Microsoft calls IBM anti-competitive

[Grant A.]

Now isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? :lolflag:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/0652216/Microsoft-Backed-Firm-Says-IBM-Is-Anticompetitive

When Microsoft does it, it's "business". When another company starts becoming successful, it's "anti-competitive".

Oi, this makes me sick.

[monsterstack]

It does seem rather pointless, considering Microsoft don't even have any mainframes at all. What are they going to compete with? But then one of the posters on the Slashdot article pointed out something from one of the submitted stories:

From TFA (http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/hp-pushes-mainframe-migration-hard-at-tech-forum/) [techtarget.com]:

I looked at the fine print on the wheel to see if there were more details on the migration. It said the scenario was a migration of SAP applications on an IBM z9 EC 2094 Model 720 mainframe to two HP Integrity rx8640s and two HP Integrity rx7640s running Microsoft Windows Server 2003. I’m not sure myself if that’s an apples-to-apples comparison. Maybe some of my mainframe friends out there can chime in, in the comment section.

Ah, so they want people off mainframes and on to bog-standard servers running Windows Server 2003 instead. Gotcha.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Feh, MS is talking out of its @$%& with this.

[bakedbeans4life]

Now isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? :lolflag:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/0652216/Microsoft-Backed-Firm-Says-IBM-Is-Anticompetitive

When Microsoft does it, it's "business". When another company starts becoming successful, it's "anti-competitive".

Oi, this makes me sick.

You know you are gonna get a world of hurt dissing Microsoft here. Cue the excuses and explanations as to how Microsoft is the victim in all of this.

[Giant Speck]

Wait a second. The title of your thread says that Microsoft called IBM anti-competitive. The Slashdot article you linked to says a Microsoft-backed firm called IBM anti-competetive.

Yet, the Slashdot article doesn't give a direct link to a quote that shows such name-calling...

[monsterstack]

Wait a second. The title of your thread says that Microsoft called IBM anti-competitive. The Slashdot article you linked to says a Microsoft-backed firm called IBM anti-competetive.

Yet, the Slashdot article doesn't give a direct link to a quote that shows such name-calling...

Good point. I had a quick look.

From one of the other FA (http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=446738&Page=0) [totaltele.com]:

CCIA members include T3, Microsoft and Oracle Corp. The group was formed more than 35 years ago, in part to draw attention to IBM's dominance of mainframes. Though it was once presumed dead, analysts say the mainframe business may now become even more strategic. That's because of the increasing shift in corporate computing to an Internet-hosted "cloud" reliant upon mainframes, as well as on other servers plugged into data centers.

So not just Microsoft, a bunch of folk are unhappy. HP more than anyone, it seems. Still, in the 90s people moved away from mainframes. Nobody but IBM has built them for years. Everyone else thought they were a dead technology. Microsoft did too, and were quite smug about it. But now that cloud computing is apparently the next big thing, mainframes are all of a sudden viable again. To me, this whole article stinks of butthurt. Serves them all right.

[Skripka]

Wait a second. The title of your thread says that Microsoft called IBM anti-competitive. The Slashdot article you linked to says a Microsoft-backed firm called IBM anti-competetive.

Yet, the Slashdot article doesn't give a direct link to a quote that shows such name-calling...

And the quote posted on Slashdot refers to an industry-association backed by Microsoft calling IMB "anti-competitive".



Jeeebus. Did no one learn about citations in their bibliography coursework?

[PuddingKnife]

You know you are gonna get a world of hurt dissing Microsoft here. Cue the excuses and explanations as to how Microsoft is the victim in all of this.


Nobody has a problem with people telling it like it is with Microsoft. The problem lies in the childish ad hominem style methods which some people employ in their delivery.

You can make an excellent point about the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's business practices, but the moment you say "M$" or "Winblows" you make your self and other Linux enthusiast look like bratty children.

Moving along.

[rookcifer]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2rhqmtz.jpg

[Sealbhach]

You can make an excellent point about the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's business practices, but the moment you say "M$" or "Winblows" you make your self and other Linux enthusiast look like bratty children.

I don't see it that way. I think it's terribly witty.


.

[froggyswamp]

You can make an excellent point about the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's business practices, but the moment you say "M$" or "Winblows" you make your self and other Linux enthusiast look like bratty children.

Don't confuse your fantasy with knowledge. M$ gets everything it deserves. More will follow.

[MikeTheC]

Now isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? :lolflag:

And here I was all set to insert a picture of a pot and a kettle, but you beat me to the punch.

[Frak]

Nobody has a problem with people telling it like it is with Microsoft. The problem lies in the childish ad hominem style methods which some people employ in their delivery.

You can make an excellent point about the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's business practices, but the moment you say "M$" or "Winblows" you make your self and other Linux enthusiast look like bratty children.

Moving along.
I have to agree. It's childish, and if people continue to do it, it only makes Ubuntu look childish.

In fact, due to all these amazing responses about M$, it seems my ignore list is getting pretty full.

[p_quarles]

When Microsoft does it, it's "business". When another company starts becoming successful, it's "anti-competitive".

Starts becoming successful, what?

Microsoft's original success involved knocking IBM off its pedestal. The complaint here seems very misguided.

[Grant A.]

Starts becoming successful, what?

If IBM is one of the only people selling mainframes, then a rising demand in mainframes would make them successful.

[philcamlin]

microsont doesnt even make computers...

and ibm's are one of the best out there they were one of the first too.

without ibm microsoft would be pretty much out of it right now :popcorn:

[swoll1980]

If IBM is one of the only people selling mainframes, then a rising demand in mainframes would make them successful.

IBM has been a successful company since the late 1800s. I think that's what he was trying to say.

[MikeTheC]

microsont doesnt even make computers...

and ibm's are one of the best out there they were one of the first too.

without ibm microsoft would be pretty much out of it right now :popcorn:

So does that mean I should take a strike force back in time to the 1970s and wipe out IBM?

[swoll1980]

So does that mean I should take a strike force back in time to the 1970s and wipe out IBM?

Then Apple would probably be were Microsoft is today, it would all pretty much be the same, except the computers would cost a lot more.

[Sealbhach]

So does that mean I should take a strike force back in time to the 1970s and wipe out IBM?

If you do that, the next post I make will be from an Amiga PC.

.

[MikeTheC]

Then Apple would probably be were Microsoft is today, it would all pretty much be the same, except the computers would cost a lot more.

I'd be good with that.

[swoll1980]

I'd be good with that.

and everything would start with an i then a camel case. We would all have iCars, iLawnmowers, and iKitchensinks. All purchased with our iCreditcards of course.

[MikeTheC]

and everything would start with an i then a camel case. We would all have iCars, iLawnmowers, and iKitchensinks.

Sure, but it also means they wouldn't have been bought so trivially by everyone. Fewer people would have them, and frankly I can't see how that would be a bad thing.

[swoll1980]

Sure, but it also means they wouldn't have been bought so trivially by everyone. Fewer people would have them, and frankly I can't see how that would be a bad thing.

Bill Gates would be in the iPoorhouse, drinking iWhiskey to forget about his problems.

[Frak]

and everything would start with an i then a camel case. We would all have iCars, iLawnmowers, and iKitchensinks. All purchased with our iCreditcards of course.
Well, if Microsoft didn't exist due to IBM being wiped out in 1970...

Apple wouldn't have developed the iPod in an attempt to gain profits in a niche market to stay afloat.
The Macintosh would be the dominant line of computers.
Our computer systems would be RISC, and probably using Motorola processors still.
Sun Microsystems would most likely be a direct competitor with their SolarStation (random name).
PDA's probably wouldn't exist.
No iPod, no iApps.
The WorldWideWeb wouldn't exist, because Jobs was NOT booted from Apple for heavy competition with Microsoft, so Jobs did NOT start NeXT computing, so Jobs did NOT create the NeXTCUBE, so Jobs did NOT sell one to CERN, which Tim Burners-Lee did NOT use to create the first WWW server.
Be Inc would still probably exist.
Macromedia would still exist.
Adobe would have merged with Apple after Apple launched a merger agreement between the two to integrate Adobe technologies directly into Mac OS without paying royalties.
The GUI would still look atrocious (Sun vs. Apple, no GUI upgrade)
Xerox would have pursued the Graphical Workstation and would thus create the best looking GUI available (as voted by their peers).
Linux wouldn't exist. No need since Sun and the GNU project have already combined their technologies. (probable)
Apple computers would run Motorolla processors, Suns would run Sparcs (probable), and Xerox would run MIPS (probable). Intel would be phased out of the processor market.
AMD would make co-processors for all platforms. They would be the first company to make universal, cross-platform hardware. They would never dive into the processor market because Intel would have been phased out and the Pentium II would have never existed. Since the PII never existed, AMD never saw a threat of the co-processor being integrated into the physical processor and thus being forced into the processor market.
SMP would be common many years earlier.
The processor race would focus on the simplist instructions, not the clock rates. (Motorola/Sparc/MIPS RISC vs. Intel's CISC)
Mark Shuttleworth would still fly on the СОЮ3 after selling Thawte to Sun, the leading producer in encryption based communication.

These are just thoughts floating in the back of my head. Some of them have no substance, others make complete sense.

[Sealbhach]

The WorldWideWeb wouldn't exist, because Jobs was NOT booted from Apple for heavy competition with Microsoft, so Jobs did NOT start NeXT computing, so Jobs did NOT create the NeXTCUBE, so Jobs did NOT sell one to CERN, which Tim Burners-Lee did NOT use to create the first WWW server.


Interesting theory.

.

[swoll1980]

Interesting theory.

.

Al Gore would have invented it instead. Bill Gates would have created the first web browser. Then mac would have bundled a Bill Browser clone in their os, and put him out of business.

[Frak]

Interesting theory.

.
I thought about that for the last 10 years. It plays out the same, though. We wouldn't have the WWW, and it would be a jumbled mess of standards that would be heavily proprietized.

Oh, add some to the list:
TCP/IP wouldn't be the standard for the "Internet (or w/e its name is)". Most likely, it would be AppleTalk via Token Ring with an elected leader in a token ring chain.
What we know as Novell would have been bought by Sun, and would launch another suite of protocols using NCP that would link to a mainframe host that would execute some commands for the semi-dumb terminal being produced by Sun. This would allow computers to do simple work on their own, but use a timesharing service plus unused terminals to execute other information. The system runs on an improved Token Ring network using Fibre. The system closely resembles the SONET system we use today, only on small scale.
Xerox would push their IPX/SPX system, making it the default system for their network. Xerox would create a protocol that would become the most efficient method to transfer media over a network using copper telephone lines (resembling X.25). The protocol would automatically be switched depending on the type of media and its size.
USB would not exist.

[jonian_g]

SO interesting, give us more #-o

[krow436]

You know you are gonna get a world of hurt dissing Microsoft here. Cue the excuses and explanations as to how Microsoft is the victim in all of this.
Oh man, somebody help me barricade the doors. I dunno if we can keep all of the Ubuntu using Windows fanboys held back! :lolflag:

[krow436]

Bill Gates would be in the iPoorhouse, drinking iWhiskey to forget about his problems.
His iproblems?

[Frak]

Oh man, somebody help me barricade the doors. I dunno if we can keep all of the Ubuntu using Windows fanboys held back! :lolflag:
OMG, HAHA, I C WUT U DID THAR!!!!1!one!!

[krow436]

Al Gore would have invented it instead. Bill Gates would have created the first web browser. Then mac would have bundled a Bill Browser clone in their os, and put him out of business.
Without the web and Microsoft, Al Gore never would have invented the environment, ridden the moon worms, or written "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth"

[swoll1980]

Without the web and Microsoft, Al Gore never would have invented the environment, ridden the moon worms, or written "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth"

Where there is a Al Gore, there is a way.

[Giant Speck]

Without the web and Microsoft, Al Gore never would have invented the environment, ridden the moon worms, or written "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth"

But maybe he would have finally caught Manbearpig.

[swoll1980]

His iproblems?

No, as big as mac has become, they still don't own the rights to problems. Those are under the GPL.

[Frak]

but maybe he would have finally caught manbearpig.
I'M SUPER SUPER CEREAL GUYZ!!!

o

[swoll1980]

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.guitar.com/uploaded/profile_images/forum_320fa475_MANBEARPIG.png&usg=AFQjCNE5YMwKaJRs4yPlpFHHlTqabZQl9w