Yeah, I hate to be the one to do it, but I'd like to make a few points in defense of Microsoft.

I'll start with a hypothetical company. This company has assembled a collection of similar and dissimilar parts and pieces into an imperfect but reasonably cohesive whole, and offered it for sale in the free marked as "The Product."
Despite its imperfections, many people buy "The Product." Other companies make stuff that works with "The Product," though not always perfectly, so there's a thriving market based on it.

As a consumer, you either buy "The Product" or you don't. Maybe you buy another company's stuff that works with "The Product" to add features you want, or fix problems in "The Product." Basically, this works out pretty well, as everyone gets pretty much what they want out of it, assuming they're willing to pay the asking price (for "The Product," the stuff that goes with it, and/or the expertise to make them work together). No one is forcing them to pay that price, as they are free to choose to do without, or perhaps buy another company's "Alternative," which also has other stuff that works with it, and people who know how to make that happen.

Look familiar?
The point is, so what if Microsoft bundles a browser, a media player, a file manager, a this, or a that, in with Windows [XP]? That is what they define as "The Product," and they have the right.

You can't go to a Chevy dealership and say "Gee, I really like how the Corvette looks, but I want a Ford engine in it." Too essential to the basic operation of the Corvette, you say? Okay, well what about the radio? Can I get an Isuzu radio in my Corvette? ..etc.. Not hardly, unless I do it myself. Same thing with Windows. Don't like something in it? Then replace it yourself. If you can't, then learn, or hire someone to do it. Don't go running to the EU or whomever and ask them to initiate the use of force against Microsoft to change "The Product" to YOUR liking.

Disclaimer: I do not, and have never worked for Microsoft, which I usually refer to as Microsquishy. If they've committed fraud, intellectual theft, or other crimes, then those responsible should be nailed. As to the business model, leave it alone. Don't like macro viruses? Buy WordPerfect. Want straightforward file and print services? Well, I think you can still find Netware. How big is that database? Hmmm, have you checked out Oracle? Just don't blame Microsquishy for the buying public acting like short-sighted lemmings.

[/rant]

I have a one word rant...

M O N O P O L Y

Rant done

Sorta a Monopoly, but that's not what he's arguing about.

Anyways, I agree with most of what jtt283 said. It's not Microsoft's responsibility to cater to every individuals want and need. They market a product and you accept it for what it is or don't buy it at all. Mainly the responsibility lies on the user to upgrade, and add to the OS.

Kinda like jtt283 said, you can't take a set of tractor tires [proprietary software] to a dealership and demand they be put on a tiny Prius or you're suing. Everyone would look at you as if you were crazy.

jtt283 is right in a truly competitive market, the problem is Breetai is also right. Microsoft is a monopoly. You can argue all you want about alternatives including Linux and Apple but when a company controls 90% of a market it's in fact a monopoly. The vast majority of users have no Real choice and to say they should learn to use other OSs is nonsense, it's like saying everyone should learn to be a mechanic, electrician, or whatever. At the same time Microsoft or some OS has to be a monopoly because of the need for standardization. Programs written for a mass market have to be able to write for one OS, i.e., insure their program will work with a specific OS. In a very real sense no different than gas and electricity being monopolies, and I know there is supposed to be choice of electrical providers in some places but it tokenism just like Windows exist in a truly competitive market. Like any monopoly you have to have some government control. Study the economic history of the US from the 1870s to see what happens when some control isn't imposed. I believe Microsoft should be forced to sell Windows as a standalone OS. If they want to give the user the option of installing other of their products , fine, it's the users choice. If computer manufactures what to add what ever to their machine fine, you can build you're own or get one custom built if you don't like what they add. They should also be forced to sell multiple licenses at a reasonable price given the number of multi computer owners. It's ridiculous to have to pay a $100 for every computer you own. I have absolutely no problem with a monopoly making a reasonable profit and if there is real compitition, a company making an unreasonable profit. This of course won't happen because we currently have the best Congress money can buy and Microsoft certainly has enough money to buy the requisite number of Congresspersons. My rant for the day.

Microsquishy is not a monopoly because they compelled people at gunpoint to buy their products.
If Guild Wars and a few other games ran on Linux, I'd probably run that instead. As it is, Windows XP best suits my combination of needs right now; fine, so I buy it.

i agree with the points jtt makes, although i kinda see a chicken and egg situation....

if the next OS only ships with the OS and no internet explorer, how are ppl going to connect to the internet to get Mozilla firefox?


what microsoft should do is bundle more software into there product, and at install give the user a choice to install mozilla firefox OR IE OR even Opra, then the user should also be able to choose between WMP, VLC, WinAMP....

but then you cause complications in the OS install as a ICT tech i would hate this system because it would take an extra 20min for me to decide what software should be installed....

but as a ICT guy at home, the option would be brilliant, i would need to go download software from the internet i would just have it on that disk.

"the product" what? are you selling drugs?

the beauty of Windows is that it has an api.
whats is this change of which you speak? your starting to sound liek obama.

Why on earth do microsoft charge £300 for a OS (Vista Ultimate) And more importantly why on earth would I want to pay that much? there are no sutiable alternatives, Linux? nope doesnt run all my games. I have tried Linux but its too time consuming to install/use.

Oh how I laughed when the EU fined MS 900 million euros!! that's a fine.. but it wont change MS's way or attitude.

They are a monopoly and there's nothing we can do.. well except use pirate copies of windows....ahem.

Monopoly. I like it. The guy who invented the QWERTY keyboard layout has a monopoly.

In all honesty, it would be best if we moved to a single NOS and everyone worked together to improve it.

MS is a business and wants paid for what they do. Pay a royalty fee for their software might help.. or just keep paying for it.

I would like to see the monopoly patents on all software expire after 10 years.
We could then all use Win95 for free, and would be coming up to Win98 for nothing. Many people would use these as a protest against the present pricing policy. I certainly would. The old OSs fly on new machines.