were at it why dont we let ford buy up all car companies so we can all drive exactly the same car. Oh, other cars will still be available although hardly anyone knows they exist and there will be hardly anyone who knows how to fix it. There wont be many of them about though, as no one else can afford to build and sell very many, and as for spare parts... well..

A LOT of EULA's have illegal requirements that can be ignored country by country.

Problem is, the EULA state only on apple hardware, but what does that mean these days?

Its an intel core2duo, sata drive, geforce card.... its basically a careful selection of normal PC hardware, so technically it -IS- being installed on 'apple hardware' :/

@D4NM4N
The problem with these things is were to draw the line. You can find examples for making both arguments look valid.

> but what does that mean these days?

Hardware bought from Apple, the same exact thing bought elsewhere is not Apple hardware.

Hi Darkheart,

I don't have to state anything.

The US and EU both took care of it for me.

They are much more experienced in the legal definition of a monopoly so perhaps you should take it up with them. You might like to consider joining Microsoft's EU defense team, they seem to be doing quite poorly, and I'm not sure they've tried the dictionary definition defense yet.

Very interesting. Personally I think Apple should start selling OSX for IBM-clone computers officially just like Windows is if they really want to expand and become a non-flea-sized competitor to Microsoft. Apple's hardware is just too expensive to compete with PC hardware, and for most people, this means they'll be stuck with Windows whether they like it or not.

For example in my ongoing research for the best portable / powerful laptop, I wouldn't mind choosing a MacBook (in fact I'd like to see what all the hype about OSX is all about), but the fact is, you get much better hardware for less money when you buy a PC.


Sounds good to me. This way the car, bicycle, fridge, house, etc. can have matching color schemes and be integrated perfectly!

Of course there are those who like to buy a big stack of wood and nails and build the house for themselves, carefully buying each bracket, pipe, and doorknob from their favorite brand, but the fact is bundling an OS with integrated applications is not only handy, but in some cases necessary.

Apps like calculator / notepad are simple yet very important - without notepad for example you can't edit anything. I have nothing against replacing the software on your computer with 3rd party versions, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a basic version there by default just because it helps.

As for the argument that Internet Explorer shouldn't be included in Windows by default - that's ridiculous. In this age a lot of the great free applications like Firefox, Winamp, etc. aren't really availible on CD. Guess where they are? Yes - the internet. How do you download Firefox without any internet software? Think about it for a minute :). I don't like IE either but I thank Microsoft for giving me IE for the one purpose I use it for: Downloading Firefox :)

> How do you download Firefox without any internet software?

When you bought the computer at a store (or online, if your old machine had Firefox or IE) you would purchase IE or Firefox with it. Or you could call up a company on the phone and order it that way, or go to the local software store (any of those left?) and purchase it. Or in the case of firefox you could get it from a friend on CD. Heck IE was going around on CD for a while back when MS was giving it away.

And what if you like some obscure browser? Out of luck because the retailer doesn't give you 5973 browser options? And I thought the whole purpose of this was to give the smaller companies a chance in the market.

There's a limit to how many software options a computer retailer can manage (I think usually they make a set of hard drive images which are copied in) unless they install everything by hand, which needless to say would take way too much time to be profitable, so you can't expect any retailer to set up every single 3rd part application for you that you might desire. There are so many options out there you have to accept that if your going to customize your computer with 3rd part software, you'll have to do it yourself.


Are you serious? Please tell me you are joking! Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you - are you saying that:

You buy a new computer. It doesn't have any web browser on it, so now you can't use your high-speed internet connection until you get some internet browsing software on it. After digging through piles of CD's / flash memory drives, and discovering that Firefox / your browser of choice is nowhere to be found, you most likely will have to ask a friend to burn it to a CD or go to a public computer, download it, burn it, bring it back home, put the CD in, install it, and then you'll finally be able to access the internet.

Why would anyone in their right mind prefer that? What's so horribly wrong with IE that you can't use it to go to Firefox.com and download one file?

Apple was the first to bundle programs (Not counting browsers as you didn't need them back then.) with its Macintosh in Jan. 1984. Tandy released the Tandy 1000 in Dec 1984 and it came with Deskmate which was a GUI with bundled apps. Once MS released Windows in Nov. 1985, they followed Apple's lead and bundled apps with Windows. The irony is many of the apps "bundled" with the first Apple Macintosh were written by MS.

In the OLD days, you had to use the Terminal program to connect to a BBS and download Netscape or IE.

I thought someone would mention that :). But seriously, an OS needs internet software out of the box. It doesn't have to be extraordinarily good - just enough to let you download what you want. Selling an OS without a browser in this age is almost like selling a locked car without a key.

$sudo apt-get install firefox
:)

It definitely blew dead bear. Last time I had to do it, I was stuck downloading Netscape via Kermit protocol. Took damn near a day and a half.

Same as selling one without simple text editing, image editing, media editing, media player, etc. It would literally make the computer as useful as a paperweight for the average home user.

Im ordering one of these :)

It would be cool to develop my stuff for the mac as well. This way I can finally afford one. I think that apple may very well have have a possible case against the supplier for actually installing the software on these, as it does stipulate it as a violation of the EULA.'
However there it appears there is nothing they can so about selling it uninstalled with the box.


How does the software update or activate without any internet software? The ability to fetch via TCPIP is part of any operating system, it doesnt need a browser to do it.

Of course it does for admin & setup, but not a fully featured browser.
A small very limited simple webpage viewer / downloader built into the OS just for this purpouse would be enough a software channel system like synaptic in debian (which is actually quicker and more convenient than using websites), as this would be an admin tool and has every right to be there. However a fully featured, industry standard web browser(ie), chat client(wm) and email program(oe) is not.

"You have chosen to view a webpage. A fully capable browser is reccommended!"
"Would you like to use:"
"Microsoft internet explorer (fetch now from msn.com / windows DVD)"
"FireFox (fetch now from mozilla.org / windows DVD)"
"Opera (Fetch now from opera.com / windows DVD)"
"Other (enter url or insert CD)"
"Continue in limited mode - many pages will not work properly"

etc... Same for mp3s and videos.

Sure its a slight inconvenience to the consumer who want everything on a silver plate but at least it gives other developers a chance and joe consumer is given more choice they otherwise wouldnt know about.

Argh, if Microsoft are writing the OS why shouldn't they be able to GIVE you their browser?!? If you wrote a freeware application and decided to give it away with one of your commercial applications wouldn't you be annoyed if you were forced to give consumer a choice of 5 other freeware applications and sending them to your competitors websites, and to cripple your own application before they choose yours? Isn't that completely insane? Actually think about it.

I'm someone who owned computers when they didn't come with anything. You wanted a simple text editor, you had to buy or hand-code one (no downloading or copy and pasting other people's source). You wanted to play music, you had to buy or write a player. The same for every application and it wasn't great and it wasn't helpful, it SUCKED!

I didn't ENJOY having the choice of several products to buy, I despaired about being able to do something useful with my computer because I needed to buy so many basic tools first and computers and software were relatively more expensive than they are now.

I wrote my own text editor in 1986 and it wasn't fun and it wasn't good, it was simply a lack of options. It didn't WANT to write a text editor program I WANTED to put together a tape-based magazine with a friend of mine. If one had shipped with the OS I would have been ecstatic. When browsers started shipping with the OS most consumers welcomed it. What they didn't like was the "Now you must choose: x,y,z flavour". People want simple procedures that work and let them do what they want to do. If they want to change to a different browser later then they can.

If bundling applications is so bad, why are only Microsoft targetted for doing it? Why is it ok for every Linux distribution and every Apple OS to ship with a huge library of applications (more than any MS OS) ?

I don't see why this has to be a moral crusade.


Darkhheart

I have the same feelings, the more advanced computers get the more possibilities they offer and so i also see a valid reason for providing certain functionality out of the box. With the importance of the internet it's just rediculous not providing a browser at all. It's like you would have left out the shell in AmigaOS.

An ideal OS provides solutions for todays common tasks out of the box and if you need something beyond that you just buy a certain program. I never heard someone whining around that a texteditor already ships with an OS, a browser nowadays is the same.

It looks to me like this is more than just a hackos install - they're saying you can install vanilla MacOs, so they must be providing an OSX86 compatible bios and one of those special sauce chips that reassures OSX it's running on a real Mac from time to time. Anyone know if this is correct?

1. If MS wanted a monopoly they wouldn't have saved apple years ago. Without MS, Apple would have gone out of bussiness back then! (MS bought about 49% of the Apple shares which allowed Apple to invest in the steps to bring out the first iPods and later OSX

2. even if we forget about the eula, they will not be able to provide OSX with it. OSX can not be bought just in store like Windows.

3. According to rumors, Apple has approached MS to license their WGA technology to lock out assholes in the upcomming releases of OSX. so don't assume that your system will continue to work with OSX when getting in touch with apple with such a hackintosh at all.

4. That WGA stuff might (for sure!) be enforced to be used when you want to install newer applications so you are locked to not updated software etc. Simplest way is just make a new osx installer version which needs Apple Software Update like MS did with MSI 3.1

I read somewhere that this company (psystar) is a hoax.
If you try mailing them or phoning them, you won't get any answer.
Also, they used to have an address which pointed to a normal house in some residential area, but they changed it recently.
Someone tracked the new address, and got hold of a guy who worked there, and he said he they didn't sell any computers.
They were doing business related network consulting, or something along those lines..

Don't know if it's true or not, though.

Hmm, thanks for the tip. Mabe i will investigate them first :)

No but if i was almost the only one selling my commercial application (lets say the thing that allowed everyone elses to run) and then did my own free versions of everyone elses software (ie, yours) you would be annoyed. Also if you think IE is freeware then you are soooo wrong. It is NOT free at all. Apart from being a purchaced part of windows, it is also an essential 'defaulting' adware medium for MS's other services.

Erm didnt you read what I posted? Obviously not because you are asking questions already answered, rather than disagreeing with what i wrote. Its because ITS ILLEGAL!!! Not to mention grossly unfair.
If they were not dominating the entire market or bundling non MS software then they could (legally!). Monopoly laws are there to ensure freedom of choice, not dictation of what 1 company thinks is right for the entire world.


Its not a 'moral crusade', it basic common sense. People like me dont HATE microsoft and I use windows like everone else, but they do NEED to be taken down a peg or two. If you allow a company (any company) to become too powerful they end up controlling -everything- and from that position can even hold entire countries to ransom.

Oh come on, with apple gone they look MORE like a monopoly & big bad wolf. They saved apple purely for one reason; Good P.R. probably some of the cheesiest in history (and they made a very tidy investment in the process)

> Are you serious? Please tell me you are joking! Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you - are you saying that:


No - I'm saying once you have the first copy, bought from a store or given on a CD you can download the others from then on. I thought this part of the post made that quite plain "or online, if your old machine had Firefox or IE".

MS quit doing that because they kept getting sued for illegally distributing the software of other companies.

When you buy a new computer now, it comes with all kinds of software from other companies (often direct competition for MS products), it is just now installed by the PC retailers.

That is what is great about Windows. You don't like the native media player, no problem, there are hundreds of others to choose from. Same with text editors, sound editors, image editors, etc. Nothing worse than on Apple or Linux were you only have a handful of solutions for a given task. Thankfully this isn't a problem on Windows as competition is wide open and if it wasn't Windows would have died long ago.

Its interesting how no idea most have what IE actually is holly crap.
IE is nothing else than an "internet targeted" part of the regular windows file explorer!

There is and never will be a Windows Version with uninstalled IExplorer!!
Sure you can choose to in the menu. but if you go into the ie folder with "show hidden system files" you will see that it is just hidden on system level.

Why do you think can you enter something like ftp://ftp.mysite.com or http://www.blitzbasic.com in the adress line of the file explorer? coincidence? rofl ...

and just to make that clear: KDE isn't any better. Its file explorer is wired similarily to its standard browser and so far no one whined about that fact.

I'm not going to add much more because I would just be repeating myself. My last point I think is that:

If (and I don't believe this is so) Windows is so terrible and only sustained by Microsoft's iron grip on the market and compelling people to buy their software, where is the credible alternative?

What would you have us replace Windows with?

What OS is being prevented from gaining acceptance by Microsoft?

Given that basically anyone with a computer, some time and a bit of ability can create can creat their own OS if they want to and distribute it to the entire world via the internet why isn't there anything better available?

Do you really think Linux hasn't gained mass adoption soley because of Microsoft's clout with manufacturers? If so how come two of the biggest OEM's (Dell and HP) supply Linux based PCs but hardly anyone buys them.

Isn't it a lot more likely that Microsoft dominate the OS market beacuse they have the best product that does most of what the people buying it want?

If there was something a lot better I think we would have seen it by now, particularly with all the hugely negative press over Vista.

Do you really think the world is that tightly controlled by corporations and people have no control or choice and can't tell the difference between a good product and a bad one ? For me that's much closer to tin-foil-hat wearing country than I want to go.

Darkheart

Actually "c:\windows\explorer.exe" which manages the 'desktop', 'startbar' and 'file windows' calls & switches to a separate application called "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" to deal with the internet bit, which has its hooks embedded in the file explorer(deliberately so it cannot be uninstalled and remains the dominant app). Thats partly the problem. Anyway, whats KDE got to do with it? KDE is not dominating the market. I think you are confusing the issue of what a monopoly is and how it works.

Windows of course!, but as just an "Operating System" like it is supposed to be, not as a huge "bargain bundle" of proprietry standards, non-'OS-critical' related applications, codecs, in-your-services etc.

So you want a stripped down version of Windows with no applications at all, just a console?

Why not just uninstall all the applications that come with XP/Vista?

I must say, I'd prefer to have most of the standard tools, I think most people would too.

Surely anyone can make a standard, it's up to other people wether they follow it or not.

Darkheart

-no, i would expect a gui, a set of essential tools to administer it, file manager, hardware+driver management and to be able to obtain the apps over the internet through a basic browser or software channel. The rest of the Crapware they can distribute separately.

-you totally missed the point. The fact that the apps are there means that the vast majority of windows users will automatically adopt them giving an grossly unfair advantage.

-Tools yes, applications no. I personally would like it all installed as a consumer, but i would also like free money back with every purchase. But speaking as someone who examines the market, then no, as its not fair trading.

-As for standards, patents on standards should have a lifetime, not be infinite and re-purchasable, especially when it becomes a general use standard.

A grossely unfair advantage at what, to what? To providing a free music player?



Why? How do you define what's an application and what's a tool? Free money with every purchase? Why? I don't see what's so wrong with giving away some small necessary applications with their OS, something which every other vendor has also done.

Why would making people pay seperately for stuff like notepad, media player, paint,internet exploerer etc be better? How would the consumer benefit?

I think patentning standards is ridiculous and wrong but you can't single out Microsoft for doing this. However I would support Microsoft's right to create any standards it wants to for whatever reasons it likes. In the same way I can create a standard for anything I like, I can't make anyone else follow it unless they want to but I can have a standard.

Darkheart

Ive already explained that about 3 or 4 posts back, if you dont want to read what i wrote fine, but im not explaining it again.

try looking up "Operating system", "Antitrust", "Monopoly" and "essential tool" on wikipedia or something.


X2

If it's so illegal and that's what those cases where really about, why is Microsoft still following exactly the same practise and why has both the US and EU allowed this wholesale flouting of the law for nearly 20 years? Why arn't Microsoft being made to change this version (or future versions) of Vista to give a bare minimum of applications instead of increasing the basic applications and tools?

Why are other companies (Apple, Mandiva, Redhat, Sun) allowed to do exactly the same thing with no sanction?

As far as I understand the main problem in the EU was their non-disclosure about the technologies they had either bought or created and refused to give this information to 3rd parties (quite understandable really). I've always felt that the DoJ and EU cases where much more about trying to make political capital then solving real problems.

How has the consumer benefitted from these actions?

Hasn't it in fact just cost a huge amount of money that we have to pay in taxes and increased prices?

If Microsoft really were in the wrong what real changes have been made, will Bill be spending his autumn years in a prison cell? I think not.

If your best alternative to Windows is Windows how bad can it really be?

Darkheart

I don't think anyone can argue in this age that computers shouldn't be able to download software from the internet the minute you first turn your computer on.


An interesting idea, but not a very good one in some aspects.

First, there's a reason for defaults - it's so the average computer user can get started without having to worry about choosing from hundreds of options that they know nothing about. Most computer users just want a consistent, easy to use interface that just works.

Second, when you provide a list of software (like the browser list in this case), you're inherently leaving out 90% of the other free browsers when you choose the top 10 popular ones. In this case the smaller companies will have even less chance to make it, unless they can convince/bribe the list-maker to include their browser in the list. You could theoretically make a user-generated list where applications are submitted and rated based on popularity, but that's extremely prone to abuse as a core OS feature.

Third, what program is doing this app selection / downloading? What if I don't like it? Can I download a different application downloader to replace it if I want? OH NO! Do you mean that MS has a monopoly on application downloaders!?!?! SUE SUE SUE!

I don't have anything against application downloader programs, but I just don't think you realize that an application downloader is an application itself, not a tool. The database it accesses to provide the list of applications must be maintained by someone, and locking a single application downloader (and therefore it's database) to an OS is even worse than just letting a user use IE to download their browser of choice.


When I enter a website in the address bar of an explorer window, Firefox opens up and loads the page.

-They have many times and its all still catching up with them, they've only just got finished on media player. They are so powerful they simply pay the fines.

-Once again, (A) they're not market leaders, but a blip on the radar. and (B)All the software is written by others.

So forcibly removing billions of dollars of revenue from an entire collection of markets is not a real problem?

-Not convenience, choice of better software mabe?

-No MS have to pay those legal fees.

No, they will just keep fining them.

No, if they concentrated less on the rendering and more on the brickwork it would be a better operating system.

Not really as its going back to the "essential tool" needed to maintain the system.

Anyway, im off to the pub.

Personally I'm glad Microsoft bundled IE all those years ago. Now any computer I buy comes with a browser. It doesn't force people to use IE only, otherwise why would Firefox be so popular? If Microsoft wanted a browser monopoly, then it didn't work in the end did it.

And now it turns into a debate as to what's an "essential tool" or not.

Seriously, how primitive do you want an OS to be? Personally, I want an OS to have as many features as possible, and if I find software that I need improving, I'll download a better program! Simple as that.

I could understand how a hard-core linuxian would want their OS to be barebones so they can install everything manually, but seriously, how hard is it to click uninstall on the software you want to replace? Even if Microsoft sold a "MS Windows Kernel Edition" for $49.99, the majority of the market would still prefer their operating system bundled with all the "trim" (media players, etc.), and that's a fact.

There's really no argument. Windows comes with lots of useful apps, many of which are arguably inferior to some others availible on the Internet, but it's clearly not a monopoly because things like Firefox, etc. are extremely popular.

Now if you want to talk about companies / software that kills the market, talk about open-source and freeware. Who would buy a browser today when excellent free ones like Firefox and Opera exist? Don't blame Microsoft for the fact that there aren't any popular commercial browsers, e-mails, media players, etc., because it's really Firefox, Thunderbird, Winamp, etc. that's killing the competition.

im in the pro shovelware camp for pc's

ms paint is shite but it does a very basic job
ok it doesnt support saving of certain file types and lacks a 256 CLUT ... if it had that id have used it as a pixel editor
some times thats all i want
a pixel editor with 256 colour CLUT ... is that worth the price of PSP or photopaint?

photo editing yes psp and photpaint
just very basic web images and crappy game sprites a better paintbrush will do

ie out of the box and the choice to take whatever browser you like from the web once you go online
even without internet access alot of text files started coming out as html (even the blitz docs) without basic html viewing your screwed

note pad
ok you can write your novel on it
or websites code
but its not brilliant and it cannot fix user errors like spelling grammar and punctuation (something i lack)
not for you
word office or whatever floats your boat

wmp
i use it over itues or yahoo jukebox (i used to use the old music match jukebox) not cos its 'free' (subsidized if you insist) but cos it plays my music
i only use itunes to sync my ipod i much prefer the old drag and drop methods of my other mp3 players
i could blow my months wages on a kick arse hifi but im happy with the shitty speakers built into the monitor and the earbuds that came with my ipod

their are other apps that have integrated themselves into the shipping of windows (not in the true sense of integration, but you now expect them to be their) i dont need half of em but id be buggered to pay alot for something i might need to use once or twice in my life

its kinda like saying you can have whats built into command.com but you need to buy all the external .exe's of dos
that would leave you with basic disk tools
but didnt we need alot of the exe's too

I don't see what you expect to achieve in this discussion.

Whether MS does this, bundles that, legal blah, the courts have already decided it (and at least in the EU may well decide some more again.) Some people have been paid lots of money to argue whether MS had a monopoly and were using it abusively. They did it and you're not really adding anything, the case notes and decisions are widely available.

Competition is universally considered a good thing for everyone, and whether you think the action is justified, it's hard to see how Microsoft releasing APIs, less manipulating OEMs with pricing deals, opening bundling, etc. is bad news for anyone but Microsoft. Last I checked Microsoft are a big company with lots of money and a tight grip on the market, no matter how crap their products are or aren't.

So unless you're on the payroll, a shareholder or one of their lawyers, it's all pretty academic really.

Whereas EULAs potentially hurt us all, and we're still missing something definitive about how and how much they apply. Much more interesting.

I think most people here are talking as consumers and not deveolopers (which surprises me). Consumers want everything on a silver plate, delivered by grovelling service, which is fine, i expect it myself. As a consumer, of course i want as much as i can get included with what i buy. I also would just love to go into tescos, load up my trolley and walk out paying 1 for 10 on everything. Or even better, get it all for free.

However what the consumer wants isnt always in the best interest of business, the market, the economy or themselves in the long run (take the environment for example)
-or even the law in this case.

@John J, Firefox is the second most popular browser in 2007 accounted for only about 20% of the market, perhaps even less in the business sector. Opera, the third most popular is 2-5% others are too small to mention. So to saying that bundling IE with windows is not blatant (and successful) profiteering, directly, via a 95% dominated OS market is total nonsense.

Also, big gnu programs like firefox are not freebies written out of love. They are a money making business too but how can they possibly be monopolies? do they use their own platform to block & conquer ajacent markets? -No.
As Taumel stated above there is a line as to what should be included, and industry standard apps are not it. Wordpad is not a leading standard app. Mplayer and IE are.

Exactly, my side of rant over, i promise. :D

Hmm, they can also protect us too, kind of a double edged sword :/ Once again its a fine line as to what is deemed acceptable for the protection of the developer and in the interest of the market at large.

The site is now down, at least for this particular product.

Anyone know why?

Prehaps theyve been 'appled to death' :/

"Right!, no one is to apple anyone until i blow this whistle! Even if they do say Leopard!"

Probably run out of bandwidth on their site.

Pass the otter's noses.

Darkheart

EULA do not apply at all to the european market.
Post sale contracts have no legal binding, all contract requirements need to be agreed WITH the signing of the contract in europe.

It's not the first time this has happened.

Here's something http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what_is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html

damn, knew it was too good 2b true :(

Although does it need to be an apple BIOS or something? Because if not surely any core2 board + matching nicknacks would work if you wanted to build one yourself right?

thank you for proving my point wonderfully. If Microsoft did not have a control of a commodity in a particular market, that makes it possible for them to manipulate the prices, Windows would be priced competitively. However Windows is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than any of it's immediate "competitors".

Wow. Your grasp of history is at best flawed. When you say that Microsoft "bought shares in Apple" are you talking about the money Microsoft paid Apple as an "Equity Investment" as an out-of-court settlement for Microsofts breach of license?


Rubbish.

What "competition"? Name one successful, commercial, non-Microsoft Windows application. Or are you using Darkhearts definition of "competition"? Were even non-commerical software nobody uses counts as "competition"?

Yes it is. For starters it's free software, and secondly you can safely use another shell than Konqueror, if you chose. Try using LiteStep/DarkStep/AstonShell/etc. on Vista (or even XP).

There isn't one, because Microsoft have a monopoly. Hello?

Yes it did. Fortunately for the rest of us, around 2001 Microsoft decided that the Internet was too old-fashioned, compared to their wonderful .Net platform, which all new applications would be running on, and promptly stopped all IE development, giving the mozilla foundation a little room to breathe. Just because Microsoft dropped the ball due to their sheer incompetence, doesn't mean they don't want a monopoly. Ever company wants a monopoly - it's a license to print money.

It is quite matter of factly, impossible to uninstall Microsoft Shovelware (like Paint, Notepad, Outlook Express, Solitaire, Wordpad, Messenger, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.) that you don't want from WindowsXP and Vista.

Me too. Provided:
A) You do not install it without my consent.
B) You give me the option to uninstall it at a later time, without me having to rely on otherwise wonderful 3rd party software like XPLite.
C) It does not impart a significant performance hit.
D) It is Open Source - or does not stifle competition.

That's only because you're not counting IE6 and IE7 as two distinct browsers, which is quite unfair considering there is more than 5 years between them, and significant changes as to how they display and layout webpages, and the degree to which they comply to standards other than Microsofts. So Firefox is at best the third most popular browser, beaten by a good 50% margin by a 7 year old, soon-to-be unsupported browser (IE6).

Interesting ... I pay 160 CHF for OSX 10.5 and 147 CHF for XP Pro SP2. Even Vista Ultimate costs only 247 CHF.
Really makes me think what you do. Wasting 600 CHF to get the "full support" version instead of the DSP version? (as you have to pay for phone support in both cases after a few minutes there is no reason to waste 600 CHF = 600 USD on the non DSP versions).
Both are fully compatible for at least 5 years, unlike OSX which will become semi compatible every 2-3 years, so Windows makes the better long time investion actually.

Even commercial Linux distributions have a hard time keep up at against that price as the linux longtime compatibility and guaranteed behavior is a thing I don't think we need to talk about


And claiming that there is no credible alternative because MS has the monopoly is one of the largest soup bubble dreams I've heard in a long time. Lets face the truth: Would linux be a credible alternative: YES. So why isn't it one? Because there are 20+ Linux distributions and the effort is wasted on 20+ different OS' and philosophies instead of focusing on a SINGLE STABLE WORKING CORE LINUX DISTRIBUTION + different "top level differences". Those brickies will never get anywhere until they understand that they do not stand the least chance in the real world until the pull at the same rope!!

Currently, this means following a more user friendly and user oriented path like Mandriva or (urgs) SUSE ...

At this rate, most Linux users soon will learn which is the best unix based distribution and no its not a tuxie world incarnation, its actually OSX. Bad but true and the longer the Linux Community is such a mess and split up the lower the chance that they survive their "unix is better than Windows fight" against the far more user oriented Unix Experience of OSX.
They lost their benefit of beeing X86 based unlike OSX years ago but still don't realize their situation.

i remember one version of wmp (that i thankfully never used) would convert and delete your mp3's to wma without even asking you
tieing you to wmp for your music (didnt that get em a big fat fine? bad press atleast)

now pretend that that didnt happen but this did instead
wmp will only rip as low quality wma only ... it will play mp3's but not convert em
so you could use it to rip your cd collection but it would be useless on any other player (unless it supported wma)

so it would work and have basic functuality
but basic next to something you could buy in a shop or online (or dl for free) or some paid for upgraded version

i think that would have gotten more people buying/using other music software than the one given to them 'for free'

i think mspaint is a good example of the it works but its shite level they should have gone on alot of their own apps

they should have kick arse disk apps like partitioning defrag and scandisk as its their bloody os (funny how other people (so im told) do it better)

Its not missusing monopoly of the basic application is just better than most concurrents software.

Would be as if commercial Linux distributions would be sued for preinstalling coffeine or apple for preinstalling Quicktime and iTunes.

Its just inacceptable for a higher end multimedia OS to NOT beeing able to playback multimedia!
Its already worse enough that MS is forced to not deliver a DVD codec just to make people but trash like PowerDVD (sorry but I think they should be sued for deliverying overpriced instable incompatible trash. Every copyprotected DVD needs VLC to play correctly, so for what exactly DO you pay?!).

According to a artical on the insanely mac forum ( http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?s=f701fb69501d3fd991dbbf3b6ef4d832&showtopic=102043 ), Pystar are for real and have delivered the goods. But time will tell....

Edit: It does say that if you want to reinstall OS X you have to send the machine back...

Agreed apple should not bundle their own stuff either, but get away with it because they dont hold the market dominant position. As for coffeine, never heard of this one myself, but is it written by the people who wrote the distro? - Unlikely.


That is not the job of an OPERATING system, by nature, description or definition. Any more than its your car engine's job to play tunes! It simply provides the "platform" to make it possible. ie; supplies the power for your stereo to work.

Exactly. Just as nobody would buy a car without a stereo (which is a standard feature), nobody would buy an OS that is not capable of playing the most common media formats.

No, they wouldnt buy a media program that couldnt play formats back. Nobody expected it from (what they now incorrectly think) an operating system should be until it was included by MS. Also, if "fair trade law" gets its way and it manages to get apple and MS to take the media players (at least their !!OWN!!) out of the main distribution, will people stop buying them??
- no, not unless they want to write their own OS.

Plus if you are comparing the car then you are correct. No one would want to buy a complete "multimedia home computer bundle" that couldnt play back multimedia. However that is up to the computer manufacturer to bundle what they choose as appropriate !!!!!3RD PARTY!!!!! software in their image, just like the car manufacturer chooses their parts.

Anyway most car's components are made by several different 3rd party companies and re-badged as "volvo" or "ford". INCLUDING the stereo. (Oh, and its the engine that makes a car go, just like an OS makes a computer "go", and an engine sure doesnt play tunes!(unless badly tuned like mine :) )

Think of it this way, If ford made almost every car on the road and started including their own stereos and other non-"base" parts then they would be in the same boat as MS.

LOL, luckily the rest of the world doesn't live in your world.

Wheres that then?

EU? (2002, 2004, 2007)
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6998272.stm

US? (3000 of them!)
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases.html

Or are all developers just MS pawns (in their own words):
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9007527

Some obviously do .

Anyway, why would it be any more inconvenient to you than what you've got now? You as a simple consumer would still buy your pc with a full kit. Its just the way the end product is put together for you behind the scenes would be different but fairer for developers everywhere.

Government shakedowns are hardly exclusive to Microsoft.

Never said they were. The international law should come down hard on any corporation that starts taking the piss.

Old thread revival time.
Here's the latest news on pystar http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2240

I've blogged about this Psystar vs. Apple thing some time ago.

Psystar would have great chances in a German court room, because Apple's EULA most likely is not valid in Germany - at least for the end user, who cannot read it --before-- he purchases the product. It's quite obvious that you cannot agree to a license agreement without knowing what the terms are. The tiny sticker on the product box hardly is legally binding.

In the US, Apple probably has better chances to defeat Psystar. Although, what is the company doing wrong? They sell a PC and a software box of OS X Leopard to the customer that the customer could also purchase on Amazon.com or some other store. What Psystar does next is a --service-- for the customer: They install and patch OS X --on behalf of their client--.

From what I've read, this is exactly the legal loop hole that they've used all the time: They don't sell a patched OS X version per se, they sell a regular OS X product and separately an installation service.

The best thing for us consumers would be if Apple loses this lawsuit and would be forced to open their operating system also for non-Apple hardware -- similar to the 'OEM-Urteil' against Microsoft in Germany.