SuperSite Blog

How about streaming Netflix to a V2 extender???  Why is Microsoft leaving us out in the cold???  I have to say I am not feeling the love...

Nice. I guess it'll be in the RTM version of Windows 7 too. Now, if they manage to get Hulu too, my efforts to build a new Media Center PC would have paid off.

"As part of ongoing efforts to make Windows Media Center the best place to experience TV on the PC"

That comment is hillarious considering how the've neglected Media Center, most screens still look like MC2005, and they just introduced a video shuffle in their MC7, the 4th(5th) release of the Media Center family

Dang.  I've been hoping against hope that they'd work something out with Blockbuster instead.  I'm sure that'll never happen now.  Time to consider switching to netflix :-/

Pingback from  Windows 7 Blog » Netflix comes to Windows Media Center

I really like how Microsoft is finally putting some attention to their media center, I like netflix but I want more. HULU is a good example, Blockbuster, Amazon, the thing is they also need to find a way to combine sevies.

So I have may movies in my home server in media center thay are on DVD library or something like that. It would be nice to mix my rip dvd collection with my netflix movies. So one screen I can see my entire collection.

I also can't belive that you can't put parental controls on movies. I found a way to do this but it should be a click away "hide movie" or something.

Anyways thanks netflix and Microsoft for doing this and keep it up.

Oh I forgot one thing why don't we have IPTV on media center yet.

Whoop-de-do another wonderful feature.... oh wait US-only...

Good step on the right direction, but there are so many third party tools that add other stuff like Hulu and others for free, and most of them are available on more than just Windows.

Few things

1) Will NOT work with extenders. You need to be local on the MediaCenter for it to work.

2) Most extenders (save the 360) have been discontinued.

As of right now, I am as 'bearish' as ever on the fate of media center as a PC software platform. I think they just need to partner with motorola, get the software on a STB and call it a day. It's the only way this will ever see widespread adoption (SYNC anyone?)

Pingback from  Netflix comes to Windows Media Center «  Windows 7 Help - Tutorials, News, Software & More!

"Whoop-de-do another wonderful feature.... oh wait US-only..."

My thoughts exactly.. Seems that I'll have to move to US, just to get some US-only features and content finaly..

Well, there are hints of hope in the MS post. The part about "building on our broader vision to ... web site to web site ..." could be read as "more coming".

It could also be read as "this is Microsoft speak".

The Netflix thing will clearly be in general release (hence RTM) Win 7.

It may very well not come to RC (despite the code being similar or identical) as a prod to move from RC to paid-for before Feb 28. If that's the case, there could be more of these things.

After all, one shouldn't run things like beta or RC on front-line machines. (Yes, I too am doing so--so perhaps I should bank the Netflix fees I'm not now paying towards paying for Win 7.)

Iamsafetygeek,

Microsoft has great forums and Windows 7 RC support at the following link. There you will also find great videos, helpful tips and other resources for your benefit.

http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica

Microsoft TechNet / Springboard

Shark47, install Boxee on your PC and there you have both !

Meh, so we won't get this in the UK, but who cares? I still love media center.

It has the best UI and of any PVR-type device I've ever seen, and is far and away the most responsive.

It also crashes less often than Sky+ and never renders my recordings unplayable.

I'm baffled by the fact that my general purpose PC is a better recording solution than a purpose-made recording box!

"Shark47, install Boxee on your PC and there you have both !"

I don't think Boxee is available on PCs. There are other Media Center plugins, but most of them suck. Even Microsoft's own internet TV stuff on Windows Media Center is pretty bad.

Pingback from  Netflix comes to Windows Media Center | Windows Seven 7

So...I didn't see a Netflix icon in my Vista Media Center, but I also didn't see a release date in any of the articles.  Is there an update I need to run?  Should it come across in a Microsoft Update?  Anybody else get it to appear?

"I think they just need to partner with motorola, get the software on a STB and call it a day"

I think once we see mass production of Ion-based systems, we'll see STB's just as complete computers.

Zotac already has a motherboard with Ion.  It's very awesome.  WiFi, GF 9400GS, CUDA support, PhysX support, the Atom 330 dual-core, etc.

vimeo.com/4703310

If you build a box with that system with a hard drive, and Windows 7 Home Premium, you could put it together for about the same as most of these $400 STB's, and it's still a fully functioning computer.  Add high-bandwidth Blu-ray, and the chipset can still handle it just fine.

Oh, and did I mention that it's silent too?

"I'm baffled by the fact that my general purpose PC is a better recording solution than a purpose-made recording box!"

As with anything, make sure you buy the components that fit the usage.

If you're planning on buying a "DVR-PC" or whatever, I'd suggest getting a hard drive designed for DVR purposes.  They have better streaming throughput.  Standard hard drives are designed for random access, with consumer drives being less reliable for heavy duty cycles.  Enterprise drives are about the same as consumer drives, but just designed for those high duty cycles.

....

Until they make it possible to record HDCP recordings from an HDMI cable, I doubt that separate HD PVR boxes will take very much ground.

TiVo in Canada is pretty much dead since all major TV providers in the country offer integrated HD PVR's that record HD directly off the data stream without conversion to analog first, or transcoding the video, and nobody wants to pay for an ADDITIONAL subscription service for recommendations when the providers already do that.

None of these online services are available outside of the US either.  There is no Internet TV option in Windows 7 for Canada.  None of the Canadian TV networks (namely Bell GlobeMedia and the CBC) are making any concrete plans for supporting this either, so this will remain as a niche within only the US.

MikeGalos,

The other thread is locked...but you asked for TWO examples of MS winning out by being unfair, one for each of the "MANY" that I shouted...wasn't supposed to be shouting, was supposed to be emphasis...but anyway, since you asked for it..this one link has NUMEROUS examples...of course I'm sure you'll spin it that I'm wrong, but here is a link so anyone can look...

www.groklaw.net/article.php

here are some exerpts.

A.  Microsoft's Campaign To Destroy DR-DOS

"[W]e need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS."

--David Cole, Microsoft Senior Vice-President

"The approach we will take is to detect dr [DOS] 6 and refuse to load. The error

message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'"

--Phillip Barrett, Microsoft Windows Development Manager

In the early 1980s, Microsoft purchased an early version of a standard disk operating system ("DOS") that became known as MS-DOS. At the time, a number of rival operating systems offered features, such as the ability to run multiple programs at the same time, that Microsoft's operating systems would not offer until years later. At the time, operating systems were just beginning to move from a command-based interface to a graphical user interface. Microsoft developed a graphical user interface known as Windows. Early versions of Windows did not actually "run" the computer rather, they were a shell surrounding the underlying DOS program, which in turn ran the computer. Initially, Windows embraced the DOS standard, which meant that Windows would run on top of any DOS, including DR-DOS, Microsoft's principal rival in the DOS market.

This initial interoperability came to be known as part of Microsoft's now-classic "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, which Microsoft has subsequently and successfully employed in many other product areas. This strategy has three phases: First, Microsoft "embraces" a competing product by developing software or implementing standards that are compatible with the competing product. Microsoft then "extends" its own offering by creating features or standards that are interoperable only with Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Finally, when Microsoft's proprietary software or standards have achieved widespread adoption, Microsoft "extinguishes" its competitors by dropping any remaining pretense of compatibility.

In the case of DR-DOS, Microsoft's initial decision to make Windows interoperable helped promote rapid adoption of the Windows shell. At the same time, however, it meant that many consumers chose the superior DR-DOS over MS-DOS. In an email to then-Vice President Steve Ballmer, Microsoft founder and then-CEO Bill Gates wrote:

   "Our DOS gold mine is shrinking and our costs are soaring--primarily due to low prices, IBM share, and DR-DOS.... I believe people underestimate the impact that DR-DOS has had on us in terms of pricing."

Microsoft "extended" Windows by making changes so that Windows would no longer interoperate with DR-DOS smoothly. For example, Microsoft designed Windows to display an ominous error message when used in conjunction with the DR-DOS software.

Notice that DR-DOS was able to run multiple programs at the same time where MS-DOS was unable to.  A quick quote from Wikipedia:

"A pre-release version of Windows 3.1 to returned a non-fatal error message if it detected a non-Microsoft DOS. This check came to be known as the AARD code. With the detection code disabled, Windows ran perfectly under DR-DOS and its successor Novell DOS. The code was present, but disabled in the released version of Windows 3.1"

Another example of other OSs being superior to MS OS is UNIX OSs were capable of "long filenames" long before Windows (this wasn't even possible on MS-DOS).

Here are more exerpts from the groklaw link

B.  Microsoft's Anticompetitive Per Processor License Fees

"Another [DR-DOS] prospect bites the dust with a per-processor DOS agreement."

--Microsoft sales employee in an internal email

Most operating systems are purchased by original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs"), such as Dell and HP. OEMs preinstall operating systems on the computers they manufacture before selling the computers to consumers. In the late 1980s, Microsoft began requiring OEMs to pay Microsoft a "per processor license fee" for each computer they shipped, regardless of whether they installed Windows on the computer. This arrangement gave OEMs a powerful incentive not to pay for and install competing operating systems.

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft challenging this conduct, resulting in a consent decree under which Microsoft agreed to stop using per processor license fees. But the anticompetitive practice had already been quite effective in reducing competitors' share, particularly when combined with Microsoft's other actions directed against DR-DOS

There's two that you asked for...I'm sure I could find more, just in that one groklaw article.

Yeah Mike Galos, seems like MS won out STRICTLY on having "a better product at better prices that people actually wanted"

Go ahead..now you can rant about how that stuff isn't true, or try to justify it to make it sound like Microsoft was NOT convicted of using its monopoly to position to harm competition and force out competition...that they have ONLY EVER won out on "better products at better prices that people actually want"

what a joke.

panache

Actually the jokes are the two examples you cited

1) I was there at the time. The objection wasn't on the final release but that Microsoft put code in a limited (not open to the general public) beta version that blocked it from installing on anything but specific versions of genuine Microsoft MS-DOS so that they could find bugs in Windows rather than spend all their time tracking down bugs that turned out to be clones not doing a correct job of emulating the real product.

2) That's precisely the issue we discussed earlier. OEMs had the option of paying a lower fee for all computers they sold or the regular fee on just the computers that had the MS product. The idea was to save everybody huge accounting and documentation costs. (you might want to ask IBM why they were over a year behind it documenting and paying back in 1995 that almost cost them the ability to sell Windows 95 - that's in the same legal documents)

@panache - mikegalos will find a way to refute you on anything that you say. What needs to be understood is that the word "better" is subjective. You each have your own definition of what that is.

--tayme

Oh, and to bring it back to the actual topic you were claiming, please explain how either of these was hurting a "better product" that only lost because Microsoft cheated. In case 1, the problem was that clones of MS-DOS didn't clone well enough. In case 2, the problem was whether an OEM wanted to do accounting and documentation or not - note they could sell other products at no penalty.

Keep trying. I'm sure you'll find some consumer harm. (Well, probably not. Nobody else has.)

No MikeGalos,

YOUR RATIONALIZATION of any illegal business practice by Microsoft is the joke!

How about reading the WHOLE GROKLAW LINK instead of commenting on *EXERPTS* that i copied and pasted?

Maybe you should take your rationalization to the Supreme Court and have them overturn their anti-trust ruling since you obviously have it all figured out.

Again, you can't accept that MS has gained its position through PROVEN ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES, *NOT* because they had "better products at better prices".

Which is pretty pathetic since its been proven

Get this quote

"Microsoft is an American success story but there is no

excuse for any company to try to cement its success through

unlawful means, as Microsoft has done with its contracting

practices," said Anne K. Bingaman, Assistant Attorney General in

charge of the Antitrust Division.

These "unlawful contract practices" are what YOU are claiming was Microsoft giving OEMs a CHOICE!  LOL!!!!

Again MikeGalos, you prove that YOU are the joke.  You have the nerve to go so far to call people on here iCabal, or claim that Apple will tell people what their opinions will be, when you yourself can't accept Microsoft's illegal business practices...calling them "choice" to OEMs.

Pathetic.

I don't get it. I have been able to watch Netflix on my PC for months now. Why do I need Media Center?

MikeGalos,

"I'm sure you'll find some consumer harm. (Well, probably not. Nobody else has.)"

Except the United States Department Of Justice.

LOL.

are you claiming that DR-DOS didn't clone MS-DOS well enough?!  From what I keep finding, DR-DOS had features that MS-DOS had to keep up with, not the other way around.

Keep trying MikeGalos...keep telling yourself that the MS products were techinically superior and THAT is why MS won out, maybe the past will change if you wish it hard enough.

MikeGalos,

"     Exclusionary Per Processor Licenses--Microsoft makes its

MS-DOS and Windows technology available on a "per processor"

basis, which requires PC manufacturers to pay a fee to Microsoft

for each computer shipped, whether or not the computer contains

Microsoft operating system software.  The complaint alleges that

this arrangement gives Microsoft an unfair advantage by causing a

manufacturer selling a non-Microsoft operating system to pay at

least two royalties--one to Microsoft and one to its competitor--

thereby making a non-Microsoft unit more expensive. "

"     Unreasonably Long Licenses--The Department further alleged

that Microsoft's contracts are unreasonably long.  By binding

manufacturers to the purchase of Microsoft products for an

excessive period of time, beyond the lifetime of most operating

system products, the agreements foreclose new entrants from

gaining a sufficient toe-hold in the market."

"     Restrictive Non-Disclosure Agreements--The Department also

charged that Microsoft introduced overly restrictive non-

disclosure agreements to unreasonably restrict the ability of

independent software companies to work with developers of non-

Microsoft operating systems.  Microsoft sought the agreements

from companies participating in trial testing of the new version

of Windows, to be released later this year.  The terms of these

agreements preclude applications developers from working with

Microsoft's competitors for an unreasonable amount of time."

Taken from the US Department Of Justice Website

www.usdoj.gov/.../94387.txt.html

Sounds like there are THREE examples right there of MS cheating to prevent better products from entering the market.

Keep trying MikeGalos, perhaps you'll find a way to prove that these things have NOT happened.

"Maybe you should take your rationalization to the Supreme Court and have them overturn their anti-trust ruling since you obviously have it all figured out."

Maybe you should take your comments to a board that cares.  Nobody does here.  Do you see anybody still running any version of DOS?

No, I didn't think so.

PS:  The only joke here is the US law system.

Moving on....

Waethorn,

Maybe you missed the POINT....which was that MS did not get to where it is STRICTLY BASED on "better products at better products" like MikeGalos claims.

Sorry if you don't like that he has been proven wrong again.  But until he stops makeing these ridiculous claims as FACT, this crap is going to go on.

PS.  It's not the entire US law system that is broken.

@panache - mikegalos will never admit he is wrong...it is not in his vocabulary. He will now begin to point out your spelling and grammar errors as he likes to do when he has been proven to be wrong. The saqme thing has happenned multiple times, both on this board and other places as well.

--tayme

Panache

"Except the United States Department Of Justice."

The court didn't find actual consumer harm. DOJ v Microsoft set new case law and new anti-trust theory.

Prior to that case, harm to the consumer was a requirement for antitrust violation and protecting the consumer was the goal. In DOJ v Microsoft the court changed the rules to say that consumer harm was not a requirement and that protecting competitors was the new goal for a ruling. It was a turning point in changing consumer protection law that had been in place since the trust busters of Teddy Roosevelt's era into the pro-corporate and anti-consumer law started in the 1980s by the "Reagan Revolution".

You'd think you'd know that.

As for whether DR-DOS was a bad clone, you, yourself show that it wasn't. A clone's success is how accurately it copies the original. Changes, good or bad, are flaws in the clone and any change,good or bad, results in different behavior that can cause a bug in a product that counts on the behavior.

Of course, the ethics of rewarding companies that don't do their own innovation but just clone already successful products is a topic worthy of discussion as well. But probably for another day.

in case tayme is right about panache...

Here's the second to last paragraph of my last post with the typo fixed:

As for whether DR-DOS was a bad clone, you, yourself show that it was. A clone's success is how accurately it copies the original. Changes, good or bad, are flaws in the clone and any change, good or bad, results in different behavior that can cause a bug in a product that counts on the behavior.

tayme

btw: the reason I don't back down is that I do my homework and only speak when I have actual knowledge - I know that not talking about subjects you know nothing about is rare but I prefer it. And, on the rare times I have something wrong and somebody teaches me something, I happily acknowledge that.

What I don't do is just back down because somebody shouts their ignorance loudly or repeatedly. I find that only encourages the arrogantly ignorant and we've had enough of that over the last decade.

"Maybe you should take your comments to a board that cares"

Mike should have that on his forehead, written backwards so he can see it when he looks in the mirror.

"mikegalos will never admit he is wrong"  no he wont.  

Mike lives to spew anti-anything MS.  His favorite tactic is to change subject or attack you somehow.  He will never answer a direct question.  In fact 98% of the time he will answer a question with a question.  He should be a politician.  Less than 2% of what he says would be considered helpful or postive.

On a good note he is as predictiable as the sun rising tormorrow.

@panache:

I'd argue that since you were looking at MS-DOS days, nothing compared to Windows 95.  Apple was losing, and they almost died by their own hand.  OS/2 was garbage too.  Netscape couldn't market their value-add either when they were charging for their browser.  I remember those days.  They were selling their web browser while Microsoft gave theirs away.  Netscape even considered entering the OS marketspace but never did.  Instead, they litigated.

Newsflash:  Microsoft was offering disk utilities with MS-DOS while Symantec sold theirs (Norton Utilities for DOS).  Symantec was successful in marketing the value-add.  Netscape not so much.

Looking forward, Opera is facing the same thing now even though they're giving their browser away for free.  They can't compete, so they litigate.

If you can't market that you have a competitive product to something else you get for free or a lesser cost, that's not the competitors fault.

See:  Apple.

BTW:  You have taken this entire article completely off-topic too.

Bravo.

Netflix isn't available in Canada.  Most people around here still just rent from the local Blockbuster.

MS does it. Every company does it. If you could, you would do it too. Every big company tries to bully smaller partners. It doesn't come out into the open most of the time because these smaller partners don't want to lose the business. This is getting silly now.

@Lindy - "His favorite tactic is to change subject"

Case in point...

mikegalos said - "The court didn't find actual consumer harm. DOJ v Microsoft set new case law and new anti-trust theory." in response to panache providing examples of what mikegalos asked for - "How about you name two ["cases where MS won out not by being better, but by being unfair"]. One for each MANY you shouted."

mikegalos also shifted my sentence to sound like I was talking about panache in regards to pointing out spelling errors, when in fact, he know I was referring to one of his debate tactics. mikegalos is so predictable...its actually hilarious.

'bout time to shut this one down, Paul...mikegalos has taken it over as his own again...because his blog is completely ignored.

--tayme

Once again, Mikey ignores the court's findings (spewing, "The court didn't find actual consumer harm."), which couldn't be further from the truth. At the risk of repeating myself:

"Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems ... directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products."

and

"...no significant percentage of consumers will be able to abandon Windows without incurring substantial costs. Microsoft can therefore set the price of Windows substantially higher than that which would be charged in a competitive market — or impose other burdens on consumers — without losing so much business as to make the action unprofitable."

and

"Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power."

and

"Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest. "

www.usdoj.gov/.../msjudgex.htm

Sounds like "customer harm" to me, Mikey.

"And, on the rare times I have something wrong and somebody teaches me something, I happily acknowledge that. "

We're waiting.

Wae,

It's worth noting that Netscape didn't start charging consumers for their browser until they were the dominent browser and after both they and Microsoft had their browsers on the market free to consumers (Netscape did charge for corporate licenses)

It's also worth noting that:

When the relatively weak IE 1 was bundled with OEM versions of Windows 95, Navigator remained dominent.

When better but still not competitive IE 2 was bundled with Windows 95, Navigator remained dominent.

When the roughly competitive IE 3 was bundled with Windows 95, Navigator remained dominent.

When the now superior IE 4 was bundled with Windows 95, Navigator remained dominent.

It was only when the very good IE 5 was available in 1999 and when Netscape released the dreadful Navigator 4.x that IE took the lead that it still holds today.

So much for the tinfoil hat theories that bundling kills a competitor in the days of easy downloads.

It was IE becoming the better product, both by Microsoft improving IE and by Netscape producing a really bad product, that killed Netscape's control of the browser market.

"Sounds like "customer harm" to me, Mikey."

Again, every big company has engaged in actions to increase revenues and profits. This has hurt consumers on several occasions too. When things were going well, credit card companies minted money by charging customers all kinds of fees and charges. As long as their share prices were rising, no one complained.

Greed is human nature. It's not a Microsoft trademark. Sorry, but if any of you believe that companies like Apple haven't done things that have ended up hurting the consumer, you're either naive or an egg head.

lotsa

"Sounds like "customer harm" to me, Mikey."

Then get a hearing test.

Not a single quote you cited shows consumer harm. Capability to harm, yes. Actual harm, no.

Harm to competitors, yes. Harm to consumers, no.

Maybe you should read the actual quotes before posting them.

tayme

"mikegalos also shifted my sentence to sound like I was talking about panache in regards to pointing out spelling errors,"

You're right. I was in error. Thanks for the correction.

See how easy that is? You should try it sometime instead of personal attacks.

"You're right. I was in error. Thanks for the correction."  OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!  Stop this blog now, only post this quote.

The end times are near, I bet hell has frozen over.  Mike's 3 X-wife's just fainted.  

Get the president in the air and off the ground now!!!!!!!!!!

@Lindy - "His favorite tactic is to change subject"

OK, so which subject should he stick to? "Microsoft's past" or "Mike's character"?

Ooh, I should state that I disagree with mike on the subject of Microsoft not harming the consumer. Everybody does it. Some get caught. We hate them.

bettie

"I bet hell has frozen over"

You could look out the window and let us know.

Mike,

What's truly pathetic about this is that you are SO BIASED, you think MS has done nothing wrong, EVEN THOUGH they have been convicted of doing wrong, and harming consumers!  You twist it and turn it ANY WAY you can to avoid accepting what is truth, as if it would somehow HARM YOU PERSONALLY to admit it.....to admit what has been PROVEN in a court law!

You claim to not speak without doing your homework.  Maybe you better read up briefly on antitrust laws.  "Harming the consumer" is *NOT* a requirement.  The government didn't decide to make an example out of MS.  That's just your biased twisted inability to accept that MS got where it is through ANTI COMPETITIVE practices, not because, as you say, it had "better products at better prices".

Some brief info on the Sherman Antitrust act

The Sherman Act

John Sherman (1823-1900) was the younger brother of the American Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman. He became a U.S. senator from Ohio and served as a chairman of the Senate finance committee. He also served as a member of the U.S. Cabinet, including Secretary of State under President William McKinley and Secretary of the Treasury under President Hayes. Sherman was an expert on the regulation of commerce and was the chief author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This ground breaking piece of legislation was the result of intense public opposition to the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns (i,e., trusts) that had been taking place in the U.S. in the decades following the Civil War. Opposition to the trusts was particularly strong among farmers, who protested the high charges for transporting their products to the cities by railroad.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first measure enacted by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts (or monopolies of any type). Although several states had previously enacted similar laws, they were limited to intrastate commerce. The Sherman Antitrust Act, in contrast, was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It was passed by an overwhelming vote of 51 to 1 in the Senate and a unanimous vote of 242 to 0 in the House, and it was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison.

The first part of Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

   The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

   To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

   <b><u>To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;</u></b>

   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

   To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

The Sherman Antitrust Act (the full text of which can be found here) authorized the Federal Government to dissolve the trusts. It began with the statement: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." And it established penalties for persons convicted of establishing such combinations: ". . . shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

Maybe you need to do a BIT more homework...and it's time to admit that Microsoft is not where it is because it's products were necessarily "better" or at "better prices".  ACCEPT IT.

panache

That's an awful lot of cutting and pasting to say nothing but some personal attacks.

"it's time to admit that Microsoft is not where it is because it's products were necessarily "better" or at "better prices"."

See my point about Windows 95.  It IS where it is because of better products.  Apple might as well have shot itself in the head instead of the foot with the disaster that it had on hand.

Windows 95 was a major turning point.  The competition had nothing over that.  The other major turning point was probably Windows XP too, where consumer OS's and business OS's converged.  People liked the stability of a unified Windows platform for the first time, security issues aside.  Nothing Apple, Linux, Sun, or even Big Blue (IBM) compared in either marketing or technical ability.

If you look at Microsoft Office, Lotus and Wordperfect software has been on steady decline since what?  97?  95?  OpenOffice still proves that you can't even give away an inferior product.

@ waethorn...

""I'm baffled by the fact that my general purpose PC is a better recording solution than a purpose-made recording box!"

As with anything, make sure you buy the components that fit the usage."

Actually, what I meant was that a PC I built as a general purpose PC DOES actually perform BETTER than a purpose-made sky+ digital sattelite recorder, even whilst I'm still using that PC to play games, mix multi-track music, edit photos and all the other stuff I find an use for my computer.

I mean i can even do those things, whilst it records in the background, with no issues.

I cannot understand how sky (and others) can get away with selling a purpose made product that performs worse than a generic PC, with a tv-tuner and Media Center.

I wish one day Sky (BSB) would allow the use of a PC-based tuner to work with their system so we can use media center instead of their crappy boxes.

I wouldn't mind (and would actually expect) the compatible DVB-S receivers to require a subscription cards like their boxes do. All I want is for them to allow it, as they are currently locking out anyone from their proprietary encryption system.

But, for now, I'm happy with DVB-T, which is actually a pretty damned good FREE service in the UK, courtesy of the BBC. We're getting DVB-T HD in the coming months as well :)

"I wish one day Sky (BSB) would allow the use of a PC-based tuner to work with their system so we can use media center instead of their crappy boxes."

Can you not use the PC based tuner along with the box Sky provides? At least, that's what I do with the Comcast box.

Mike,

Funny you have nothing to say...again can't admit you're wrong about antitrust.

Wae,

Funny you mention wordperfect.  Didn't Novell sue for anti competitve practices?  

"A key piece of evidence comes from a 1994 e-mail from outgoing Microsoft chairman Bill Gates in which he ordered that some details on Windows' inner workings not be provided to his company's competitors. "I have decided that we should not publish these extensions," wrote Gates. "We should wait until we have away to do a high level of integration that will be harder for likes of Notes, WordPerfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage... We can't compete with Lotus and WordPerfect/Novell without this."

You don't think that sounds anti-competitive?  That MS's Office Monopoly may *NOT* have come strictly by being "better"?

Just answer this.  Name ONE market where MS competes that they dominate, or are even PROFITABLE, other than the two markets they have monopolies and can squeeze competitors as they see fit when necessary?  If they had the ability to just have "better products at better products", wouldn't they shine in OTHER areas, if they compete on level footing?

Funny how all these companies find ground to sue for ANTI COMPETITIVE PRACTICES...then Microsoft SETTLES instead of fighting it, if in fact they were NOT using those practices, but STILL Mike (and now you I guess), claim that it's been 100% on the merits of the software....that it has always been "better" than the competition.

I mean...if YOU were head legal counself of MS, wouldn't you rather prove your innocence instead of settling case after case after case?

Just kind of weird, don't you think?

Waethorn:

A little history to back up your points...

Re: Operating Systems

Note that Microsoft is the only company to offer a modern operating system in many, many years.

Apple tried multiple times, failed multiple times and feel back on putting a shell on an OS (Unix) from the teletype days.

Linux is just an implementation of that same teletype OS.

SUN did multiple versions of that same teletype OS.

IBM did manage to put out OS/2 with Microsoft but internal division competition kept it from being pushed to a place where it might have hurt the AS/400 or ES/9000 series of the time and so they've been abandoning modern OS work since those markets collapsed even without OS/2 hurting them. They did, however, attempt a modern OS co-developed with Apple and failed and one on their own and failed.

In ones you didn't mention, NeXT put a shell on that same old Unix and failed, Be couldn't figure out whether they wanted to sell hardware or software and failed, Digital Research gave up on GEM and became a failed cloner who was resold for potential litigation value rather than technology.

Re: Office Applications

WordPerfect really collapsed when they bet on OS/2 rather than Windows, didn't release a Windows version until very late, produced a horrible first product and a second that although slightly better was too little, too late to save them. They ended up being sold and resold to companies with dreams of being the "Next Microsoft". They were, if not dead, a corporate zombie by 1993.

Lotus was a one-trick pony. They failed with Symphony, Jazz, Modern Jazz, Manuscript, Agenda and Improv (a really excellent clone of Javelin for NeXT and Windows that they killed off) but managed to keep surviving their bad decisions and products by living on 1-2-3 until they blew the GUI versions with the strange 1-2-3G. Interestingly, where WordPerfect blew the Windows word processor market, Lotus bought Ami Pro which was Word's only real competitor in the space. They were acquired by then-collapsing IBM who had no clue what to do with the Lotus assets.

panache

"Funny you have nothing to say...again can't admit you're wrong about antitrust."

Because I'm right. And as I said earlier in the thread:

"What I don't do is just back down because somebody shouts their ignorance loudly or repeatedly. I find that only encourages the arrogantly ignorant and we've had enough of that over the last decade."

tayme and panache

A few items to look up while you're trying to figure out what those "superior products" were:

IBM Workplace OS

AIM Alliance Taligent Pink

Apple Copland

Apple Gershwin

" Name ONE market where MS competes that they dominate, or are even PROFITABLE, other than the two markets they have monopolies and can squeeze competitors as they see fit when necessary?"

Here's one: The hardware division that makes mice and keyboards.

MikeGalos,

Show me where ANTITRUST needs to have causes harm to the consumer.  I showed the definition of it, and it had nothing to do with harm to the consumer.  I showed why you are WRONG.

Now you can show me why you think you are RIGHT.

It seems like you can't since your whole argument so far has been, "because I'm right".

" Name ONE market where MS competes that they dominate, or are even PROFITABLE, other than the two markets they have monopolies and can squeeze competitors as they see fit when necessary?"

Or programming languages and tools (Microsoft's first business)

Or databases

Or email servers

Or web servers

Or TPM monitors

Or, or, or...

Panache

I'd suggest you look up the phrase "Consumer Protection Law" along with "Anti-trust" to see about 75 years of examples. (Or ask any lawyer who ever studied anti-trust or consumer protection law)

MikeGalos,

You said,

"Re: Office Applications

WordPerfect really collapsed when they bet on OS/2 rather than Windows, didn't release a Windows version until very late, produced a horrible first product and a second that although slightly better was too little, too late to save them. They ended up being sold and resold to companies with dreams of being the "Next Microsoft". They were, if not dead, a corporate zombie by 1993."

Evidence used in a trial

""A key piece of evidence comes from a 1994 e-mail from outgoing Microsoft chairman Bill Gates in which he ordered that some details on Windows' inner workings not be provided to his company's competitors. "I have decided that we should not publish these extensions," wrote Gates. "We should wait until we have away to do a high level of integration that will be harder for likes of Notes, WordPerfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage... We can't compete with Lotus and WordPerfect/Novell without this."

Nah..not anticompetitive at all.  They didn't cheat at all to gain their position, right?

It's amazing that you continue to stand your ground in the face of clear evidence AGAIST what you are saying.  Not just amazaing...but kind of sad.

@gorath:

YMMV, but I'm happy with my Bell TV HD PVR"+".  It's a DISH Network something something....92xx whatever..

It works extremely well though.  I rent it from Bell, so I don't have to worry about the hard drive cacking.

"Didn't Novell sue for anti competitve practices?"

Actually, Novell owned Wordperfect Corporation until they sold it to Corel.  They bought it up thinking they could compete.  They couldn't.  They did exactly as Mike said above - they bet on the wrong operating system.  There were no 32-bit versions for Winodws 95 et al until much later than Office 95.  In fact, the Wikipedia article even starts out with the first line in the History segment: "WordPerfect was late in coming to market with a Windows version".  The rest is there.  Notably, Wordperfect failed on their own merit.  Microsoft just cleaned up their lost sales because they had a superior product that people actually WANTED to buy.  

To note:  I have never seen OEM systems ship with Word preinstalled with Windows where it wasn't uninstallable.  VERY infrequently do I see major OEM's offer Office software applications as full versions without charging for it separately.  Maybe 1 in ever 100 computers or so....OEM's bundle what they want.  If Novell couldn't offer a better OEM bundling deal, that's their problem.

@mike:

I agree that Lotus was a one hit sh*t.  When GUI operating systems became the norm, they were already a dead horse.

MikeGalos and shark

Good job on naming software MS competes on and makes money.

Yet, none of them MS had a monopoly position....weird.

Mike,

Yet, you still confuse the two.  Consumer Protection and Antitrust may have overlap, yet, businesses can still be found guilt of Antitrust WITHOUT causing consumer harm, as what happened with MS.  Using unfair business tactics to harm competition is illegal in the US.  If you don't like it take it to the Supreme Court instead of denying that MS did wrong, and the DOJ made an example of them, and changed their standards.

Again, there is repeated evidence, as proven in mulitple courts, that MS has used unfair business practices to quell competition, NOT JUST their products are "better".

It's amazing that you keep going on and on about it.  A lot of the things you say are pretty unbelievable.

I'm done with this idiotic thread.  No matter how much evidence you are shown, no matter how many courts find MS guilty of illegal business practices, you continue to deny any wrong doing.

On that note...

Visual Studio probably IS the best IDE.  The best I've seen at least...hands down.

"Nah..not anticompetitive at all."

Actually it wasn't.  Wordperfect Corporation was looking for a buyer in late 1993.  Novell bought it in 1994 and sold it to Corel less than only 2 years later.  2 YEARS!!

They probably figured it was a good investment at the time.  It's about as good as an investment as Yahoo! is now.  Speaking of which, I have some stock in GM I'd like to sell you.

Customers actually PREFERRED the 1989 DOS version over the Windows version because they got familiar with the setup (there is still the odd die-hard that likes the Reveal Codes function over WYSIWYG, but most of those people are dillusional).  The initial Windows versions of Wordperfect were a flop.  Microsoft offered a better product that was new and different.

"Visual Studio probably IS the best IDE.  The best I've seen at least...hands down."

So what kind of anti-competitive "proof" can you say about Microsoft for that?

Novell just couldn't compete when they bought a loser.  They kept it for less than 2 whole years, and they figured they'd get a nice ROI by suing instead.  That's what's wrong with the US system of law:

When you can't innovate, litigate.

mikegalos likes to accuse others of personal attacks...if I really cared I would cite several examples of him attacking many on Paul's blog and other places...but really, I don't care that much. Watching mikegalos make a fool of himself is a hobby of mine.

--tayme

"Using unfair business tactics to harm competition is illegal in the US."

Only if someone makes a claim against you and they win in court.

It happens all the time.

Business is rarely fair.

That's Capitalism at its finest.

@Waethorn - You last post is spot on...I am against litigation for success. It is one of the many downfalls of the US right now. Its exactly what Shark said before...that is what competition is all about. It's like the 10 run rule in kids baseball or the 50 point rule in kids football. Nobody learns to lose and to deal with failure...so they sue their way to success.

--tayme

tayme, I think the EC is a bigger problem at this point. It gives companies a huge incentive to spend more on lawyer fees than on R&D.

On a completely unrelated note:

Has anybody checked out the Moblin 2.0 beta?

Pingback from  Netflix comes to bWindows/b Media Center - SuperSite Blog &laquo;  Windows 7 Live Info

Wae,

You are missing the point, so let's just drop it.

I never said MS did not have good products...EVER!  And I NEVER said their good products are only good because they cheated.  I said they got their dominating position by illegal business practices NOT just because their products that got them there were "better".

As far as IDEs go....They have either just done a better job, or taken other ideas and implemented them better.  I don't know if they invented "intellisense", but without a doubt, I feel their implementation is better than any I've seen....BLOWS AWAY Eclipse or XCode (which is just crappy all the way around!)

@ Shark...

" "I wish one day Sky (BSB) would allow the use of a PC-based tuner to work with their system so we can use media center instead of their crappy boxes."

Can you not use the PC based tuner along with the box Sky provides? At least, that's what I do with the Comcast box. "

Well, I can connect a sky receiver to the PC's tuner via component, but I would lose the ability to record two sky channels at the same time, as the decoder is in the sky box itself.

Also, by connecting in this manner, I lose the ability to watch any films from sky, as they are scrambled to any recording equipment - sure, there are hacky ways around that, but I long for a properly integrated, media center-compatible solution.

Maybe one day Media center will gather enough momentum to make it worth sky's time. Well, at least I can hope!