[merged] Realplayer 10

Yes, but mac osx (which I use now) is still not a large market share. Onne of the key problems is convinicing people to move away from windows. Windows is a good product now and it will be harder to convince people to move. Mac osx is a better product than linux as it is more mainstream and is closing in on windows in terms of software avalible.

The problem with mac is the fact you need apple hardware which is expensive (face it, it is no matter what you can say abboout part for part or this annd that or 'mac is fully featured') the price of thier computers is stuiply high. Also the fact that people do nnoot know enoough aboout it. What put me of macs for a long time was the community! It doesnt help to hear mac fans blast windows and talk up their os all the time, it annoyed me. After all Apple would do everything microsoft is doing if it made them more money they are not a good guy. In the end i moved because of its look (yah i know shallow) but i do not regret it i love the OS easy and nice looking (altough its crashed more times than XP did) plus the hardware (17ich powerbook) is great. but i will just as happly move to windows.

Basicallly Microsoft is best for the consumer as it doesnt requuire special software or any special hardware it just works on a computer and does the internet which is what most people want. They do not want the mess around the linux or pay over the odds for hardware cos its a mac. THE MAN ON THE STREET wants a computer and nothing else. We have diffrent OS'S but we are into computers other people dont have the time or interst so they go with what they know and it does what they want. Hassling the consumer about other OS wont work because they dont really understand and teaching them wont work because they dont want to know

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What issues did I not engage in?

How are my comments naive? Because I don't advocate communism (planned economies)? Because I'm a capitalist?

No, it was me not engaging in the issues by refusing to give a proper reply to your post. I was criticising myself at that point, not you!

I am suggesting you are naive because you are thinking in extremely black-and-white terms. As Philip J Fry has since pointed out, you can have a totally controlled economy, like the USSR, anything goes capitalism (which nobody has) or varying degrees of regulated competition. Both the EU and the USA have regulated competition; the EU's regulation is more evident than that in the USA, but don't kid yourself that the States has a completely free market. Your anti-trust laws have seen to that.

The essential difference between a regulated market and a controlled market is that in a regulated regime, competition is encouraged and legally protected, as it is held to be the best way to safeguard the long-term interests of the consumer. In a Soviet-style controlled economy, competition is not allowed, on the (IMO sorely mistaken) assumption that it is more efficient if everyone works as a collective.

Ironically (and to try to keep on topic), M$ has fallen foul of the regulated market in both the EU and the USA. Remember it was a US judge that was asked to rule in the 'browser wars', and a number of US states are still pursuing the company through the courts. Here in Europe M$ has been accused of doing things with its media player that are contrary to our own, admittedly more stringent, competition regulations.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That is nice, but zoooooooooooooooooooooom, you completely missed the point. WINDOWS IS EASIER THAN LINUX. End-of-discussion.

No - it's DIFFERENT. That's another thing entirely.

[stuey82]

Realplayer 10 is so much faster than previous other versions... and it connects to content so much faster. Woo Hoo!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by stuey82

Realplayer 10 is so much faster than previous other versions... and it connects to content so much faster. Woo Hoo!

Excellent....someone who is happy with it

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Restrictions of whose fundamental liberties and freedoms? I do not advocate restricting anyones liberties.

Erm, lets see:


"We, in Europe, have a controlled market which has proved that it does work. That is the level of control that I advocate, so I don't see why it always has to come back to total control (communism)"


So, what will it be?

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

It is my personal belief that people be free to do whatever they choose, so long as it does not (actively) cause a negative impact on anothers liberties.

Yes. Your rights and freedoms stop where mine begins. I do agree with you. No one has a right to infringe on another person's rights.

I hope and believe that this gives everyone the maximum freedom possible. I do not see businesses as people, they are quasi-physical constructs (okay, I made that up ) that should not be afforded the same liberties as individuals. It is my belief that what you call free enterprise does negatively impact on the liberties of individuals, but, without major change, they are a necessary evil.

No. Corporation, the concept, is a legal term. There never was any of that. It was individuals that decided to band together to provide a product or service to society. You are advocating to infringe on those individuals' rights and freedoms. There is nothing evil about a corporation or a business.

Do you REALLY support restricting my rights and freedoms to make products, provice services, and to improve it in any way I can? Assuming I'm a corporation. A one-man corporation. What grounds do you have to infringe on my very basic liberties that you claim to want to protect?

I'm sorry. You can't possibly claim to want to protect liberties and freedoms and in the same breath advocate severe and drastic restrictions.

Why do I feel that I have the right to tell businesses what to do? I don't, but I feel I have a right to have an input in what businesses do.

You don't. It is NOT your business, and it is NOT your place to order people and businesses around. If it IS your business, fine. Otherwise, RESPECT other's rights. Do you honestly expect me to listen to you when you tell me how I should run MY corporation? No. Not in one million years. I may listen to advice, but you WILL NOT BE TELLING ME HOW TO RUN MY CORPORATION. You don't have that right, and you don't have the right to tell Microsoft what they should do. No one has that right except the shareholders.

Where does this right come from? It comes from the fact that I am one of the people, and I feel that the people as a whole have a right to influence businesses. The higher authority is the people, and we are all part of that higher authority.

Altruism? Who do YOU think YOU are to proclaim yourself so important that YOU should be allowed to run other's companies? Can't you understand that people, other people, put a LOT of effort, time, and money into a business, and that it is THEIR PROPERTY because it is the product of THEIR labor? WHO are YOU to come in and suddenly decide what can and can't go? YOU that put NOTHING into that company?

Ayn Rand has the following to say on atruism:

Altruism is an ethical system

. . . which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. . . Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value †� and it is logical that renunciation, resignation, self-denial, and every other form of suffering, including self-destruction, are the virtues it advocates.
Ayn Rand, †œThe Objectivist Ethics,ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, 37-38

Monetary wealth is one way of looking at things, not my chosen way though. Also, I feel that all people should have access to approximately equal wealth, if you accept that there is only a finite amount of money in the world then for things to balance out the GDPPC of the US would have to be reduced. From that, I hope that you can see that according to my beliefs, free enterprise is not the way to go about things.

No, definitely not. If you want equal wealth for anyone, then capitalism isn't a good system. Capitalism rewards those that work harder and smarter with more wealth. In addition, it creates wealth. Socialism is a form of redistributing the wealth, but it doesn't say how you're supposed to create it. Capitalism creates wealth, socialism does not. THAT is why socialism fails as an economic model, and THAT is why I'm not a socialist.

I've incorporated my own company. I would not have done that if all my profits were seized and redistributed.

I firmly believe that there are many lazy people out there, and many people willing to slave away for hours to be able to have a higher standard of living. I firmly believe that NOT everyone should have equal wealth, unless they work equally hard to their abilities.

I'm not trying to say that my way is right, or even that it would work. But these are my strongly held beliefs and all I would like from it is for people to undersatnd that. As an individual, all I can do is make these beliefs known and have my say in how things are to be, the same as that is all you can do, and the actual path that is taken will be a consensus decision based on the beliefs of all of the people.

*shrug* Thats fine, as long as you realize then that you're basically a socialist, not someone that advocates free enterprise and capitalism.

The problem is, they have people so locked in to their technology that it is impossible to avoid.

Bull****. Here, open cmd window and type format c: [enter]. They even provide you with the means of getting rid of their software. People are NOT locked in. YOU're not using it, and THOUSANDS of others are not using it. You have a choice whether you want to use it or not. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

Why can I not visit some webpages when I have a standards compliant browser? Why do people keep sending me word document files? Why do java applications not run on my VM?

Because Microsoft choose to make their product that way, and if you don't like it, don't ****ing use it! It isn't a hard concept.

I'm not locked into buying them

Wait, didn't you just say,

"hey have people so locked in to their technology"


So what will it be?

Originally Posted by towny

No, it was me not engaging in the issues by refusing to give a proper reply to your post. I was criticising myself at that point, not you!

I am suggesting you are naive because you are thinking in extremely black-and-white terms. As Philip J Fry has since pointed out, you can have a totally controlled economy, like the USSR, anything goes capitalism (which nobody has) or varying degrees of regulated competition. Both the EU and the USA have regulated competition; the EU's regulation is more evident than that in the USA, but don't kid yourself that the States has a completely free market. Your anti-trust laws have seen to that.

You apparently missed this post:

"Europe used to be free market, but has steadily drifted towards socialism and planned economies. What you have right now is semi-capitalism with a touch (ok more than a touch...) of planned economies."

(Post 81)

And, anti-trust laws should be repealed immediately.

The essential difference between a regulated market and a controlled market is that in a regulated regime, competition is encouraged and legally protected, as it is held to be the best way to safeguard the long-term interests of the consumer. In a Soviet-style controlled economy, competition is not allowed, on the (IMO sorely mistaken) assumption that it is more efficient if everyone works as a collective.

So, you're encouraging "competition" by forcing Microsoft to reveal source code and prohibiting them from improving their products? You're essentially stopping Microsoft from improving so that the rest of the players, those that can't seem to make good products that people want, can catch up. In the meantime, Microsoft could have raised the notch yet one more step. Or two more. Now you have both Microsoft and the "competition" sitting down there when they could have been higher up.

Eh. No.

Ironically (and to try to keep on topic), M$ has fallen foul of the regulated market in both the EU and the USA. Remember it was a US judge that was asked to rule in the 'browser wars', and a number of US states are still pursuing the company through the courts. Here in Europe M$ has been accused of doing things with its media player that are contrary to our own, admittedly more stringent, competition regulations.

And that was wrong. Fortunately, the case was resolved relatively peacefully without the government putting some anti-competition rulings through.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

So, you're encouraging "competition" by forcing Microsoft to reveal source code and prohibiting them from improving their products?

You say Microsoft are improving their product; I (and a lot of other people) say they are using a monopolistic market position to crush competition. Let us agree to disagree.

You're essentially stopping Microsoft from improving so that the rest of the players, those that can't seem to make good products that people want, can catch up. In the meantime, Microsoft could have raised the notch yet one more step. Or two more. Now you have both Microsoft and the "competition" sitting down there when they could have been higher up.

Again, woefully simplistic and missing the point. If we were talking about the relative merits of various media players - for example, Quicktime vs Real Player - then it would be stupid of me to claim Real ought to be penalised simply for being better than Apple, or vice versa. That is not what this is about, and it's not what a regulated competitive economy is about either. What is at issue here is that Microsoft is not just building software to run on computers, it has built the very platform that software runs on. It has a built-in advantage, therefore, as it knows how best to manufacture software to run on its own platform. I do not blame Microsoft for being in that position, nor do I begrudge them it. However I do expect that in the long-term interest of consumers, they do not abuse that advantage.

It would plainly be stupid to expect a TV company to make quality TV programmes if the television were a patented invention and no-one but the inventor was allowed to know how the darned thing works.

As a footnote, I'm not going to be persuaded of any argument simply by you quoting the ravings of Ayn Rand. So far as I can see, she is regarded as a bit of an extremist even in America. I see no reason to take her seriously.

May I draw your attention to the rantings of Chris Wolski, a Rand disciple writing in Capitalism Magazine:

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com] A genocide like the Holocaust will happen again unless the world learns the root cause of the Nazis' evil -- self-sacrifice, said a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. "â₠¬ÃƒÆ’‹Å“Never again' is a phrase we hear repeatedly on May 2, Holocaust Remembrance Day, but it is a promise that has yet to be kept," said Robert W. Tracinski.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=556

As a Christian I find this attack on the virtue of self-sacrifice highly offensive. I expect others will have their own reasons for concluding that Ayn Rand and her followers are possibly unhinged.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by towny

You say Microsoft are improving their product; I (and a lot of other people) say they are using a monopolistic market position to crush competition. Let us agree to disagree.

No, I agree that they are trying to cruch the competition. That is the idea of free enterprise. However, are you saying they are NOT improving their products by bundling free software that gives new functionality to the operating system??

Again, woefully simplistic and missing the point. If we were talking about the relative merits of various media players - for example, Quicktime vs Real Player - then it would be stupid of me to claim Real ought to be penalised simply for being better than Apple, or vice versa. That is not what this is about, and it's not what a regulated competitive economy is about either. What is at issue here is that Microsoft is not just building software to run on computers, it has built the very platform that software runs on. It has a built-in advantage, therefore, as it knows how best to manufacture software to run on its own platform. I do not blame Microsoft for being in that position, nor do I begrudge them it. However I do expect that in the long-term interest of consumers, they do not abuse that advantage.

Again, who are you to claim ownership over Microsoft?

Of course, we should also make it illegal for Apple to sell Quicktime with their computers.

And, Linux is not allowed to come with a file system unless it offers you the ability to choose between ext3 and NTFS.


Erm, let me think? NO.

It would plainly be stupid to expect a TV company to make quality TV programmes if the television were a patented invention and no-one but the inventor was allowed to know how the darned thing works.

Actually, it was patented, and the inventor choose to sell it to make money. That is why we have intellectual property laws. HOWEVER, if he chose NOT to sell it, and rather manufacture ALL television sets, that is perfectly fine too. How does TV programs relate to the hardware?

As a footnote, I'm not going to be persuaded of any argument simply by you quoting the ravings of Ayn Rand. So far as I can see, she is regarded as a bit of an extremist even in America. I see no reason to take her seriously.

No. Because YOU can't argue against her arguments, you'd rather succumb to character assassination and attack HER. Way to go. You can't attack the source if it is an opinion. You can only attack the credibilty of the source if it is presented as impartial and unopinionated.

May I draw your attention to the rantings of Chris Wolski, a Rand disciple writing in Capitalism Magazine:

So because one of her followers said something you don't agree with, you attack Ayn Rand? How noble.

[Bifta]

What does OSX or Linux do that Windows doesn't? (keep the "not crash" comments out of it as my PC hasn't crashed in years)

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No, I agree that they are trying to cruch the competition. That is the idea of free enterprise. However, are you saying they are NOT improving their products by bundling free software that gives new functionality to the operating system??

There is no doubt that Microsoft Windows with a media player included is a better product than Windows without one. The reason I keep using phrases like 'short-sighted' and 'narrow-minded' is because whether it's a 'better' product in the here and now is only one concern. In the long term, allowing Microsoft to dominate to the extent that there is no competition leaves one single organisation providing all services without any effective challenge from anywhere. Doesn't sound that different than communism to me.

Again, who are you to claim ownership over Microsoft?

I don't claim ownership of them except in the way I am entitled, as a voter in a democratic society, to have a say in how things are done here. You have the same privilege - if you dislike the anti-trust laws that blight Microsoft in the States in a not dissimilar way to our European Competition Commission, it's your right to go and vote for someone pledged to repeal them. Is there any mainstream opposition to the current antu-trust laws in the USA?

Of course, we should also make it illegal for Apple to sell Quicktime with their computers.

Apple has got away with things that would have put Microsoft in the dock a dozen times over. On the one hand it's deeply hypocritical, but having said that, Apple doesn't have the same power to destroy an industry simply by deciding to do things in a certain way.

And, Linux is not allowed to come with a file system unless it offers you the ability to choose between ext3 and NTFS.

Linux is an operating system kernel, normally suurounded by GNU tools, even though the GNU project has long been developing a kernel of its own. Then you can choose from a range of GUIs to sit on top of it all. So anyone who uses Linux has already enjoyed far more free choice than they would be permitted by Microsoft.

However this is a bogus comparison because 1/ Linux is essentially free, and it is open source, and therefore incapable of monopolizing the market even if it were the dominant operating system; and 2/ like Apple, it isn't in a monopoly position.

Actually, it was patented, and the inventor choose to sell it to make money. That is why we have intellectual property laws. HOWEVER, if he chose NOT to sell it, and rather manufacture ALL television sets, that is perfectly fine too. How does TV programs relate to the hardware?

I was thinking of the technical side of running a TV station rather than actually recording a programme. It would be pretty hard to make and transmit pictures without understanding how the recever wants to pick them up. But let's not spend ages on a simple analogy.

No. Because YOU can't argue against her arguments, you'd rather succumb to character assassination and attack HER. Way to go. You can't attack the source if it is an opinion. You can only attack the credibilty of the source if it is presented as impartial and unopinionated.

I have not attempted to put up a full rebuttal of Ayn Rand in this thread. Please don't mistake my choice not to do this with an inability to do so.

So because one of her followers said something you don't agree with, you attack Ayn Rand? How noble.

Please, the quoted source is a 'senior writer at the Ayn Rand institute'. I see nothing to convince me that they don't believe the same thing. Don't split hairs.

For the love of.......

Windows and Mac OSX and Linux are all diffrant windows does do everything the others do and more as its the market leader.

Other than that it really does not matter so dont get so worked up. I use mac osx and windows i like both of them.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

What does OSX or Linux do that Windows doesn't? (keep the "not crash" comments out of it as my PC hasn't crashed in years)

OSX is probably a little faster for graphics editing I think, but that is mainly due to hardware. Linux is a LOT more customizable than Windows, if you care for that. Windows, for example, can't readily forward ports. With Linux, you can just use xinetd.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

OSX is probably a little faster for graphics editing I think, but that is mainly due to hardware. Linux is a LOT more customizable than Windows, if you care for that. Windows, for example, can't readily forward ports. With Linux, you can just use xinetd.

I've never noticed any slow-down with Photoshop 8. Linux, customisable? No doubt about that, but who on earth wants to configure an operating system from the command line? Not sure what you mean about forwarding ports, I do that with my router, which admittedly probably has a linux kernal but few people use a windows machine as a router, unless they use ISA .. and that's a piece of p*ss to configure.

[ian@huth]

I thought this thread was about RealPlayer 10 so excuse me for butting in and asking a question about it.

I have been having a problem for a while with Windows Media Player not being able to stream radio. I have tried everything under the sun that I can think of, uninstalling it and trying every version available but no luck. It always gets to the point where it is "connecting to media" and then just sits there.

Seeing that RealPlayer 10 is supposed to be able to play Windows Media files I installed this and it works perfectly for radio streams in Realplayer format but does the same as WMP for Windows Media streams, just sits there with "connecting to media" until it times out. I have uninstalled Zone alarm but this does not help.

The computer is running Windows98SE as is my daughters system, both running behind the same router, the difference being my daughters system does stream Windows Media radio OK. Anyone got any suggestions that do not involve wiping the drive and starting afresh.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by towny

There is no doubt that Microsoft Windows with a media player included is a better product than Windows without one.

There you go. Then, if the EU prohibits Microsoft from shipping Media Player with Windows, they are prohibiting Microsft from improving their product. So my original statement stands. You're advocating competition, yet you're preventing a company from improving its product. Yet you're not doing it to other companies, such as Apple with QuickTime.

The reason I keep using phrases like 'short-sighted' and 'narrow-minded' is because whether it's a 'better' product in the here and now is only one concern. In the long term, allowing Microsoft to dominate to the extent that there is no competition leaves one single organisation providing all services without any effective challenge from anywhere. Doesn't sound that different than communism to me.

So, unless the government helps out, Apple and Linux will disappear off the market? Are they so bad that they need special rules and regulations to make it?

I for one don't think so.

I don't claim ownership of them except in the way I am entitled, as a voter in a democratic society, to have a say in how things are done here. You have the same privilege - if you dislike the anti-trust laws that blight Microsoft in the States in a not dissimilar way to our European Competition Commission, it's your right to go and vote for someone pledged to repeal them. Is there any mainstream opposition to the current antu-trust laws in the USA?

So, if the majority votes that everyone worth more than $100,000 should give all their wealth to the government for redistribution then it is justified because it is what the majority decides?

You cannot vote someone's rights away. Your excuse to the blatant infringement on Microsoft's rights is basically "because the majority says so."

That is not an acceptable reason. That is a weak excuse for an anti-competitive action taken by people that have no rights, but still deam they should have, over another individual or company.

Apple has got away with things that would have put Microsoft in the dock a dozen times over. On the one hand it's deeply hypocritical, but having said that, Apple doesn't have the same power to destroy an industry simply by deciding to do things in a certain way.

Microsoft doesn't have the power to destroy anything. Everyone can just pick Linux or Apple, or write their own operating system. Nothing is preventing it!

You're hypocritical in the fact that you want to restrict Microsoft from improving its products, but Apple should have free reign. That is just not cool.

Linux is an operating system kernel, normally suurounded by GNU tools, even though the GNU project has long been developing a kernel of its own. Then you can choose from a range of GUIs to sit on top of it all. So anyone who uses Linux has already enjoyed far more free choice than they would be permitted by Microsoft.

I still want to buy RedHat with NTFS. My choice of file systems is restricted and infringed on because I'm FORCED by a company to use a file system I don't want.

Let us get real. That is stupid. YET, that is exactly what you're doing to Microsoft.

However this is a bogus comparison because 1/ Linux is essentially free, and it is open source, and therefore incapable of monopolizing the market even if it were the dominant operating system; and 2/ like Apple, it isn't in a monopoly position.

There is no monopoly position in the operating system market.
Second, if Microsoft manages to maintain 90% of the market by charging $250 for an operating system when people can get a free one (Linux), their product must be substantially better. Remember how people moaned and complained about IE being free and Netscape not? Well, if Netscape was so much better, people would have kept paying for it. But they didn't, because Microsoft gave it away for free, and it was better. That forced Netscape to do the same. Free enterprise 101.

That said, it is not a bogus comparison. I want to buy Redhat Linux with NTFS, and they are forcing me to use ext3. They should be barred from such anti-competitive practices!

Please, the quoted source is a 'senior writer at the Ayn Rand institute'. I see nothing to convince me that they don't believe the same thing. Don't split hairs.

And as a senior clergy man, the Pope is the alpha and the omega of Christianity.