| 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 |
 |
Which Microsoft monopoly really matters? | |
|
||
| Time: 17:59 EST/22:59 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Ordinary people don't pay too much attention to software-development tools. And this is just the way Microsoft likes it. Why? Because while the world argues, debates, and even sues over Microsoft's dominance over things like Web browsers and operating systems, it's able to quietly control the hearts, minds, and digital tool chests of the people who create the software we use every day. And why would Microsoft want to do that? Well, controlling developers--and the tools they use--is just the most insidious way it stamps out competition. Programmers get hooked on Microsoft's tools because they're so easy to use. After that, they tend to use other Microsoft products, too. As time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult for developers to follow a competitor's path. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:32:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/18/2002 6:23:27 PM |
|
#2 - Amen brotha!
By the way, last time I checked, people use Visual Studio not because it's the only choice (far from it), but because it's almost unilaterally the best development suit available. Unlike "normal" consumers, which one could argue are too ignorant to know what the best choice is for software, so Microsoft is able to "force" them to use Windows, developers are certainly at least a bit more intelligent than the average Joe. Could it just *possibly* be that people *choose* to use Visual Studio because it's a great product? Just *maybe*!? I used Code Warrior for a damn long time. It was awesome. When Visual Studio 6 came out, however, it was just *that* much better to cause me to switch from my beloved Code Warrior. I mean, I *really* loved Code Warrior. I even had a Code Warrior t-shirt. (Ya, I'm a dork... shut up.) Did Microsoft somehow trick me into using Visual Studio? Did they ensure that Code Warrior wouldn't run on my NT box? Did they make it so that you could only develop Windows applications in Visual Studio? Nope... it was just better. This is simply another case of Microsoft not getting the credit they deserve. While I'll be the first to scream bloody murder about the divergent development routes that have plagued Windows developers for the past 7 years, I'm also the first to point out that Microsoft has done the best job at meeting developer needs in the entire industry. Why? Because the company is for developer, by developers. It's as simple as that. |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 2/18/2002 11:15:20 PM |
|
#9, you cannot compare hardware to software. They may both be part of a computer, but they are completely different things.
With hardware, there are standards set as a means of communication. The hardware manufacturer uses that to communicate, and then can make whatever else it wants on top of that, then write the driver that allows the OS it's running on to be able to use that hardware. With software, such as an OS, you have different things with different OS's, OS's are built with different ideals in mind, and for different purposes, and in essance, Windows is the software equivelant of the means of communication of hardware. If you want competition in the OS sector, then you would have to have MANY MANY MANY incompatibilities, causing great confusion and frustration. Sure, you could create a standard of what must be put into the OS, and then all software is compliant to that standard, but then that kind of defeats the whole purpose, and would actually hold back further development. |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/19/2002 12:38:26 AM |
|
Hmm, I actually have a copy of Borland C++ v4.5 I purchased back in around 1991 or so. Borland had some other problems, that compiler and it's subsequent one were not very stable for writing Windows software. Turned a lot of people away.
Watcom C++ was another viable competitor at the time, and was pretty damn good up until Win95 came out. |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/19/2002 11:21:05 AM |
|
#17 - Java never took off on any platform for client software. Not Windows, not the Mac, not Linux. It had nothing to do with Microsoft's "embrace and extend" of Java, which was done more out of (as it turns out) unjusitifed fear than anything.
Anyway... no diehard Code Warrior fans out there? Bastards. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 2/19/2002 3:09:22 PM |
|
#23, and there was a lot of incompatibilites in that time period. Today we have basically two PC platforms (x86 and PPC). It's a lot easier to find software (or hardware) that you need for your platofrm because of this.
There are LOTS and LOTS of new design ideas coming ALL the time.... have you ever seen Comdex? The difference now is, we have large companies (Apple, MS, IBM, etc..) pumping hundreds of millions, and even billions of dollars into R&D, rather than smaller upstarts. You say that there is no innovation because of MS's so called monopoly. However, things that were pioneered in say, BeOS, are now being implemented in Windows and MacOS. It's really quite short sighted to say what you have said. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:32:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
