Man, you must hate MS. You can complain all you want. Most people that sue MS due it because they know MS can pay it off. MS has money, people don' t like that, they try and take it. People all around the world say they won' t buy MS products because MS already has too much money. Wtf is that? That' s envy. They don' t like the company because simply, Bill Gates worked from nothing to the single greatest most wealthy company in the world. Hating something because it has money, that' s pretty low.

Yes, I mentioned MS buys out companies and such. From day one, people going into the financial area learn you have to crush the competition. This isn' t just MS, all companies try to take other companies out. MS is just a lot better at it because they have the money.

Do I think they dominate the field and possibly go a little over board at times? Yes. Do I think there is a monopoly? No. Macs are in comp[etition right now. Big company. Why isn' t it selling aswell? People like MS products over Macs. It' s a persons choice on which product to buy. You can' t lay all the blame on MS when there are other products on the market but people still buy MS. It' s as much the consumers fault(I don' t really like to use that word in this case...) for MS being as rich as it is as it is the corporate big shots in the company. What OS are you using right now? If it' s Windows you' re a part of this so called problem.

On to Shenmue, that was one of the single most costly games of all time. IT' s selling ratio to resource ratio was utter crap because it' s not a mainstream game. It didn' t sell well period. I don' t know where you get your numbers but unless they are taking money from other games and putting it into the huge debt Shemue caused I don' t see how they are almost done filling that gap. Your numbers, or lack there of, don' t make sense.

Yes, people want to see the story end, I want to see the story end but Sega didn' t want to make the risk of loosing a crap load of money again. It costs quite a bit more to make a Shenmue game than it does the average sports title. Since Yu is now in his own developement team we may never see the title- http://www.digitalrex.jp/. I can' t blame Sega for for trying to stay live. I can say they made some stupid mistakes, a whole lot of them I might add. When it comes to going bankrupt over one game that has dedicated fans but not enough to make a profit, I can see why they didn' t let it continue. I think it sucks, but it' s what needed to be done.

I was thinkin about this in the form of game consoles. Theres 3 major ones out, 3 that a person would have to choose from if they lacked the money for all 3.
Now choosing a product can be a real bitch somtimes, as you have to hope you make a good choice and get the best for your money.
But if 2 of those game companies got knocked out and maybe went the way of sega thered be only one you had to choose from that had all the others under its arms.

This makes the choice obviously easier. You now got 1 system to go and get and it has the publishers and developers (who i assume dont wanna go completly out of business) from the other systems.

::I may have again completly missed the problem and just said somin completly pointless::

First note.......I actually believe that MS has a monopoly on OS. I only said that it could be argued because there are products like Linux, and Mac' s. But, that hardly creates a competitive market.

Ramp,
The only reason that nobody has released anything comparable, is because the majority of computers in the world (not just in the US) use windows. That means that EVERY software producer makes Windows compatible software.

If I wanted to even think about competing with MS, I would have to pay ALL of those companies to develop software for my OS. So, there would be a Netscape for Windows and dmOS (deadmeat OS). But, what company is going to risk the money developing for my OS. Everybody is going to buy the Windows version, because they already own it.

So, let' s say that someone did release a 99% stable OS. People still won' t buy it because there is no other software support for said OS. Linux is actually a good example. Reports are it is extremely stable, but, nobody is buying it. Another example of a good operating system WAS OS2 (IBM). I say was, because I think it' s bust now. But, back in the day, it was a good OS, but, nobody developed word processors for it, nobody developed spreadsheets for it. So, it busted. Good OS died because of lack of support of other developers.

To have a successful OS launch I would also need to have about another 10 or 20 releases that would run on the software. But, NOBODY but MS has the capital for that kind of venture. So, in effect, there is NO way anyone can really bring another OS to market with the success that MS has.

Also, MS will sue the other company if anything turns out to be similar. In other words, lets say my OS will run windows based programs. Then, MS could say that I' ve stolen their code, or my product is too similar to theirs.

I see your point, but the MAc has a whole lot of things taht are now compatible with it. Everyone that is a Mac fan seems to think it can do everything Windows can do and more. Almost everything Windows can do they say the Mac can do. So why are people still buying Windows when there is a decent competitor? Because people like MS better.It' s the consumers who are choosing to buy these things. Tou can' t just tell MS to restrict who buy their product. That' s what has made MS big, the consumers want MS products. I look at Mac as a decent competitor but people still prefer MS.

The MAC has NO WHERE near the support WINDOWS PCs have, hence one of the reasons Windows is so far ahead of the pack. While both are highly capable platforms, the PC has garnered more attention from average consumers while it seems more professionals and maybe hardcore users flocked to the MAC.

For sound production I only like Macs, for video stuff I love both platforms.

Okay, I never thought that MAc was overly supported but MAc owners seem to pride themselves on how much support it gets. I know people in other forums that are constantly trying to get people to come over to macs using reasons like how much better they are, and how much support they get. So I guess they are wrong. Personally I don' t think MS is a monopoly. If it is, it' s as much the consumers fault as it is MS' s.

" Man, you must hate MS. You can complain all you want"

You' re right I can. Know why? Because I' m right and you' re wrong. You say MS doesn' t have a monopoly. That' s an opinion (a terribly uninformed one). I say they do. That' s a fact recognised by international law. The sooner you concede this, the better. Intead of accusing me of being anti-microsoft, why don' t you instead accept that I just happen to understand the law? This has nothing to do with my opinion of MS, this has to do with me disagreeing with your opinion, so don' t bother stooping to those levels again to try and reinforce your already flimsy argument.

And I don' t hate MS, what I hate is the fact that you are so vehemently defending them with your uninformed opinion and trying to pass it off as being more valid than fact. Your opinion, like anyone elses on this forum, is as valid as the next persons. Forums don' t work otherwise. If I thought you' d actually researched or even kept abreast of the financial standings of Microsoft, then I might take your argument seriously, but the fact is you' ve got nothing but opinion and crude comparisons to back you up. How on earth you can think your uninformed opinion holds muster against what is essentially the opinion of the rest of the world simply smacks of arrogance.

I' m not challenging the fact that MS is a monopoly because I know they are, I' m challenging your opinion which simply doesn' t stand up. That' s what forums are for, what they' re here to do.

" Do I think they dominate the field and possibly go a little over board at times? Yes."


How is this different from being a monopoly?


Naturally I' m using Windows XP and whilst you can argue I' m part of the problem, what else am I going to use on my PC? Lol, jesus christ, that' s the whole point, but you' d rather blame the entire world for Microsofts Monopoly as opposed to Microsoft themselves. That' s some fuzzy logic you got there.


With regards to Shenmue, what I meant was that most of the development and research done on the series has already been taken care of. The story, character models and settings need only to be given a graphical update and dev of Shenmue 3 can begin.

Personally I don' t think MS is a monopoly. If it is, it' s as much the consumers fault as it is MS' s.

Again, your opinion is just that. My opinion isn' t just based on fact, it is fact - backed by fact, based on fact, rooted in fact. And how the hell can it be the consumers fault that MS has a monopoly? Frankly, that' s the most ridiculous thing I' ve ever heard. Here in the UK, you' d be lucky to find a retailer dealing with MAC' s on the high street, where the majority of PC purchases are made.

So basically you' re saying that because the consumer has no choice as to what OS they use, it' s their fault? Microsoft Office is the best application of its kind, so is it fair that you can only use it on Windows?

Just sit down for a minute and think about that. In fact, I suggest you read the entire thread and read the posts that don' t agree with you. It' s no longer an argument because those people who have posted in disagreement with your opinion understand the issue a great deal more than you do.

What this thread has turned into is kind of like that sketch from the Simpsons where the Witness protection officers are trying to make Homer understand his name is now Homer Thompson: he keeps saying he understands what they' re saying, but he' s either too stupid or too ignorant to take it on board.

I' m just baffled as to why you don' t understand why Microsoft is a monopoly. I' m baffled as to why you think you know better than the law. More to the point, I' m baffled as to how you can honestly argue this point without referring to another credible source.

Okay, I never thought that MAc was overly supported but MAc owners seem to pride themselves on how much support it gets. I know people in other forums that are constantly trying to get people to come over to macs using reasons like how much better they are, and how much support they get. So I guess they are wrong.

It' s true that MAC support has improved over the years but as far as I can tell, support is still happening at a slow pace. I can' t speak for anyone at those MAC forums but I think some of them are the text book definition of blind loyalty.

The PS2 is technically inferior to the Xbox but yet it sells a hell of alot more games, consoles and has tons more support. It doesn' t make it a better system, but it makes it a more lucrative platform for developers. More support means more software, more software means a larger fanbase. I think the same holds true in the Windows PC - MAC world.

For me, there are things the MAC can do that I wish Windows PCs could do and there are things convenient to me on Windows PCs that I wish the MAC had. As a result I believe both platforms COMPLIMENT each other very well.

I' ve always felt Plug n Play was better implemented on MACs, but I also can' t stand the default one button mouse setup. Especially after getting used to the two button mouse setup and right click options of Windows PCs. MACs tend to come with all I need right out of the box while Windows PCs require a few additional purchases. But I' d rather deal with Windows crashing than the MAC OS crashing - for some reason I find MAC crashes more annoying. I also like the fact that I can maneuver around Windows without a Mouse, whereas the MAC is mouse dependant.

My first computer was a MAC and I had to spend $100+ on a bloody Mouse way back then just to use the darn thing.

I don' t know about now but I remember years ago MAC software was expensive
compared to the Windows versions that performed the same basic functions.

I love MACs for specific tasks, but for general purpose use, I like Windows.

Preacher I' m not even going to read that. You just started attacking the hell outa me for no reason. Not once did I try to pass my opinion as fact. I always said it was my opinion. You' re the one boasting your opinion as fact and blantantly call it fact. You can say you understand the law all you want, or you agree with these governaments all you want, I don' t care. I' ll keep my opinion and you can keep yours. I won' t even bother with this thread anymore. Holy crap, talk about going overboard.

Oh man, it' s like you' ve never done that to me and my posts, is it?

I just honestly think you don' t understand what I' m saying, but don' t worry dude, you wouldn' t be the first. I' m just pointing out that your opinion is flawed. You can' t just interperate my posts as a personal attack every time I strongly disagree with you, like you did before. My post was fairly even handed, if you ask me.


Just open your mind. You rub me up the wrong way when we' re at odds, but thats cool cos we' ve agreed on stuff anyways: I don' t care what anyone says, forums need this to keep it from becoming a dull-fest.

Nope, I haven' t

I still say it' s your opinion.

BTw, Microsoft Office is on Macs.

hey preacher, you know what? PROVE to us that MS is a monopoly. the opening thread even said near-monopoly.

" BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- The European Union has found Microsoft guilty of abusing the " near-monopoly" of its Windows PC operating system and fined it a record €497 million ($613 million). "

as far as im concerned all microsoft is doing is showing us a perfect example of capitalism.

and what else are you going to run your computer on? LINUX. the main competition to MS on PCs.

one more thing, that link you posted on the first page doesnt even show any information, theres nothing on the page.

and what else are you going to run your computer on? LINUX. the main competition to MS on PCs.

It' s the main competition, but, nowhere close to mainstream enough with support for most computer users to take a risk with. To me Linux is just like IBM OS2. Good operating system with not enough support. So, again, not really a viable solution to most users.

Lack of " Healthy" competition is damaging to capitalism. I say healthy, because, as you pointed out, the only " main" competition is Linux for PC' s. 2 products in one market is not healthy competition.

Call911, the link is fine and the timeline at the bottom of the page works fine, too.
If you can' t see it, then you' ve got a problem with IE. Once you' ve read through it and once you' ve acquired a knowledge of the industry, then come back to me with your opinion. I don' t even need to justify my argument, rather you need to do some reading.

If you' re going to get agro with me then I suggest you take the time to read everything pertaining to your argument thoroughly, because I don' t have the time to correct everybody who comes to me claiming to know any better than I do.


you know where the door is, you have been pwned.

Lol, you' re not owning anyone. This is freakin hilarious.

I' m sick of this. Microsoft is a monopoly. That' s a fact. Read these and you' ll see for yourself. Naturally, I don' t expect the MS zealots to because the truth is too hard to swallow.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001729139_paul15.aspx


http://www.around.com/microsoft.aspx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/04/98/microsoft/80303.stm

http://www.globalcontinuity.com/article/articleview/25/1/30/



go ahead. Denounce every link in this post as a lie. Naturally Call911, you' d know better than financial and market authorities that have stacks more knowledge than you do. Fool. For any of the zealots here to assume they know better than industry experts is just sheer arrogance, something which permeats this forum to the very core.

Wanna know what' s hilarious Rampage? That even when the facts are layed out in front of you, you don' t have the integrity to admit the truth and admit your own shortcomings.

lol. preacher, 2 out of 5 of your links dont work. the ones that do work are links to places ive never even heard about and the links that dont work go to places you could consider a legitimate resource for information. and since im not ignorant of the MS situation, like you assume, and you just post links to other peoples oppinions (the ones that work) im just gonna laugh at you. and i suggest that you deflate the big head of yours. theres nothing wrong with my IE, ergo the problem lies in you. to think you are more intelligent than other people in here simply because they have a different oppinion than you is extremely unintelligent.

the links work fine for me, and fine for the ten other people who tried them, so you must be just outright lying. It' s ok that you can' t admit that you were wrong, it' s a trait permeating most of the zealots and pre-pubescent pricks on this forum.


And no, I only think I' m smarter than those blinded by their love for a specific company. Rampage and his MS zealots are precisely the reason why nobody wants to come to this forum. Those people who' ve posted balanced and well thought out posts are to be congratulated. I' ll admit, I don' t have the same patience as them when dealing with buffoons, but then I' ve never been one to shy away from these things.

Microsoft is, by definition of Law, a monopoly. Why can' t you just accept that? Here' s the difference, toss ranger: I' ve provided evidence. You' ve done nothing to prove your point. Who here actually sounds like they know what they' re talking about? hmmmm. You don' t have a leg to stand on: you say I' m wrong but don' t care to prove me wrong.

Your stance would be a lot more credible if you could prove me wrong, but you can' t.



here' s another link, verified as working by 11 different people.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:wlN-9dLDUfEJ:www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm+microsoft+is+a+monopoly&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Just so you can understand this, I' ve taken the URL from the search cache for you.

Here are the findings of the District Court of Columbia, which you' ll have to go some way to disprove.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#findings


And you wonder why I think I' m smarter than some people on this forum. If people blatantly lie or are eschewing their opinion as fact, then I' m going to debate the point with them, naturally. It seems to me Call911 you just came into this thread to flame.

Well, you have yet to straight out proove your point. I' m not an MS zealot, so you can stop throwing that around. Your the only one throwing insults around in this thread. The findings of the court btw, never straight out says MS is a monopoly from what I have read so far. It shows some damaging effects MS may have potentially caused on the market but not much more than that. It also does a great deal of talking about IE. I find this hilarious because they are saying it is worng for MS to put it in windows. It' s their product in their product. how is that worng. I don' t even use IE. I use Firefox. Yep I' m an MS zealot alright.

I' ve also done some research on Linux, and quite frankly it is a good competitor with MS. It' s being used to run numerous super computers and is actually starting to make an impact on other countries outside of the US. It' s the consumers choice not o buy it. I also think your claim about not being able to buy a Mac is quite dumb. Sure they may not have them in that many stores. Guess what, I never got my computer in a store. Order it over the internet and put MS Office on it which is availible for Mac.

MS is the peak of capatalism. It is basiucally the ideal position every company strives for. If you want to claim MS is a monopoly you should be screaming at the US government for the postal service. Oh wait, the government support a complete 100% monopoly where people actually have no choice what so ever on what they can do with mail. In MS' s case there is a choice therefore it is not a monopoly. But if you consider being the most powerful position a monoply go after Sony for the PS2 dominating the console gaming area. Maybe you could go after Walgreens which has smothered out almost every drug store in the US. We could go after Blockbuster video for basically controlling the market prices for all movie rentals. You know why we don' t go after them? They aren' t monopolies just like MS. MS just has an ass load more money.

The US postal service is the only true monopoly by definition in the US. There is no alternative. As long as there is an alternative to MS, it' s not a monopoly.

I' d appreciate if you' d stop with the debates. You may think it' s healthy for a forum but it has infact been the downfall to many forums. Especially when you express your opinion as fact, stating it is fact, when indeed it is not. That along with the insults that have no validity, you are causing a problem in the forum.

wow. people that think they' re smarter than everyone else are really annoying. you thing you understand how i work, and you really dont. first off lying goes against my moral grain so why would i go out of my way to lie to someone in a forum who i dont even know. if i said the link didnt work it didnt work, theres no reason for you to get your panties all twisted up. or do you think your IE on windows is supperior as well? and if you call posting a lot of links " backing up" or " proving" your statements well that is also dumb. your simply providing the information that has molded your views into that of the author. have you even looked at the other arguements that MS is not a monopoly and formed yur own opinion? i doubt it. and i only say this based on how you respond to people, with contempt. and me, flame? your the only one flinging around what could be considered " fighting words" .

now, since you seem to think that posting other peoples opinions somehow justifies your own ill now join your game and post some of my own. however before you start flamming me keep in mind that i have been on both sides of this issue, i have read the info pertaining to MS being or not being a monopoly. i even once thought like you, MS being a monopoly and all, but have since figured out thats its not good to follow someone elses opinion but form one of my own.

http://maxpages.com/nanotechnology/Not_Monopoly
case and point

http://www.freeos.com/download.php?PHPSESSID=61d3f3c220141389a5b0212064c63715
as you can see, plenty of other viable options to not using windows

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,10660,00.aspx
whos up for some more info?

furthurmore
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monopoly
the definition of a monopoly

http://linux0.cs.uaf.edu/archive18jan00/msg00311.aspx
a fairly good arguement by a Linux user

http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulebreaker/1999/rulebreaker991109.htm
an arguement from an economist who doesnt even like MS at all.

ok so now ive posted a few more links, played your little game, and now im gonna go play a nice little game on the best OS that comes from the greatest monopoly in the U.S., Microsoft.