Print - Microsoft CEO Threatens to Kill Google

While being deposed in a Microsoft lawsuit against Google, former Microsoft executive and Windows NT architect Mark Lucovsky stated that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer threatened to "kill" Google when he learned that Lucovsky was leaving Microsoft to join Google. Ballmer allegedly made the threat during a chair-throwing tirade in which he also threatened Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Ballmer denies that it happened that way, however.

According to Lucovsky, when he informed Ballmer last year that he was leaving Microsoft, Ballmer asked him whether he was leaving to join Google. When Lucovsky said that he was, the famously volatile Ballmer picked up a chair in his office and hurled it at the wall. "I'm going to [expletive deleted] bury [Schmidt]," Ballmer said. "I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to [expletive deleted] kill Google." Schmidt was formerly an executive at Novell and Sun Microsystems--two companies that were, indeed, adversely affected by Microsoft's market success.

Ballmer has categorized Lucovsky's recollection of the meeting as "a gross exaggeration of what actually took place. Mark's decision to leave was disappointing, and I urged him strongly to change his mind," Ballmer said. "But his characterization of that meeting is not accurate." Lucovsky was a Distinguished Engineer and Windows Server Architect at Microsoft. As I noted in "Windows Server 2003: The Road To Gold Part One: The Early Years" (see the URL below), he joined Microsoft with the original wave of ex-Digital Equipment employees who accompanied NT architect Dave Cutler. Lucovsky was widely regarded at Microsoft for his technical acumen and is one of the most impressive people I've ever met.

The deposition came to light because of a recent lawsuit over ex-Microsoft researcher Kai-Fu Lee, who left the software giant earlier this year to join Google. Microsoft sued Google over the hire, citing Lee's employment agreement, which specified that he couldn't work for a direct Microsoft competitor for at least 1 year after leaving the company. Despite its posturing, recently revealed documents indicate that Google was aware of the agreement and, in the event of a Microsoft lawsuit, had made contingency plans to keep Lee on paid leave until he could begin working for Google. Microsoft also alleges that Lee sent Google some confidential Microsoft information before he left the company.

Ballmer's alleged behavior harkens back to Microsoft's US antitrust lawsuit, during which similar exchanges between various Microsoft executives were detailed. However, it's important to point out that Ballmer never threatened to actually break the law to "bury" or "kill" Schmidt or Google. Microsoft shareholders should be happy that the company's CEO is that aggressively competitive. Arguably, they should expect no less.

"Ballmer denies that it happened that way, however." Of course. Monkey boy strikes again. (and oh, btw....*yawn*)

Self-aggrandizing ("As I noted in my seminal showcase") and opinionated ("Microsoft shareholders should be happy that the CEO of the company is that aggressively competitive") as usual, aren't we, Paul? So much for this being a "news" site. It should be labeled for what it is: Editorial.

While I can agree that Ballmer should be agressively competitive, I feel his childish reaction should be noted. This is the behavior of a monolith organization on its way out. Microsoft uses latent intimidation, abuses monopolistic power, and forces upgrades in its daily business tactics. Innovation is only part of the company's tired excuses for its oppressive actions. Also important to note, IBM used these same tactics and excuses some 15 or 20 years ago. The point here is that powerful companies always develop FDH syndrome ... Fat, Dumb, and Happy disease. Rather than innovate, they threaten. I predict there will be a relatively fast evolution away from Microsoft's products and to the Open Source alternatives that will be maturing and innovating while Redmond continues its childish behavior. Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista could prove to be Microsoft's last meaningful contributions to the industry.

Well, I can't see anything more appropriate to say at this time other than: APPLE SUCKS!!!! www.apple.com/switchtoamoreexpensiveOS I HOPE CREATIVE KILLS APPLE!! SUE SUE SUE SUE! Let the hippies die a slow death!! Erm, sorry lost my composure there.

Hey, look! Ballmer's posting here now! Gosh, Steve, we're so happy to see such aggressive posturing. It really befits such an important global company to have such a composed and professional CEO.

"APPLE SUCKS!!!! www.apple.com/switchtoamoreexpensiveOS" OK: Windows XP Professional (Amazon.com): $249.88 Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger (Amazon.com): $99.88 SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (Amazon.com): $77.99 Nice try, though.

How much would you expect to pay for this great Windows OS??? 500?? No 1000??? Ladies and gentlemen I am happy to announce that windows 3.0 for just--you heard it here first--100 dollars, that's right, you get file explorer, notepad, control panel, and other great features for this great price!!!! ACT NOW!!!

"Windows XP Professional (Amazon.com): $249.88 Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger (Amazon.com): $99.88 SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (Amazon.com): $77.99 " Windows XP HOME (Amazon.com): $94.99 and it's not like it's missing anything the average user would notice.

"Windows XP HOME (Amazon.com): $94.99 and it's not like it's missing anything the average user would notice." But you have to compare OS X with Windows XP Professional because OS X comes built-in with features that surpass Home Edition (and Professional, too) but at a lower price. I guess another anti-Apple argument from the beleaguered Windows kidz crumbles to dust.

"Windows XP HOME (Amazon.com): $94.99 and it's not like it's missing anything the average user would notice." If you're going to compare apples to apples, XP Professional is the only version of Windows that is worth a s h i t for networking (not even an issue with OS X). I won't compare XP "Home" to OS X because they're not even close. XP Pro at least stands up somewhat favorably.

Not to reference something Apple here, but I am reminded of something Steve Jobs said late last year. He said you can see when a company is dying, and one of the symptoms is usually when the sales guy starts running the company. Then he said, case in point, Microsoft. I had forgotten Ballmer was the sales guy and is now CEO. Suddenly the past six years of Microsoft hell and stagnant development (i.e., no new releases of anything) makes sense. I really think Microsoft is in trouble here. Monopolies don't last forever, and technologies are passing by too quickly for a company as large as Microsoft to keep up. Already, analysts are saying only about 35% of people will be using Vista by 2008, due to various factors including no desire to go out and buy a whole new computer just to run it (you will need a new computer to experience the pretty Direct X effects, otherwise it's just a Windows XP SP3 release).

"YOu would have to be r******* to pay that much for windows. lol!!" How much would YOU pay? Please direct me to a legitimate source. Gosh, thanks.

yeah, it's unfair to compare XP Home to OS X because OS X competes with Professional in the features department, particularly networking...and there, XP is about $130 more expensive. All that "yearly upgrade fee" BS from Windows trolls is lame when you point out XP Pro is $250 freakin' dollars.

Windows--for playing videogames in your admin account while anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, and registry cleaner software runs in your system tray. Where you click "Start" to shut down the computer. Macs--for getting real work done without the operating system getting in your way at all. "OS X is simply better than Windows. Especially for power users." - Paul Thurrott, owner of a Powerbook "Longhorn is a trainwreck." - Paul Thurrott

i know the readers here hate to hear it, but OS X on a Mac really is much, much better and cleaner than Windows on a PC...it will be interesting to see how Vista will try to compete...so far it's features are already in Tiger so I wonder what Apple is going to release in OS X Leopard

Why does Microsoft have to "kill" Google? What the heck is wrong with this company? The web gets big? Oh, Microsoft has to release a non-standards compliant IE and integrate it into Windows to make sure people stay on Windows. Java gets big? Oh, Microsoft has to ruin Java and make it incompatible so people stay on Windows, so they can create the Java clone .NET. Sony has a Playstation? Oh, Microsoft has to enter the console market. Google has a search engine? Oh, Microsoft has to enter the search engine market. Apple has a popular online music store? Oh, Microsoft has to have an online music store. Google has a popular satellite imagery site using XmlHttpRequest? Oh, Microsoft has to have a satellite imagery site using XmlHttpRequest. It goes on and on and on. What is up with this company? Why do they have to compete with absolutely everything? Isn't it enough that most of these are running on their platform? Why would you try to kill off the good programs running on your platform? I don't get it. Why does Ballmer want to kill Google? How has Google threatened Microsoft or Windows? Most people are using IE to access Google, after all. I think it's a control issue. Microsoft just needs to have control of everything.

Mac Os is cool, XP is cool, Vista looks cool but is it that good? i hate microsoft and im kinda forced to use a xp, i wouldnt give a cent for vista, i have bittirrent! :D

"Windows XP Professional (Amazon.com): $249.88 Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger (Amazon.com): $99.88 SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (Amazon.com): $77.99" Excuse me but the price of Windows XP Professional Upgrade is $179.99. OSX Tiger as sold by Amazon is an upgrade by definition because you can't buy an Apple computer without OSX and can't currently install it on any other manufacturer's equipment. It is only correct if one compares the price of OSX to Windows XP Professional Upgrade. Use your brain first before posting.... P.S. I use both OS's and I prefer Windows XP

Why are you saying WinVista is crap? It is the best windows version ever. No, it can't compete with OSX, and Leopard will for sure kill Vista - but at least Microsoft is looking in the right direction. It will be a valuable upgrade for other WinUsers. Maybe many of the features are going to be available to WinXP users, but they won't get the same intergration as in Vista. And come on Vista is only a Beta. You can't blame Vista. Micosoft needs time to change its OS. Next Windows after WinVista will surely have much better features and integrations. WinVista will surpass WinXP many times. So those, who don't have money to by a new Mac will be happy to get WinVista.

"Why does Microsoft have to "kill" Google? What the heck is wrong with this company?" What's your point? MS is not a charity organization. Their intention is to grow, partly by expanding in to new markets. What is wrong with that? This is what corporations do, and this is what the shareholders expect.

""Why does Microsoft have to "kill" Google? What the heck is wrong with this company?" What's your point? MS is not a charity organization. Their intention is to grow, partly by expanding in to new markets. What is wrong with that? This is what corporations do, and this is what the shareholders expect. " I think his point is that Microsoft feels like they have to dominate every single market out there, and when you try to do that, sooner or later, your product line starts to suffer. I firmly believe that Microsoft has the talent and developers to completely redo Windows and make it the revolutionary OS they want it to be, but when your leaders are too busy trying to beat everybody else in every single computing-related market out there, there's no focus, and their resources are spread too thin. Leave Apple alone in the online music market and portable music player market. Leave Google alone. They should focus on making Windows and Office, their two moneymakers, the best OS and office suite on the market. Then, perhaps you can focus on markets that you may or may not be able to even make a dent in.

""Why does Microsoft have to "kill" Google? What the heck is wrong with this company?" What's your point? MS is not a charity organization. Their intention is to grow, partly by expanding in to new markets. What is wrong with that? This is what corporations do, and this is what the shareholders expect." But they're expanding into about 20 markets, and failing in all of them. Microsoft is a software maker. They don't need to be starting web portals, search engines, online music stores, music players, cell phones, TVs, game consoles, and satellite imagery viewers. Their cash-cows will always be Windows and Office. The behavior they exhibit is rather predatory. You didn't answer any of my questions. Why does Microsoft need to enter the market of search engines? How does Google threaten them, to the point that Ballmer wants to "kill" them? Your statement illustrates what's wrong with Microsoft. They're just a company run by shareholders. They don't really care about making the best of the best. "They have no class." - Steve Jobs on Microsoft

""Windows XP Professional (Amazon.com): $249.88 Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger (Amazon.com): $99.88 SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (Amazon.com): $77.99" "Excuse me but the price of Windows XP Professional Upgrade is $179.99." Uh, we're not talking the "Upgrade" edition here, which requires a previous qualified version of Windows to be installed. OS X will install standalone; there is no "upgrade" version. "OSX Tiger as sold by Amazon is an upgrade by definition because you can't buy an Apple computer without OSX and can't currently install it on any other manufacturer's equipment." You can't buy a PC without Windows and you can't install Windows on any non-PC equipment. Your point? "It is only correct if one compares the price of OSX to Windows XP Professional Upgrade. Use your brain first before posting...." No, it's not. You compare OS X to Windows XP Professional, because OS X will install on any supported Apple hardware. It doesn't require a previous version of OS X to be installed. You're trying to wriggle out of the fact that Windows XP Professional costs $130 more than OS X, when meanwhile OS X already has every single feature you'll be paying $250 to have in late 2006, but designed in the top-notch Apple way and not the "click Start to shut down" Microsoft way.

OS X--$120. Windows XP Professional--$250. Realizing the "yearly expensive OS X upgrade" myth falls flat on its face when you point out the cost of Windows XP--priceless.

"You compare OS X to Windows XP Professional, because OS X will install on any supported Apple hardware. It doesn't require a previous version of OS X to be installed" Where in the history of the world could you buy an Apple computer without Apple's own operating system. You couldn't. One cannot install OS X on non-apple hardware (at the moment anyway) and therefore OS X sold by Amazon is an upgrade. I repeat, it is therefore incorrect to compare the price of OS X with Windows XP Professional (full version). If you can't understand that you must be retarded.

"Where in the history of the world could you buy an Apple computer without Apple's own operating system. You couldn't. One cannot install OS X on non-apple hardware (at the moment anyway) and therefore OS X sold by Amazon is an upgrade. I repeat, it is therefore incorrect to compare the price of OS X with Windows XP Professional (full version). If you can't understand that you must be retarded." You could have MacOS 9 installed and install OS X. You could have Linux PPC installed with no older Mac OS discs around and still install OS X. OS X won't ask for you to insert previous operating system install discs during installation. Face it, you're completely, 100% wrong, and desperate to find some way to compare an upgrade version to an operating system that will install no matter if you have the previous operating systems or not.

On the article: If it is true, then it can indicate a serious problem in the management of MS. On the OS bashing: Who cares? Glad you folks can get some amusement from this type of cr_p. If it works for you, great. If it does not, fix/change it. If you can not fix/change it, go flip burgers. Sincerely, Sick of Your Comments

Ah! The fight between the righteous and the realists once again. Microsoft has not really invented anything, only copied and sometimes perfected it. This is not wrong, this is clever as the development and launch costs are prohibitive it is therefore financially smarter to take a successful product and make it your own. whether this is right or wrong is not the issue, it is reality. The Japanese and Taiwanese have perfected this and prospered because of it. There will always be innovation in spite of companies like Microsoft, not because of companies like Microsoft but the facts speak for themselves - MS is the biggest of the big. Do I agree with the Microsoft Strategy - NO - but is it a fact of life - YES. Some examples General availability of cars - Henry Ford Fast growing marketshare in the USA - Japanese (Toyota if memory serves) Digital Watch - USA Where most Westerners think Digital Watches were invented and Manufactured - JAPAN Shall I go on... Cell phones, Vacuum cleaners, PC's etc etc etc. Copy, then perfect within a budget and flood the market. Microsoft have done this for years and it will work for years to come. I have always maintained that the best selling product is one with the biggest marketing budget, not the best product and the list proving this is long. Hell, all of the Presidential candidates for the last 20 plus years that won were the ones with the biggest budget (FACT - CHECK IT). How else do you explain GWB? You can rant and rave but until you vote with your wallets there is no reason to change. If I was Bill Gates I would go home to my $50 million house every night, look at my bank balance and laugh my head off. Oh, and if I had the money Bill had I would also spend $50m and not think it extravagant. After all, how many people are prepared to get off their (obese) butts to do what he did? Silence? Then why must he give any of it away (although he personally does give away hundred of millions to charity)?

"Use your brain first before posting...." I did. The original poster made a snarky comment about using a "more expensive Operating System". I simply gave the market prices for three operating systems. No FUD, no lies...just the facts, ma'am.

"One cannot install OS X on non-apple hardware (at the moment anyway) and therefore OS X sold by Amazon is an upgrade. " That's not what the poster said. Please go back and re-read: "It doesn't require a previous version of OS X to be installed" That's true. Note--the person said a previous version of "OS X" is not required. You can install it over top of a version of OS 9 if you have a supported system. Conversely, you cannot install a copy of Windows XP Upgrade over top of, say, a system that has Windows '95 or Windows NT Workstation 3. To use the software on such a system, you would be required to purchase the full version. OS X doesn't care what version of Apple's OS you have on your system, as long as that system meets the minimum requirements. Therefore, the comparison IS valid. "If you can't understand that you must be retarded." Please stop using the word "retarded" in the pejorative sense. It's incredibly offensive.

Y'all are missing the point. Less capable people run OSX, and even lesser capable people run windows.

"Y'all are missing the point. Less capable people run OSX, and even lesser capable people run windows." Do I have a hint of Linux popping up here? :-)

its simple really, microsoft see's the error with the need for them to come out with operating systems n such, why do you think they are now asking for $$ for things that WERE free, like syncing outlook to hotmail, or, paying for hotmail so your account doesnt lapse. its simle revenue per year, just like msn. a monopoly will stagnate growth. i hope they wake up, and stop the "MANDATORY os upgrades every 5 years, or you are dead in the water" philosphy. just my take. :) cause ill go to linux myself. less updates and less holes.

"Quit talking out a pigs *** and check you're grammer." Pigs? You're? Grammer? God, Windows users are stupid. Windows users are either illiterate gamers or rich manager guys in suits and ties.

Oh, let's say your system crashes, you can't find your GENUINE WINDOWS CD and you need to install Windows XP. Whaddya gonna do? UPGRADE FROM NOTHING? Same goes for your Apple machine or Linux box. The point is, Apple's OS costs less than Microsoft's. What is so hard to understand about this?

"APPLE SUCKS!!!! www.apple.com/switchtoamoreexpensiveOS" "OK:" "Windows XP Professional (Amazon.com): $249.88 Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger (Amazon.com): $99.88 SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (Amazon.com): $77.99" "Nice try, though. " The mere fact that Windows XP draws 249, while Mac OS X 10 draws a mere 99 is all the evidence you need to know about its market worth. Lefties hate the free market. Windows sold how many copies last year? And Mac OS??????????????????? Ka-ching.

It seems that I am arguing with morons. To install the retail version of OSX (sold at amazon) one must have already bought an Apple computer - this is because OSX will not install on a PC. That same Apple computer was sold with an operating system and therefore any OSX sold at retail is an upgrade whether the box says so or not. You cannot compare the price of OS X Tiger retail box with the price of the full version of Windows XP Professional, but must instead compare it with the upgrade price.

Extract from Apple Store website: "Unleash Tiger on your Mac today. Choose a single user license for home or office. Got more than one Mac at home? Upgrade up to 5 Macs in your household for one low price with the Family Pack*." Notice the word upgrade in the last sentence. Proof that OSX retail is an upgrade even though the box doesn't say so - even according to Apple.

Ok nimrod, I can erase the HD of a Apple machine and install OS X Tiger. Can you do the same with the upgrade version of Win XP? No. I rest my case.

You don't need to insert a previous OS disk because Apple know that you have already got a previous Apple OS - because you have an Apple computer. You cannot install Tiger on a PC!! You have no case at all

Answer the question nimrod. You know your wrong, admit it. OS X Tiger can be installed w/o any previous OS at all and it can upgrade older versions of OS X too. It can also be installed along with OS 9 so you can dual boot or use OS 9 in classic mode. Are we feeling educated yet?

"Ok nimrod, I can erase the HD of a Apple machine and install OS X Tiger. Can you do the same with the upgrade version of Win XP? No. I rest my case." Well said. Better yet: Can I start with a new hard drive and install the XP Upgrade verson on my PC? No. Can I install OS X on a new hard drive in my Mac? Yes. Therefore, the retail OS X is emphatically NOT an upgrade. Simple as that. You'll never make the zealot understand your point, but you're absolutely right.

"Ballmer never threatened to actually break the law to "bury" or "kill" Schmidt or Google" This is Microsoft we're talking about. Such behavior is expected of them; it doesn't need to be blatantly stated.

"Well said. Better yet: Can I start with a new hard drive and install the XP Upgrade verson on my PC? No. Can I install OS X on a new hard drive in my Mac? Yes. Therefore, the retail OS X is emphatically NOT an upgrade. Simple as that. You'll never make the zealot understand your point, but you're absolutely right." Thank you, and yes you are right. I'm waiting for him to post more lobotomized dribble any moment now.

Nimrod: You Mac fans are pathetic and I can't be bothered to argue with you because you are so thick. Even the Apple Store considers OS X Tiger an upgrade. This is my last post on the matter. Bye.

Nimrod:- One further thought: PC user goes and buys a copy of Tiger to install on a brand new hard drive. Does it install? No. Apple user goes and buys a copy of Tiger to install on a brand new hard drive. Does it install? Yes. Why? Because the Apple user has an Apple computer. Did that Apple computer come with an Apple OS? Yes. Apple does not need to check whether a user has previously owned a copy of Mac OS 8/9/10 or whatever because Tiger only runs on Apple hardware and that hardware was shipped with Mac OS preinstalled. Apple Tiger is an upgrade - see the Apple store for details.

"Nimrod: You Mac fans are pathetic and I can't be bothered to argue with you because you are so thick. Even the Apple Store considers OS X Tiger an upgrade. This is my last post on the matter. Bye" Ok, run away if it makes you feel better. You know you are wrong but will not admit it. Have a nice life and be sure to ask Santa for a frontal lobe for Christmas.

"Nimrod:- One further thought: PC user goes and buys a copy of Tiger to install on a brand new hard drive. Does it install? No. Apple user goes and buys a copy of Tiger to install on a brand new hard drive. Does it install? Yes. Why? Because the Apple user has an Apple computer. Did that Apple computer come with an Apple OS? Yes. Apple does not need to check whether a user has previously owned a copy of Mac OS 8/9/10 or whatever because Tiger only runs on Apple hardware and that hardware was shipped with Mac OS preinstalled. Apple Tiger is an upgrade - see the Apple store for details." Were you born stupid or is this just the result of all the drugs you have done? PC user buys the XP upgrade and tries to install it on a Mac, it does not work. He then tries to install it on a PC with a formatted HD, it still does not work. Are you starting to see the folly of your "logic"?

"APPLE TROLLS PLEASE GO AWAY THIS IS WINDOWS IT PRO NOT APPLE FORUMS" Yea, I can tell that by the IQ level of Mr. "OS X is an upgrade only"

If OS X Tiger is not an upgrade, why is there not a separate upgrade version (i.e. upgrade printed on the box) for people who already own a copy of OS X Panther? The reason is that it is an upgrade, although the box doesn't say so. You must be stupid if you can't see that and even more stupid if you believe it is a full version and don't demand that Apple sells an upgrade version.

"If OS X Tiger is not an upgrade, why is there not a separate upgrade version (i.e. upgrade printed on the box) for people who already own a copy of OS X Panther? The reason is that it is an upgrade, although the box doesn't say so. You must be stupid if you can't see that and even more stupid if you believe it is a full version and don't demand that Apple sells an upgrade version." Because Tiger is version 10.4. There is no way to upgrade 10.3.9 to 10.4 unless you buy Tiger and install it. All other upgrades are done over the internet using the built in Software Update function in the system prefs. But that is all beside the point, with a erased HD with NO DATA AT ALL ON IT you can install a FULL VERSION OF 10.4 with the same Tiger disk. It can do both, there is no need for a seperate update disk and full install disk. Do you get it now nimrod? YOU CAN DO BOTH WITH THE SAME INSTALL DISK!!!!!!!

Regarding IQ level of Mr. OS X is an upgrade only: He has an MS (Master of Science) from an ivy league school. Yeah I must be really dumb.

"Regarding IQ level of Mr. OS X is an upgrade only: He has an MS (Master of Science) from an ivy league school. Yeah I must be really dumb." Yes, you are. This is a simple concept and you just don't get it. BTW, how did you cheat your way to a MS in an ivy league school? That isn't smart but it is impressive. Go talk to Bill Gates, he would give you a job at Microsoft in a heartbeat.

"Do you get it now nimrod? YOU CAN DO BOTH WITH THE SAME INSTALL DISK!!!!!!!" Have you ever tried to install a Windows upgrade on a newly formatted drive? You don't need to install the previous version of Windows, you just have to insert a previous full version of Windows for a few seconds. This is to verify that you are eligible to upgrade. The upgrade disk for Windows can also do both, upgrade or full install. Apple does not need to follow the same step because all Apple computers have been sold with a previous version of Mac OS. They do not need to check eligibilty for upgrade since it is automatic. Upgrade is not the same as Update and Software Update is nothing to do with this discussion. BTW, I bought a Powerbook with Panther and upgraded it to Tiger with my Mac OS X Tiger UPGRADE DVD.

Not true, nimrod. http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,78043,pg,2,00.asp Quote: "If you currently run Windows 95 or Windows 3.11, you're ineligible for the upgrade version of XP; instead, you'll need to buy a full-installation version ($199 for the Home version; $299 for Pro)." The upgrade version only installs over an older version of the OS. Not on a formatted HD, you need the full install for that. Must be why they call it a full install, right?

OSX sells for $99 because that's what it’s worth. Recently, an iMac was donated to my organization. I’ve been trying to determine how to make use of it. I mean sure, it can do email, web browsing and usual home-computing stuff, but I'm talking about the work environment. I’ve been told several times that Macs are made for video and music editing. Not much use for that where I work. Strike one. I’ve also noticed a paltry selection of boxed software available for the Mac. Strike two. Neither Mac nor Linux are viable solutions at my organization because they don’t run any of the specialty apps that we require. They don’t seem to integrate very well in a broader Windows forest either. I suspect that this is probably the case for many companies that use computers for more than “the basics”. Strike three. Everyone knows that Windows is far from perfect. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an amazingly versatile OS. Can Apple make that claim? I don’t see how. So even if Windows XP cost $1000, it’d still be right on par with OSX because it’s at least ten times as versatile. Am I wrong? Kevin K Computer Support WCCLS

"Quote: "If you currently run Windows 95 or Windows 3.11, you're ineligible for the upgrade version of XP; instead, you'll need to buy a full-installation version ($199 for the Home version; $299 for Pro)." The upgrade version only installs over an older version of the OS. Not on a formatted HD, you need the full install for that. Must be why they call it a full install, right?" Who ever said that Microsoft and Apple had the same upgrade eligibility requirements? I didn't. Apple allows all Apple users to upgrade to Tiger no matter what their previous Apple OS was. Tiger is still an upgrade. Your point is invalid.

Furthermore, you have to use the old system disk because the update installer needs some of the system components from it. It isn't just to check and see if you have a legit OS disk.

"Who ever said that Microsoft and Apple had the same upgrade eligibility requirements? I didn't. Apple allows all Apple users to upgrade to Tiger no matter what their previous Apple OS was. Tiger is still an upgrade. Your point is invalid." So by your logic, the full install of Windows XP is an upgrade from Windows 2000. Besides, you are the one trying to say that the upgrade version of windows will install a full version all on its own. Oh, but it needs that older OS disk just to make sure you are a licensed user. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

"So by your logic, the full install of Windows XP is an upgrade from Windows 2000. Besides, you are the one trying to say that the upgrade version of windows will install a full version all on its own. Oh, but it needs that older OS disk just to make sure you are a licensed user. Riiiiiiiiiiiight." I didn't say anything about Windows XP being an upgrade from Windows 2000. I said that Tiger retail box is an upgrade from previous Apple OS's and that Apple doesn't need to check eligibility for that upgrade because it is automatic: Apple Mac hardware = eligibility = successful Tiger installation. Non Apple hardware = no eligibilty = unsuccessful Tiger installation. The only reason Windows XP upgrade requests the installation disc of a previous full version is to check eligibilty. This is getting boring anyway. Tiger is an upgrade even though the box doesn't say so and the price must be compared to the price of Windows XP Professional Upgrade.

In fact if you look here....... http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail~dpno~416802.asp It says this. "Built on the solid foundation of Windows 2000, Windows XP Professional provides improved reliability, security, performance and ease of use, setting the new standard in efficient and dependable computing." Therefore Win XP is just an upgrade to Win 2000 in the same way you say that Tiger is just an upgrade to every OS Apple has ever made before. So you point about price is moot. Suck on that ivy league man!

"Built on the solid foundation of Windows 2000,..." If it wasn't, it'd be about as useful as OSX is to most organizations.

"Tiger is an upgrade even though the box doesn't say so and the price must be compared to the price of Windows XP Professional Upgrade." Then the full install of Win XP is just an upgrade from Win 2000 even though the box does not say so. Your price comparison is invalid.

well i'm no IT... just a reg user .. and i have been investigating new OS ... i'm so tired of micrsoft.. i have 3 desktops and a laptop.. i simply refuse to purchase 4 programs for all my devices .. i also belive that i'm not alone in this thought .. there for .. i do believe that microsofts days of top gun ( to coin a fraze ) are almost over ...

Maybe I'm one of the few folks out there who does like Microsoft products. Yes, like yourselves, I thought of Microsoft as the evil empire. However, in a server environment (based on PCs or Macs) your choices are Microsoft OSes (fairly reliable, have updates delivered direct to the PC, and also able to disribute through an organization, decent knowledge base for issues, decent support (gotta pay for it, as you do for most other OSes also)), MacOS (Tiger is nice, based on Unix underneath, has some relatively decent tools, smaller application list of business software available than Windows, decent support, no fully organization distributable updates and workstation management), and Unix (Unix, not Linux, as sorry with Linux you aren't getting the full kick you do from Unix; Unix also offers a good source of updates for patches, distributable management of updates, decent support (depending on SunOS, BSD, SCO, etc), decent knowledge base, not a large application base to choose from either, though does have (in most instances) C++ and other language developement environments built in, and can hook to various database (Informix, SQL, etc)). But also, do not just look at the application, but also to what the organization gives back. Gates has given more to charities in the past year, than most of all contributions from the other two OS choice companies above combined. In the end, what you choose, will be what suits what your business needs. However, check most job postings: Companies using Microsoft OS with Microsoft SQL/Visual Studio .Net and other commercial apps, or true Unix and WANs, are paying a lot better top dollar for talent than a company running Linux with Php and MySql. In closing, just to hook back to the initial article this app pertains to, if you work for a software firm, or any IT type business, check the fine print on your own employment contact. Most have the same exact limit noted in the article, that upon your termination of ....

.... termination of your employemnet (which also means if you get let go, laid off, or you quit), you cannot work for a competitor firm for the next year from that date. Ballmer is just stating his case based on the same limits that most of us in the IT / Software field have on our own contracts. Read yours today. :)

How come so many Apple users hang out at a Windows users site and run down Microsoft? I guess since a browser is the only useful product on an Apple that's all you can do?

"He has an MS (Master of Science) from an ivy league school." Puh-leez. G-Dubya-Bush is an Ivy Leage School Graduate, and HE'S still an idiot, too.

"Quote: "If you currently run Windows 95 or Windows 3.11, you're ineligible for the upgrade version of XP; instead, you'll need to buy a full-installation version ($199 for the Home version; $299 for Pro)." Minimum requirements for Tiger (quoted from Apple.com): "PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor" The G3 233MHz came out 1997, and that one is not even supported on Tiger. So it seems both "upgrades (Win and Mac OS) are quite the same here, too ;) Windows will install on a Win-PC that was bought 1998 (Win 98 was in the box), and Mac OS will install on a Mac bought in 1998 (rough guess, I think the last G3 supported are the B/W Macs, and these came out 1998 or '99). Only difference is that Windows update wants to see the 98 CD upon installing (Yes, that is a point for OS X, cause I don't have to keep these old disks)

We should be HAPPY that someone is that maniacal? Are you nuts? (If it actually happened that way, that is.) If I were on Microsoft's Board of Directors, I'd be looking for ways to fire him! Nobody has the right to throw chairs around the room and threaten people or companies. Period!

Throwing things can be necessary at times. That there was something around to throw has saved many lives.

I guess Solaris is free on Sun Workstations... Someone wants to buy my FreeBSD 5.1 CDs for 2 EUROs plus shipping and handling? That might still be a lot cheaper than SUSE for 79 USDs! [I hope most of the previous comments were ment to be funny.]

For every 1 Windows release there are at least 2-3 apple releases. You ******* trolls, stop posting on non relative issues. On topic, if another company was buying my employees, especially those with access to sensative information, I would be ****** off also. I would probably throw the chair at the person quiting not the wall. That being said, Linux Rulez

Apple is definately the successor in the cpu arena! hands down. and if you didnt know, your just plain stupid.

Hey!!! WinXP Pro? 250? OSX 94? Download Fedora!! 0$ Beats OSX and XPPRO in 98% of the features. Xp Sucks, OSX crashs. PURE linux is the way

who pays for Windows anyway? I've got a copy of a copy of a copy of a pirated copy that one of my friends gave me and is on 100+ computers...

I guess I do. In early 1996, I first bought the full retail version of Windows 95. Subsequently, I bought retail 'upgrade' versions of Windows 98 [1], Me [2], 2000 [1], and XP Home [2]. I also bought an OEM version of Windows XP Professional, and purchased several computers with Windows pre-installed. Last year, I went and bought an MSDN subscription which includes developer licenses for most every rtm version of Windows.