Sure it does matter what price they are charging, as you are claiming Microsoft is charging more money for these free bundled features when they aren't charging more money, as the price of the OS itself has remained stable for years. Its still safe to operate the OS with full functionality without using their optional software but again, some people simply prefer the convenience of having basic functionality included for free without having to scour the internet and download extraneous freeware or worst, be required to pay for functionality they've come to expect.


The pricing was very similar to the last few pricing models http://news.cnet.com/Windows-98-to-debut-at-109/2100-1001_3-210142.html ~$200 for a full version and $110 for the upgrade version. 2000, XP, and Vista have added higher priced versions that do charge for additional functionality for power-users, but the basic OS versions are still priced nearly identically for upgrade/OEM/retail standard versions. That review also mentions IE not being bundled at the time, was Opera even incorporated in 1998?


Sure it exists, its the system that's in place now. Your alternative to MS's free software bundled with Windows is 3rd party solutions that may or may not cost money. It is obvious the revenue to MS is the same whether they disable the features or not, as they would undoubtedly just provide those disabled features again for free, as they did originally when they added the functionality or when they were barred from bundling it in the past. IE will never cost money to download, nor would Media Player with basic DVD playback, nor would Windows Defender, paint, photo etc etc. All of these programs and many more would in fact cost the end-user money as was historically the case in the past with programs that provide the same level of functionality.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Again, you do not need to have a fully functional socialist society (if there is such a thing!) to prescribe and practice socialist ideals. Holding to a literal definition would be absurd when its plainly obvious socialist ideals are in play throughout the EU both literally and figuratively. Hell, we've even gotten a taste of socialism in the US as a result of the financial mortgage crisis, but we're certainly not a Socialist country by any means.

It doesn't matter, what price m$ is acutally charging and where they clipped some money (I can, for example, rember times as well, wenn windows was backward-compatible, when new features and apis were availuable for old windows without an investion of up to severel 100$, when windows could be quite safely operated without firewalls,...). Important is, that the developers of IE, medaplayer,etc. are paid from this income. If they wouldn't have to be paid, the price could be lower at the same revenue for M$.



I somehow can't remember several releases in recent years...
To get a couple of realeases, you have to look back more the a decade. And afaicr, Win98 didn't debute at a higher Price then a full edition of Vista.



Nope. As the later option doesn't exist and this lack of existence is the very point, I (and the EU) criticise, I only have to prove, that (windows + bundled apps) + competitor software will cost you more money, the (windows + bundled apps), provided that the revenue (as defined by price minus programming effort for this very edition) for M$ ist the same for both versions.
And I don't think, that this will be difficult.



Actually, the control of state over means of production is a critical element of the very definition of socialism.

No the point is that no one would pay additional for something offered for free, so those developers don't lose any chance if they depend on purchase of their software to begin with. And yes the software is free from Microsoft once you pay for the OS, the bundled software comes with it but is completely optional to use. I do remember a time when Windows did not come with a browser, could not play DVDs, could not perform simple tasks like burning CDs/DVDs, could not play back simple movie codecs (it still can't play many), did not have any firewall software, could not extract archived files etc etc. I also know that the price of Windows has gone down, not up as more free software and additional functionality has been bundled with it. There are several versions of Windows that do have pay-to-access features, but none of them are mentioned above.


Again, its obvious the consumer is going to choose the alternative that costs less money, but its also obvious that these features are being given to the consumer at no additional cost as the price of a Microsoft OS has only gone down in recent years with each release, not up. What you're claiming is that MS muscles these competitors out of the market by bundling their software, but you have the impossible task of proving Windows + all bundled apps will somehow cost more than Windows + substitute competitor software.


No, socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production, socialism is also characterized by the ideals of relative equality, which is what the socialist doctrine of the EU is enforcing by intervening in a case they view as monopoly achieved through capitalism. Many purists would argue that the need to intervene in such a manner makes any claims of a "fair capitalist" system impossible, but I suppose that's what the anti-trust laws the EU so loves to invoke are for.

Umm - perhaps you didn't notice or you violated a couple of copyrights, but there isn't something like "free software from microsoft".
There is just software bundled with windows and paid together for windows. If you use m$ media player, internet explorer,... you have to for it when buying windows.
If you don't use them, you pay just as well. And that's they point, were other developers loose any chance to earn money with their product (with they somehow have, if they want to continue producing anything)

Bundling tons of m$ software with windows might be convenient for the user (imho convenient and m$ are nearly opposites. Even if m$ produces something like the-best-spreadsheet-calculation-in-existence -excel2003- they make sure, that the next generation ist worse), but it doesn't leave them any choice either. Or more preciesly: The may choose between using m$ or paying twice.


and btw: socialism would mean, that the production of such things would be organized by the government, which would mean the exact opposite of current EU-attempts. Real-world socialism strived for a state-supported monopol (actually theoretical socialism in the ultimate as well, one of the very few points were USSR-related dictatorships were "socialistic"), the EU tries to prevent the crushing of concurrents. Aiming for fair capitalism and a free market.

The EU and their socialist laws are the problem here. Believe it or not, people do actually want MS to bundle fundamentally basic software with their Windows installs. Just look at the sheer amount of crap you need to download on a fresh Win Install to do your day-to-day functions. Without some default browser, how the hell would you even download it to begin with? FTP? Telnet? AOL CD in the mail? Rofl. Of course MS is going to try and bundle their software when they can, unless some other developers are willing to throw theirs in for free?

As of right now you need to spend money on numerous pieces of fringe software and complaints like this from the Opera CEO along with the EU antitrust suits only delay the release of more free, useful software from MS. I'd like to be able to get Blu-Ray playback natively in Windows sometime this decade, but I'm sure some clown in the EU would cry about it and make it impossible.

Umm - there are several examples of people making an "O.S. yourself".
And all of them failed - not because there were bad, but because the weren't 100% windows-compatible and everyone was and is using windows-software and doesn't want to switch. There are Opera-verseions for MacOS, for linux, for unix - even vor mobilephones. But: These markets are nothing compared to windows.
And m$ did NOT WORKT to get this monopol.
IBM is responsible and m$ were damn lucky to get the IBM-PC contract. From there on they just kept their o.s. monopol alive - and not exactly with fair methods. (see EAX, see openGL, see various internetstandards)
And they tried to expand it to browsers (very sucessfull), media players (would have been sucessful, if they haven't been so long so bad that competitors had an advantage until EU restrictions kicked in - though the alternative market is still going downhill, as m$ media player is paid by every windows-customer, while alternative players would have to charge extra, but nobody would pay for a second mediaplayer even if it is a bit better then the one they already were forced to pay), compressing tools (extremely sucessful), firewalls (relative sucessful - though admittedly withoud m$ there wouldn't be a market anyway), anti-virus (just started, but with potential), instant messenging (no monopol yet, but with serious setbacks for smaller concurrents),...

I personally would prefer some install-options compared to the zero-options availuable in WinXP.
And for "earned": Has the Internet Explorer done anything, that would earn it a global market leadership?
I couldn't name a point, thats better on IE then on all other Browsers, regardles of time.

The only reason for IE being so strong is, that its bundled with windows - a classic abuse of monopol.

Admittedly: Bundling ALL browsers is an impossible alternative, but this doesn't mean, that m$ should be allowed to do as they please.