+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48
General Chat Thread, More like Microsoft with every passing minute in General; I must admit that network lock-in is the only thing that stops me from buying an iPhone....
  1. #16

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    10,464
    Thank Post
    605
    Thanked 2,186 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    632
    I must admit that network lock-in is the only thing that stops me from buying an iPhone.

  2. #17
    Jamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,354
    Thank Post
    66
    Thanked 175 Times in 147 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    I must admit that network lock-in is the only thing that stops me from buying an iPhone.
    And the fact you have to "Jailbreak" it to run Monkey Island.... i mean what is that about.... get your priorities right Apple!!!




    I saw this the other day and saw it as such bad business practice, down with the Apple!

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Err... No. No-one is forced to use google for advertising. Yahoo offer competitive advertising rates. As do Microsoft. There are a huge number of advertising companies operating online.
    No one is forced to use Windows for computing. Linux is available for very competitive rates. Obviously then Microsoft don't have a monopoly.

    Google's market share means that Microsoft and Yahoo are rarely used. When did you last see any site using someone else's advertising banners, other than possibly alongside Google's?

    Ok, I find this issue to be a bit odd - how on Earth can Google police this? There are millions of trademarks, and millions of companies, using billions of keywords. Google do not check every keyword sale by hand.
    The point isn't whether they can police it or not, its whether, when called on it, they allow it. Google have stated that they believe this is fair and reasonable and that they will not be preventing the sale of trademarked keywords to competitors for advertising, nor preventing competitors using trademarked terms in their adverts.

    Just to clarify that would mean that as far as Google are concerned Coca Cola could buy Pepsi as a search term, and use it to advertise their own products.

    It doesn't matter if they are a monopoly or not - it is what they do with it that is the issue.
    What they do with it is mislead their customers, charge them variable amounts with little or no justification or explanation, and abuse their dominant marketplace position.

    Please don't try to be clever with statistics - if you're going to compare worldwide with UK search hit stats then it is obvious you aren't willing to do actual research. ie. you just show your bias by doing this.
    Worldwide search stats have proved very hard to track down, but Google is far and away in the dominant place in most countries. The only exceptions that are noted by hitwise are Russia, the Czech Republic, Korea, China and Japan.

    If you can find an actual worldwide statistic, feel free to let me know. Google's market share is close to 90% in the UK, and over 70% in the US. That seems like something very close to a monopoly for me, but maybe I'm just assuming that having a dominant market position and abusing it to unfairly profit from your customers is what monopoly laws are there to prevent.

    Name them. Firefox can change search engine in a few clicks, just like IE. Opera is exactly the same. Even Chrome, Google's own browser allows you to change the default engine with 3 clicks! (and, I might add, they include a list of competing search engines pre-installed, which IE most certainly doesn't do) What more do you want?
    Safari. IE8 by the way gives you the option during install to change the default search engine, as well as the search accelerators used. This's improved since last time I looked, so my mistake.

    NOTE: I am not simply defending Google because I like them, I do think some of their practices could be cleaned up a bit, but rants about them being anti-competitive without any substance annoy me.
    Try looking into how they treat their advertisers. Not the big companies who can afford to pay a fortune, but the more common, reasonably sized companies. There are sources all over the place about the unethical practices by google to unfairly target these people.

  4. #19
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,203
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    @ localzuk

    Come on you're a closet Google fanboy admit it... no no put the flame thrower down not the napalm

  5. #20

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,794
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    No one is forced to use Windows for computing. Linux is available for very competitive rates. Obviously then Microsoft don't have a monopoly.
    Not quite the same. Moving your business from MS software to non-MS is so expensive, and in some cases impossible as files from their range of products cannot be converted effectively to other versions.

    Not to mention the fact MS were *convicted* of anti-competitive behaviour.

    Google's market share means that Microsoft and Yahoo are rarely used. When did you last see any site using someone else's advertising banners, other than possibly alongside Google's?
    Online ads are not just about search. Yahoo ads and MS ads are all over the web on websites.


    The point isn't whether they can police it or not, its whether, when called on it, they allow it. Google have stated that they believe this is fair and reasonable and that they will not be preventing the sale of trademarked keywords to competitors for advertising, nor preventing competitors using trademarked terms in their adverts.

    Just to clarify that would mean that as far as Google are concerned Coca Cola could buy Pepsi as a search term, and use it to advertise their own products.
    I don't see that as unfair either. They aren't actively infringing on the trademarks, ie. saying that Pepsi is Coke. It'd be like advertising Audi cars in 'BMW magazine' if such a thing existed.

    What they do with it is mislead their customers, charge them variable amounts with little or no justification or explanation, and abuse their dominant marketplace position.
    In your opinion. Yet to be proven in a court... You are basing your views on anecdotal evidence. And I base mine on the outcomes of judicial dealings. If we were to be talking about a person, would you think it fair to be doing that?

    Worldwide search stats have proved very hard to track down, but Google is far and away in the dominant place in most countries. The only exceptions that are noted by hitwise are Russia, the Czech Republic, Korea, China and Japan.

    If you can find an actual worldwide statistic, feel free to let me know. Google's market share is close to 90% in the UK, and over 70% in the US. That seems like something very close to a monopoly for me, but maybe I'm just assuming that having a dominant market position and abusing it to unfairly profit from your customers is what monopoly laws are there to prevent.
    So, as the stats are difficult to come by, you decided to use the equivalent of picking out the ones which suited your purpose. Why didn't you pick China's Google usage? Or Russia? Because those numbers didn't fit into your view. Looking at numbers from 2007, Google's worldwide search market share was 53.6%. Hardly a monopoly. If I do a quick scout, this number varies depending on the source (for example, a 2009 figure on one blog put them at roughly 79%).

    Statistics can be used to prove anything when used incorrectly.

    Safari. IE8 by the way gives you the option during install to change the default search engine, as well as the search accelerators used. This's improved since last time I looked, so my mistake.
    Ok, one browser. Well done. So you're blaiming a third party company for part of Google's evils? Riiight.

    Try looking into how they treat their advertisers. Not the big companies who can afford to pay a fortune, but the more common, reasonably sized companies. There are sources all over the place about the unethical practices by google to unfairly target these people.
    I've been one of those people and had no troubles. Every company in existence gets complaints about how it works. Without a legal judgement, they are just anecdotal evidence. I could go out and find 1000 happy customers - it's like the statistics thing above all over again.

    @cookie_monster - nope. I prefer Bing for image search, use Digg.com and other sites for news aggregation, and use Zoho.com for online applications, Flickr for image hosting.

  6. #21
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,203
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    I must say that I think Bing image search is really good as well.

  7. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Not quite the same. Moving your business from MS software to non-MS is so expensive, and in some cases impossible as files from their range of products cannot be converted effectively to other versions.

    Not to mention the fact MS were *convicted* of anti-competitive behaviour.
    If you're concerned only about legal cases then Google are currently being investigated for their settlement regarding orphaned books, giving them a monopoly on rights for any books where the rights holder is unknown or cannot be contacted.

    I suspect more cases will follow now that Google are no longer seen so much as the sweet innocent kid of the internet.

    Online ads are not just about search. Yahoo ads and MS ads are all over the web on websites.
    Where? I very rarely notice any adverts which aren't provided by Google.

    I don't see that as unfair either. They aren't actively infringing on the trademarks, ie. saying that Pepsi is Coke. It'd be like advertising Audi cars in 'BMW magazine' if such a thing existed.
    No, it'd be like sneaking into an Audi showroom and slipping up to potential Audi customers, handing them flyers advertising BMWs. Or given that they can use misleading language in the adverts themselves, more like setting up your own showroom in front and slapping to wrong logo on your door to get people to come in.

    Google condone this.

    In your opinion. Yet to be proven in a court... You are basing your views on anecdotal evidence. And I base mine on the outcomes of judicial dealings. If we were to be talking about a person, would you think it fair to be doing that?
    Before Microsoft's unethical practices were determined in court, were they still unethical?

    If someone doesn't face trial for something immoral, does that mean they did the right thing?

    If a loophole lets someone escape, should they be said to be innocent?

    So, as the stats are difficult to come by, you decided to use the equivalent of picking out the ones which suited your purpose. Why didn't you pick China's Google usage? Or Russia? Because those numbers didn't fit into your view. Looking at numbers from 2007, Google's worldwide search market share was 53.6%. Hardly a monopoly. If I do a quick scout, this number varies depending on the source (for example, a 2009 figure on one blog put them at roughly 79%).
    So what you're saying is the number varies widely, and that China's usage (with a huge population) skews the figures?

    I'll have a look and see if I can find Microsoft's market share in England and the US, since we've got Google's share in those two countries. A monopoly doesn't have to be world-wide, it can apply to one nation.

    Ok, one browser. Well done. So you're blaiming a third party company for part of Google's evils? Riiight.
    Yeah, like I said, I goofed on that one. My bad. Doesn't discredit the rest of my argument and at least I admitted my mistake.

  8. #23

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,727
    Thank Post
    909
    Thanked 1,329 Times in 809 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    446
    IMO google are very close to being evil, they are very careful with what they do to ensure that they dont overstep the mark.
    Adsense: It dominates, fact. Yahoo's own publisher network used to even hook into adsense. MS publisher network is dead I thought?
    Adsense is a pretty poor product in my experience which is why we are going to get rid of them. Its full of spam/junk advertisers as google quite happily take their money withouth any proper audits. They also seem to continue to allow those crappy "holding" pages to run their adverts costing their customers money for junk links.

    Back to the OP, yeh I think its pretty poor of apple but I have come to expect nothing less from them, I just wish they would sort it out so you didnt have to use crappy itunes with my iphone. Apple encrypting the DB so other software couldnt interface with it was just to force you to use itunes on mac/windows and not for any other benefit.

  9. #24

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,794
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    If you're concerned only about legal cases then Google are currently being investigated for their settlement regarding orphaned books, giving them a monopoly on rights for any books where the rights holder is unknown or cannot be contacted.

    I suspect more cases will follow now that Google are no longer seen so much as the sweet innocent kid of the internet.
    Investigation != guilt. I've been investigated for various things in the past, and found completely innocent, as I was innocent. That's why we have a legal system.

    Where? I very rarely notice any adverts which aren't provided by Google.
    The 24th most popular domain in our logs here is for a company 'casalemedia.com' - an online advertising company. The 64th most popular is yimg.com - yahoo's advertising.

    No, it'd be like sneaking into an Audi showroom and slipping up to potential Audi customers, handing them flyers advertising BMWs. Or given that they can use misleading language in the adverts themselves, more like setting up your own showroom in front and slapping to wrong logo on your door to get people to come in.

    Google condone this.
    As I said, I don't see a problem with the practice. They aren't pretending to be the other company, so there is little issue here. How could a small competitor to a giant company ever get into people's search results otherwise?

    Before Microsoft's unethical practices were determined in court, were they still unethical?

    If someone doesn't face trial for something immoral, does that mean they did the right thing?

    If a loophole lets someone escape, should they be said to be innocent?
    Sorry but that's a fallacious argument. You are pre-judging a company. I wait until the outcome of trials personally. Otherwise it is trial by gossip.

    So what you're saying is the number varies widely, and that China's usage (with a huge population) skews the figures?
    You listed half a dozen countries. You can't use a small segment of numbers to form a worldwide view. Can't you see that? Otherwise I could turn around and state that Google are a small player in some obscure country with no internet users...

    I'll have a look and see if I can find Microsoft's market share in England and the US, since we've got Google's share in those two countries. A monopoly doesn't have to be world-wide, it can apply to one nation.
    Yes, move the goal posts...

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    The 24th most popular domain in our logs here is for a company 'casalemedia.com' - an online advertising company. The 64th most popular is yimg.com - yahoo's advertising.
    Where do google sit in the popularity charts on your logs?

    As I said, I don't see a problem with the practice. They aren't pretending to be the other company, so there is little issue here. How could a small competitor to a giant company ever get into people's search results otherwise?
    And the other way around? It allows a giant company to quash their competition by advertising on their trademarks. Lets say you own a small company which make shoes, and you have a fairly brisk online trade. Nike are now allowed to buy your trademark so that when someone's searching for your brand name, Nike is the first thing they'll see.

    Nope, I'm afraid I do see a problem with that.

    You listed half a dozen countries. You can't use a small segment of numbers to form a worldwide view. Can't you see that? Otherwise I could turn around and state that Google are a small player in some obscure country with no internet users...
    Wait, so now a monopoly does have to be worldwide?

    You could turn around and state that if you want, but Google still have a monopoly here in England. Pretending that they don't is willful foolishness.

    Yes, move the goal posts...
    I'm not moving the goalposts. I said that google have a monopoly and they do. I believe there's sufficient evidence that a full investigation into the matter should be launched, and I'm relieved that this is finally starting to happen (even if it is only with the matter of the book scanning so far - more will follow).

    I am not willing to wait and trust a company simply because they say that they don't do evil, and the nice big friendly courts haven't investigated them yet. We're talking here about a company who have a huge amount of influence - look at the number of ex-Google employees who have been appointed as advisors in the US.

    For that matter look at the current proposal by the conservatives that your national health service records could be outsourced to google.

    I'm not willing to wait until the damage is done before complaining about this company and calling for an investigation into them. Unfortunately I lack the political influence to do it, but I can at least try and make people aware of the unethical practices.

  11. #26

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,794
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Where do google sit in the popularity charts on your logs?
    Number 1 of course. I've never said they weren't the dominant company.

    And the other way around? It allows a giant company to quash their competition by advertising on their trademarks. Lets say you own a small company which make shoes, and you have a fairly brisk online trade. Nike are now allowed to buy your trademark so that when someone's searching for your brand name, Nike is the first thing they'll see.

    Nope, I'm afraid I do see a problem with that.
    That isn't Google's fault.

    Wait, so now a monopoly does have to be worldwide?
    You're the one going on about monopolies and using worldwide stats.

    You could turn around and state that if you want, but Google still have a monopoly here in England. Pretending that they don't is willful foolishness.
    No it wouldn't. They aren't a monopoly. They are the current dominant search company - just like Yahoo used to be.

    I'm not moving the goalposts. I said that google have a monopoly and they do. I believe there's sufficient evidence that a full investigation into the matter should be launched, and I'm relieved that this is finally starting to happen (even if it is only with the matter of the book scanning so far - more will follow).
    Switching from using global stats, comparing them with country stats, to using just stats for the UK. Those look like moving goal posts to me. Because you can't prove your point for global monopoly, you're now narrowing it down to just a single country.

    I am not willing to wait and trust a company simply because they say that they don't do evil, and the nice big friendly courts haven't investigated them yet. We're talking here about a company who have a huge amount of influence - look at the number of ex-Google employees who have been appointed as advisors in the US.
    So, you propose we scrap due process and start with the lynchings now then? Very modern.

    For that matter look at the current proposal by the conservatives that your national health service records could be outsourced to google.
    Google are a service provider, just like BT (who do a lot of outsourcing work for the NHS already). Don't go thinking this is a major change in tactics.

    I'm not willing to wait until the damage is done before complaining about this company and calling for an investigation into them. Unfortunately I lack the political influence to do it, but I can at least try and make people aware of the unethical practices.
    Yes, this is called 'armchair anger'. Where you dislike something and are willing to argue about it until you're blue in the face, and won't change your position no matter what. When what you could be doing is organising protests, letter writing campaigns etc... The worst thing a company can get is bad press, so why not get them into the press over these issues.

  12. #27

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,223
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 2,717 Times in 2,302 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Not quite the same. Moving your business from MS software to non-MS is so expensive, and in some cases impossible as files from their range of products cannot be converted effectively to other versions.

    Not to mention the fact MS were *convicted* of anti-competitive behaviour.
    I know, it really is just totally wrong when things are differnt and don't work together. Just the other day I wanted to take the windscreen out of my car dnd put it in a differnt one. You know what I could not do it because the car company had selfishly and stupidly made their product unique and different. How monopolistinc and evil of them to not build everything exactly the same with no inovation and how dare they not activly support me in moving to their compeditor. I mean sure I chose the solution in the first place but now they are actually making me stick with it. Concequences, how dare they, don't they know I work in a school where such things are illegal. Bring on the unified collective where everything is grey and nothing can inovate ever.

    Seriously, lots of stuff is moveable from one format to another and if another product wants to use that format is it not their responcibility to work with it. If everyone is so up and arms why did they not use RTF in the first place. It has been around for ever and is supported in almost anything. Oh wait they wanted inovation and are now pissy that the creator of that inovation will not take the time and expence to write themselves out of a job.

    Oh and lets talk about the fairness of the legal system which you seem to hold in high estiem. The same system that will happily fine people hundreds of times the value of a piece of music or put people in jail for a longer period of time for drug possetion than violent crime.

    I have exceptional difficulty understanding your viewpoints, you are perfectly entitled to have them but I can't help but picture you milling grain on some unused highway in a post 'fightclubesk' reality.

    In my view Google is at least partially evil, and that is more dangerous because they deem themselves to be the constant good guys. Apple arogantly consider themselves to cool to be evil which is rather irritating. Microsoft is the only lot that have accepted their rap and is honest about their motives. It is commonly stated that acceptance is the first step to recovery after all.

  13. #28

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,794
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    I know, it really is just totally wrong when things are differnt and don't work together. Just the other day I wanted to take the windscreen out of my car dnd put it in a differnt one. You know what I could not do it because the car company had selfishly and stupidly made their product unique and different. How monopolistinc and evil of them to not build everything exactly the same with no inovation and how dare they not activly support me in moving to their compeditor. I mean sure I chose the solution in the first place but now they are actually making me stick with it. Concequences, how dare they, don't they know I work in a school where such things are illegal. Bring on the unified collective where everything is grey and nothing can inovate ever.
    You don't have to buy your windshield from the manufacturer. I'm sure autoglass would do you one of theirs... Poor comparison.

    Oh and lets talk about the fairness of the legal system which you seem to hold in high estiem. The same system that will happily fine people hundreds of times the value of a piece of music or put people in jail for a longer period of time for drug possetion than violent crime.
    Didn't know the laws protecting people from anti-competitive company behaviour dealt with drugs and music copyrights. I'll just scrap my belief in fair trials then...

    I have exceptional difficulty understanding your viewpoints, you are perfectly entitled to have them but I can't help but picture you milling grain on some unused highway in a post 'fightclubesk' reality.
    My viewpoint is simple - Google are a company. They are currently edging towards some dodgy ground but until a court or regulator comes around and slaps them after a proper trial, and not anecdotal evidence, I will still use their services as I see fit.

    In my view Google is at least partially evil, and that is more dangerous because they deem themselves to be the constant good guys. Apple arogantly consider themselves to cool to be evil which is rather irritating. Microsoft is the only lot that have accepted their rap and is honest about their motives. It is commonly stated that acceptance is the first step to recovery after all.
    Personally, as I said, I go by what happens in court, if that's wrong in your mind so be it.

  14. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Number 1 of course. I've never said they weren't the dominant company.
    And I take it numbers 2-23 are also advertisers? Obviously any viable competitor would have a reasonable share of the market.

    That isn't Google's fault.
    No, it is Google's fault. Until recently Google would reserve trademarks if the owners requested it. Recently they've changed their policy on this so that their customers no longer have any right to protect their trademark in search queries.

    Google have changed this policy, condoning and allowing this unethical behaviour, in order to make more money.

    You're the one going on about monopolies and using worldwide stats.
    I used the stats which I could find. My bad. I take it then that you're saying Google are just a sweet, small little company with no market position worth worrying about?

    No it wouldn't. They aren't a monopoly. They are the current dominant search company - just like Yahoo used to be.
    Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company.

    So, you propose we scrap due process and start with the lynchings now then? Very modern.
    When on earth did I suggest that? I just think that its not unreasonable to take sensible precautions against a company which appears to be highly unethical. No one's talking about lynchings, and we're not talking about people either. We're talking about a company, a corporate entity.

    Waiting for a court case to be concluded before taking precautions is asking for trouble, these cases have taken years in the past and they will continue to do so. You need to make a sensible judgment based on your own knowledge of the situation, including anecdotal evidence and all other evidence you can gather.

    If a car manufacturer makes substandard cars with a high level of dangerous failure, and this is known, should I wait for a product recall before I stop driving their car?

    Google are a service provider, just like BT (who do a lot of outsourcing work for the NHS already). Don't go thinking this is a major change in tactics.
    Google are an advertising agency with a worrying fascination with collecting personal data. Think what'll happen if they get your medical records. Log on to check the latest comment your doctor's put on and get the banner ads 'Buy antidepressants now!'.

    Yes, this is called 'armchair anger'. Where you dislike something and are willing to argue about it until you're blue in the face, and won't change your position no matter what. When what you could be doing is organising protests, letter writing campaigns etc... The worst thing a company can get is bad press, so why not get them into the press over these issues.
    I'm quite happy to change my position if someone can provide evidence that Google are in fact 'not evil' as they claim. What irks me about them is their attempt to pretend that they are good guys, when in fact they're just another profiteering company. That's the problem I have.

    I'd love to be organising protests and similar, sadly I have a full-time job at which I often work late and many other interests. My life does not revolve around taking down Google (I don't even really want to see them taken down, just the acceptance that all they are is yet another profit-driven company who'll do anything in the name of a buck).

  15. #30

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,794
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company.
    Not gonna comment on the rest, busy now. But this bit I will point out - U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 10 Minute Mail - take a look!
    By flashsnaps in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd March 2009, 12:17 PM
  2. Passing combo box values to datagrid view
    By Shrimpersfan in forum Coding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 7th January 2009, 11:17 AM
  3. Passing data from dreamweaver to an Access file
    By StewartKnight in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26th January 2007, 11:35 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 8th November 2006, 11:32 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •