A question about Microsoft

[Travis Retriever]

Were they ever really a monopoly?  Aside from the IP related stuff, I mean.

[MrBogosity]

Well I've always been able to get computers without a single byte of Microsoft software on them. Doesn't that nix the possibility of them being a monopoly?

[Travis Retriever]

Well I've always been able to get computers without a single byte of Microsoft software on them. Doesn't that nix the possibility of them being a monopoly?

I suppose.
I ask because my econ professor went on a tirade about them being a monopoly, and saying that they got there by having a superior product and that it was therefore a good thing.

[MrBogosity]

They got there by superior marketing, and by the fact that Apple refused to use the Intel platform until it was Far Too Late.

[bp_28]

But now, they're not an effective monopoly (in the same way that John Rockefeller was a monopoly- not really one at all) because of things like Google docs, pages, etc.

[evensgrey]

The closest the got to being a monopoly was when the had secret agreements with the major computer makers that required all systems to ship with Windows, often Office as well, and no competitor's software being available at all.  These kinds of bundling are illegal in many countries (such as the US, for example), of course, but that didn't stop them.

[MrBogosity]

The closest the got to being a monopoly was when the had secret agreements with the major computer makers that required all systems to ship with Windows, often Office as well, and no competitor's software being available at all.  These kinds of bundling are illegal in many countries (such as the US, for example), of course, but that didn't stop them.

They're still doing that sort of thing with UEFI (in)Secure Boot. Microsoft is the only one allowed to sign boot certificates for sale with computers. Some Linux distros can generate their own certificates, but some UEFI BIOSes don't allow that. So you either HAVE to boot to a Microsoft OS or turn off (in)Secure Boot.

[evensgrey]

They're still doing that sort of thing with UEFI (in)Secure Boot. Microsoft is the only one allowed to sign boot certificates for sale with computers. Some Linux distros can generate their own certificates, but some UEFI BIOSes don't allow that. So you either HAVE to boot to a Microsoft OS or turn off (in)Secure Boot.

Why would you want to use (in)Secure Boot (for most purposes) to begin with?

[MrBogosity]

Why would you want to use (in)Secure Boot (for most purposes) to begin with?

To stop malware from taking over your boot sector. Secure Boot requires any OS loader to be signed with the key loaded into the BIOS. Of course, on purchased computers that's exclusively a Microsoft key. You could load your own key if you wanted to use some flavor of Linux, but that would require making the private key for that distro publicly available, defeating the purpose.

Plus, I think every single Blackhat since UEFI was released has featured exploits for Secure Boot.

[evensgrey]

To stop malware from taking over your boot sector. Secure Boot requires any OS loader to be signed with the key loaded into the BIOS. Of course, on purchased computers that's exclusively a Microsoft key. You could load your own key if you wanted to use some flavor of Linux, but that would require making the private key for that distro publicly available, defeating the purpose.

Plus, I think every single Blackhat since UEFI was released has featured exploits for Secure Boot.

So, another thing that only can work for Microsoft, except it doesn't actually work anyway.

[MrBogosity]

So, another thing that only can work for Microsoft, except it doesn't actually work anyway.

Yeah, all it did was make it more difficult to install competing operating systems.

[evensgrey]

Yeah, all it did was make it more difficult to install competing operating systems.

Well, in that case it works great.  From Microsoft's point of view.

Sometimes I really miss the days of 8-bit computers.  You could really get down into the system and make it sing, while the stuff we use now is so complex nobody can understand it all well enough to do that any more.

[Travis Retriever]

In other words, the only possible way you could say Microsoft is/was a monopoly is via bogus IP Laws.  Figures.

[MrBogosity]

In other words, the only possible way you could say Microsoft is/was a monopoly is via bogus IP Laws.  Figures.

Which Apple has done far more to try to protect than Microsoft.

[evensgrey]

Which Apple has done far more to try to protect than Microsoft.

Yeah, you young folks won't remember this, but there was a time (about 20 years ago or a little more) when we were all rooting for the vole to beat Apple in Apple's 'Look and Feel' lawsuit over Windows 95.  And they did, which cleared the way for things like the window managers in Linux that clone the look and behavior of Windows (making transitioning in a workplace a snap).