According to the article, the Commercial Court of Nanterre fined Microsoft because it had illegally included another company's proprietary source code in SoftImage 3D, a top-level animation package that it acquired from SoftImage in 1994. *clears throat..* mwahahahahahahaa
I was sure hoping that it wasen't the "big one." Where they're talking about splitting the company, and stuff. That is funny, though. To think that it took all these years...
here is my opinion why it is bad. right now microsoft has MS OFFICE, IE, Windows and they barely work together ( well its true for me running win2k, office 2k and IE 6) and when they dev apps they have open access to everything else they make ( i assume) to make sure it works like it is supposed to and is compatible. I think that if it was split up the apps would be less compatible with each other and be more of a pain for us the end user. wether or not that is true, i dont know but what else would splitting up hurt? the stock holders wouldnt be effected, just have stock in 2 companies instead of 1. <rant> I think it is stupid for a country in an economic depression to spend billions of dollars trying to break up a company instead of taking care of its own people, but then again i have to work hard for my money unlike politicians. </rant>
Relix, brutal is right. Before microsoft, computer were just expencive hunks of metal that you used flip switches to operate. Then Billey Gates came along, and the world of computers will never be the same...
another thing that I dont understand is that they want to break up the apps from the o.s. so users will not have to use IE, media player, and office. But the funny part is that, in a survey, one of the top most uses of IE was to download other web browsers. All the options to use something else other than those components are there. If the user wants, they can disable all of the aps. Bottom line... it's pointless!
I know I know, but 2 companys can work together, can't they? I don't think that the same group that work on IE work on Office too and on Windows, they are all differint groups of programmers, lead by a differint leader-programmer.
Here is why I think the split up would be good. OPEN STANDARDS... then everything could work together just fine.
take off the rose colored glasses. windows and opensource wont be togther in a sentance for a long time.
Mr Gates was certainly a pioneer to some degree, but I don't understand why 90% of Microsoft's products are so...[Speculate]. I mean, how can a handful of programmers develop something from open source Linux such as Lindows (the Linux Windows Emulator) but Bill, and his multi-million dollar company cannot seem to get it right. I've never actually used XP - is it a step up?
I'm not wearing rose colored glasses. I don't beleive a break up will occur. That doesn't mean I don't think it should. IMO it is a shame when a government bows down to business. I'm not saying they had the best case to begin with, but its effectively been dropped since GW was judicially appointed. Oh, and I don't really want windows open sourced. I want to see standardized document formats for word processing and spredsheets... that kind of thing. Just as HTML is standardized and what not.
it depends on which version of XP that you get. If you get home edition, it will probably crash. I don't know why, it just does. But if you get Pro, it is awesome. I have had it since it has come out, and I have had no problem with it what so ever. It runs much faster. I can't even get it to crash, I have tried over and over, and it keeps working. Pro is good! that is the bottom line
