| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Denies Making Windows Incompatible | |
|
||
| Time: 17:09 EST/22:09 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
A Microsoft Corp. executive on Monday denied charges that the company tries to gain advantage by making Windows operating system incompatible with rivals' software. Microsoft Vice President Robert Short, the fourth Microsoft executive to testify in the landmark antitrust trial, said the software giant makes "significant efforts" to make its operating system work well with its competitors' software. "I emphatically disagree with the suggestion that Microsoft deliberately introduces incompatibilities to prevent our competitors' software from working with our products," Short said in written testimony. Three other Microsoft officials, including company chairman Bill Gates, have already appeared in court to try to convince U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly not to impose severe antitrust sanctions proposed by nine states still suing Microsoft. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:51:03 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/29/2002 5:33:00 PM |
| The Andressen argument again. My software doesn't work so it must be Microsoft's fault. |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/29/2002 8:00:42 PM |
| And would the states care to give ONE shred of evidence that MS has even done this? |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 8:10:17 PM |
|
CPUGuy, they did--they provided evidence regarding Novell and Real.
I love crap like this: "Given these efforts [to interoperate], the notion that Microsoft 'retaliates' against software developers who do not do what Microsoft wants is completely unfounded." No, no, it doesn't. A ten year old can understand that one doesn't follow the other. MS has to get off this "we're doing the world a favor" attitude. People who can say crap like--because we do A (use some standards and work with some to interoperate), that proves we couldn't possibly ever do B (retaliate against others by changing code) with a straight face deserve whatever comes their way... And, of course, the fools who believe this is a brilliant and rock-solid argument deserve even worse. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, April 29, 2002 at 20:53. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 8:13:43 PM |
| CPU, also, how 'bout changing their web sites to lock out Mozilla and Opera. These browsers could render the pages fine, MS claimed they couldn't, but everyone could easily show that the browsers could render the pages, that the pages weren't themselves compliant, and the code which blocked them wasn't looking for compliant code--it was simply targeting those rival browsers. All of that evidence was very public and very clear--retaliation, plain and simple. There was no new functionality or any ligitimate reason to make the change. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 8:48:48 PM |
|
Spiked, that's a nice theory on your part--but entirely untrue. It didn't affect only the new versions of these browsers--it affected all versions. Nor did the problem occur with the release of a new version of Opera or Mozilla. Nor was their any benefit to making this decision to eliminate their ability to view MS sites--the days before and after, Opera and Mozilla still rendered the pages fine.
It was resolved quickly because people were so pissed and because anyone making edits on the web can usually make them in seconds--especially when it involves eliminating a couple of lines of code. I would say defending MS's side in this case is just supposition until you can explain to me what the features that these browsers couldn't support were.. and explain to me the value of these features... and explain to me why MS reversed their decision... (if it was done for good technology reasons, why was it rejected so quickly?) Until then, clear RETALIATION. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, April 29, 2002 at 20:52. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/30/2002 12:59:47 AM |
|
spiked - Good call.
sodajerk - I have to agree with everybody else... Someone at MSN made an honest mistake, and it was fixed quite quickly. What's unfortunate is when people jump instantly to conspiracy conclusions for rather simple mistakes. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/30/2002 11:10:20 AM |
|
RANT - Thank you for confirming spiked's account of the story.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:51:03 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
