Out of interest, can you write software that is 'almost ' identical to another, and be legal? For example Office 602's word processor looks and feels very much like Word. It even saves by defualt into the Word format. The issue I had with it was it's inability to open heavily formatted Word documents (for my internet cafes). Can we write an operating system with in X% in look and feel as Windows? How does the law stand?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Whats the deal?
- Thread starter ocean14
- Start date
The law is whatever the courts eventually decide, though you're at fault if you guess wrong.
Having done a lot of transfers of documents between different formats, I figure that they are intentionally designed to be unusable without the right software, you can always export as text, of course.
Microsoft is so powerful because a court case ended with rising computer-equipment companies being allowed to produce machines that looked and felt exactly like the original IBM PC. Microsoft as such were not involved, but it gave them a much better market for MS-Dos and then Windows. Which resembled the Apple Mac desktop, itself using ideas from Xerox, but found to be doing it legally.
Law is not actually based on any coherent principles, despite its grand claims.
Having done a lot of transfers of documents between different formats, I figure that they are intentionally designed to be unusable without the right software, you can always export as text, of course.
Microsoft is so powerful because a court case ended with rising computer-equipment companies being allowed to produce machines that looked and felt exactly like the original IBM PC. Microsoft as such were not involved, but it gave them a much better market for MS-Dos and then Windows. Which resembled the Apple Mac desktop, itself using ideas from Xerox, but found to be doing it legally.
Law is not actually based on any coherent principles, despite its grand claims.
Good question, some thoughts to ponder on that:
The result of the Apple v Microsoft prevented Apple from holding a copywrite on the "look & feel" of a user interface. This would also apply to Microsoft.
[sub]For more info on the case, go here; [/sub]
In the Microsoft v Lindows case, Microsoft basically lost their trademark on the "Windows" title.
[sub]To many links on this one to list, go here and scroll to the very bottom, then read from the bottom up. Makes for good entertainment (and laugh) [/sub]
If I don’t like the picture quality Fuji film produces in my camera, I can get Kodak with out getting a new camera, flash, tripod, or darkroom. If I don’t like the Energizer battery life in my walkman, I can get Duracell with out replacing all of my tape/CD’s, getting new headphones, or a new walkman. Many electronics in the public sector can swap parts and features because of these standards.
Getting the functionality may require the same thing Phoenix did when they sold Compaq a BIOS that was 100% compatible with the IBM PC. The guys from Phoenix used two sets of programmers, one who had access to IBM's source code and another who could be proven in court to be source code virgins. The first group made a list of everything the BIOS did for a specific set of inputs, but carefully avoided any mention of the original code. The second group then took all those notes and wrote their own BIOS that performed exactly the same as IBM's, but completely from scratch without any possible contamination from IBM. If someone did this with the MS Windows OS, we may just get that 100% compatible OS.
The company that does this will need a lot of capitol for legal fees alone. Even though it may be a loosing case, Microsoft will still bring it to court and appeal it to no avail. If you can’t beat them, litigate the hell out of them so they go broke paying legal fees up the nose. Then again, Microsoft could surprise the world, do nothing in the legal system to stop a 100% compatible OS. They could just work a little harder on their OS, make it better, stronger, faster, rename it to Bionic Windows and win the market with a better product than the competition.
[sub]And pigs will fly [/sub]
The result of the Apple v Microsoft prevented Apple from holding a copywrite on the "look & feel" of a user interface. This would also apply to Microsoft.
[sub]For more info on the case, go here; [/sub]
In the Microsoft v Lindows case, Microsoft basically lost their trademark on the "Windows" title.
[sub]To many links on this one to list, go here and scroll to the very bottom, then read from the bottom up. Makes for good entertainment (and laugh) [/sub]
If I don’t like the picture quality Fuji film produces in my camera, I can get Kodak with out getting a new camera, flash, tripod, or darkroom. If I don’t like the Energizer battery life in my walkman, I can get Duracell with out replacing all of my tape/CD’s, getting new headphones, or a new walkman. Many electronics in the public sector can swap parts and features because of these standards.
Getting the functionality may require the same thing Phoenix did when they sold Compaq a BIOS that was 100% compatible with the IBM PC. The guys from Phoenix used two sets of programmers, one who had access to IBM's source code and another who could be proven in court to be source code virgins. The first group made a list of everything the BIOS did for a specific set of inputs, but carefully avoided any mention of the original code. The second group then took all those notes and wrote their own BIOS that performed exactly the same as IBM's, but completely from scratch without any possible contamination from IBM. If someone did this with the MS Windows OS, we may just get that 100% compatible OS.
The company that does this will need a lot of capitol for legal fees alone. Even though it may be a loosing case, Microsoft will still bring it to court and appeal it to no avail. If you can’t beat them, litigate the hell out of them so they go broke paying legal fees up the nose. Then again, Microsoft could surprise the world, do nothing in the legal system to stop a 100% compatible OS. They could just work a little harder on their OS, make it better, stronger, faster, rename it to Bionic Windows and win the market with a better product than the competition.
[sub]And pigs will fly [/sub]
- Thread starter
- #4
There are plenty of firms who have the csh to take on Microsoft - legal fees only cost so much. Whats needed is the resolve. At the end of the day there is not many people in the business world who would not have done exactly what Bill and his boys (and girls) did with Microsoft. It's all about how bad they want to get him or a piece of his business. We are really are stuck with ugly people running our world today.
Ocean 14,
It's all about how bad they want to get him or a piece of his business.
This is the attitude that causes companies to go bankrupt. Rarely do companies succeed when their sole purpose is to do away with a person. The drive to put someone out of business is an emotional drive, and emotions and business rarely go together. Now taking a piece of Microsofts market is something that anybody is able to do.
Microsoft has a commitment to it's investors and it's customers. From it's stock prices in today's economy I would say they are doing a pretty good job at that. As for the customers yes there do exist people who use Microsoft products and seem to have endless problems with them but based upon the millions of users I am willing to bet the percentage is relitavily small.
Microsoft is more than Bill Gates, and Bill Gates is not Microsoft. Yes he is a Very powerful driving force behind Microsoft but that does not make him Microsoft.
I agree that Microsoft has probably succeeded in some areas by the use of strong arm tactics, but there are many things that have led to the speed with which the market adopted the MS Platform. There are also reasons that other competitior companies have failed to gain market share. Take the Browser war for example. I worked for a ISP in the early days of the internet's popularity. Netscape was in their 1.X versions and I.E. wasn't even around. Netscape put out some pretty cruddy releases and it seemed every week a new release was out to fix something in the previous. Many ISPs were giving Netscape to it's customer's (it was a free download on the web), At that time is was lynx, netscape, or Spry's web browser (which was not free). Netscape contacted internet providers and demanded a fee for every copy of the Netscape browser that they distributed (whether or not the user ever used it) this was not in violation of their EULA at the time or for the versions being given out. Shortly after Microsoft released IE and told ISPs to give it away if they wanted. Although at the Time IE was free there were possible expenses. Pretty much everyone was a novice and IE came with no documentation, however you could purchase the documentation or various other guides. Having come from a Web Desinger background I was a strong Supporter of Netscape, but Netscape became more difficult to code for, where IE became easier. Now did Microsoft cause the browser war 100%? or did netscape have some responsibility in their own fate?
People need to give up the Attitude that Microsoft is the Satan of the computer industry and realise that like in many other areas of life their is a best fit. By this I mean use whatever OS or application Best Fits your needs.
"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck
It's all about how bad they want to get him or a piece of his business.
This is the attitude that causes companies to go bankrupt. Rarely do companies succeed when their sole purpose is to do away with a person. The drive to put someone out of business is an emotional drive, and emotions and business rarely go together. Now taking a piece of Microsofts market is something that anybody is able to do.
Microsoft has a commitment to it's investors and it's customers. From it's stock prices in today's economy I would say they are doing a pretty good job at that. As for the customers yes there do exist people who use Microsoft products and seem to have endless problems with them but based upon the millions of users I am willing to bet the percentage is relitavily small.
Microsoft is more than Bill Gates, and Bill Gates is not Microsoft. Yes he is a Very powerful driving force behind Microsoft but that does not make him Microsoft.
I agree that Microsoft has probably succeeded in some areas by the use of strong arm tactics, but there are many things that have led to the speed with which the market adopted the MS Platform. There are also reasons that other competitior companies have failed to gain market share. Take the Browser war for example. I worked for a ISP in the early days of the internet's popularity. Netscape was in their 1.X versions and I.E. wasn't even around. Netscape put out some pretty cruddy releases and it seemed every week a new release was out to fix something in the previous. Many ISPs were giving Netscape to it's customer's (it was a free download on the web), At that time is was lynx, netscape, or Spry's web browser (which was not free). Netscape contacted internet providers and demanded a fee for every copy of the Netscape browser that they distributed (whether or not the user ever used it) this was not in violation of their EULA at the time or for the versions being given out. Shortly after Microsoft released IE and told ISPs to give it away if they wanted. Although at the Time IE was free there were possible expenses. Pretty much everyone was a novice and IE came with no documentation, however you could purchase the documentation or various other guides. Having come from a Web Desinger background I was a strong Supporter of Netscape, but Netscape became more difficult to code for, where IE became easier. Now did Microsoft cause the browser war 100%? or did netscape have some responsibility in their own fate?
People need to give up the Attitude that Microsoft is the Satan of the computer industry and realise that like in many other areas of life their is a best fit. By this I mean use whatever OS or application Best Fits your needs.
"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck
- Thread starter
- #6
MDXer
A interesting reply. You are right in everything you say when it comes to the legal mechanics of business and its ethics. As I said, there aren't many who wouldn't do the same if they had thought of it first. Micosoft has done something quiet remarkarble. They have been instrumental in uniting the world in the most signicant communication medium in man kinds history; computing and the internet.
Computing is now a way of life in the West and in time the rest of the world, and Windows is and will be the catalyst for that. What a legacy Bill Gates can take his grave, for which he will be remembered.
But computing and communication and the right by everyone to access it, is not his or Microsofts, irrespective of the the origins in its creation. We are past that now, and the time has come cost should not play a signicant role in accessing this great thing. Microsoft and others still see it as right to capitalize.
So you say - who wouldn't?
It always comes back to obvious - what for?
How much money is enough money and how much is enough power?
What legacy do you think Bill wants?
What do we really owe Micosoft?
A interesting reply. You are right in everything you say when it comes to the legal mechanics of business and its ethics. As I said, there aren't many who wouldn't do the same if they had thought of it first. Micosoft has done something quiet remarkarble. They have been instrumental in uniting the world in the most signicant communication medium in man kinds history; computing and the internet.
Computing is now a way of life in the West and in time the rest of the world, and Windows is and will be the catalyst for that. What a legacy Bill Gates can take his grave, for which he will be remembered.
But computing and communication and the right by everyone to access it, is not his or Microsofts, irrespective of the the origins in its creation. We are past that now, and the time has come cost should not play a signicant role in accessing this great thing. Microsoft and others still see it as right to capitalize.
So you say - who wouldn't?
It always comes back to obvious - what for?
How much money is enough money and how much is enough power?
What legacy do you think Bill wants?
What do we really owe Micosoft?
ocean14,
Yes Microsoft and others see it as a right to capitalize. It is business and that is what business is about. Access to computers and the internet are not rights or necessities, it is a luxury. People can and still are affective in society without computers or the internet.
How much money is enough money and how much is enough power?
In respects to business your company can neve make to much money. Businesses are about making money. A companies current ability and future potential for making money are 2 keys on which a company is judged. Microsoft and other manufacturers are not the only ones making money. Investors make money, and good investors place their money where they will get the most return.
What legacy do you think Bill wants?
I think Bill wants a legacy of being a positive force in the computing world.
What do we really owe Micosoft?
If you have their software you only owe them the License fee. Brand loyalty is something that exists in all markets, but is up to the individual to decide on what brand they are loyal to.
One area I don't think people look at is the ability of small companies or individuals to produce innovative software or technologies without financing. A product or technology can not be successful without proper funding the costs involved in development and deployment of software and technologies are enourmous.
In the open source market you have a large development force that has little to no expenses involved but who has the rights to market the open source products? Who will support them? In todays computing world with so many products to choose from things like support become important. People want a number they can when something is not right and support costs money.
As for the home users well unfortunately many companies still target the Corporate market. The Microsoft Server products are their largest source of sales. which is more than just an OS.
Only the individual or company can decide what is the best OS and applications to suit their needs, and everyday companies make this choice. Sometimes it's microsoft and sometimes it's not.
"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck
Yes Microsoft and others see it as a right to capitalize. It is business and that is what business is about. Access to computers and the internet are not rights or necessities, it is a luxury. People can and still are affective in society without computers or the internet.
How much money is enough money and how much is enough power?
In respects to business your company can neve make to much money. Businesses are about making money. A companies current ability and future potential for making money are 2 keys on which a company is judged. Microsoft and other manufacturers are not the only ones making money. Investors make money, and good investors place their money where they will get the most return.
What legacy do you think Bill wants?
I think Bill wants a legacy of being a positive force in the computing world.
What do we really owe Micosoft?
If you have their software you only owe them the License fee. Brand loyalty is something that exists in all markets, but is up to the individual to decide on what brand they are loyal to.
One area I don't think people look at is the ability of small companies or individuals to produce innovative software or technologies without financing. A product or technology can not be successful without proper funding the costs involved in development and deployment of software and technologies are enourmous.
In the open source market you have a large development force that has little to no expenses involved but who has the rights to market the open source products? Who will support them? In todays computing world with so many products to choose from things like support become important. People want a number they can when something is not right and support costs money.
As for the home users well unfortunately many companies still target the Corporate market. The Microsoft Server products are their largest source of sales. which is more than just an OS.
Only the individual or company can decide what is the best OS and applications to suit their needs, and everyday companies make this choice. Sometimes it's microsoft and sometimes it's not.
"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck
I think we need to understand ethical business practices.
Any company can make any product and sell it for any amount they want to. Of course, the quality and the price must respond to market pressures.
When you have a monopoly where there are almost no market pressures, the rules get a little different and should be enforced by government. But in this case, the government gets M$ software for a very low price and government does not want to mess that up.
If MicroSlob should ever want to clean up their image, they would produce a product and sell the product for a price which gives them a fair profit.
Lacking the integrity to practice ethically, Billy gets the exorbitant profits. Then he, very publically, gives a small fraction of that money to charity. And he gets praised by the world for giving our money to charity and getting the tax deduction for giving our money away. I think that M$ would get a fair profit if they sold XP-PRO for $50 and required each purchaser to donate $1 to charity.
And if by chance, some other group produces a product that might be a competitor, such as Lindows, M$ will drag them thru courts until they agree to not be a competitor or go bankrupt. So now Lindows will not go forward and improve that product to where it will run all windows programs.
Years ago when Windows95 was the new thing, I came across a definition:
"Windows95: <win-doz-nin-te-fiv> n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can’t stand 1 bit of competition."
Everyone suffers when a monopoly is allowed to continue. It's what allowed M$ to discontinue support of Windows98, the last good operating system from M$. It's what caused large companies to switch from thousands of copies of WordPerfect to Word (IMPERFECT) because they get a special deal on their thousands of copies of Windows.
I'm glad to see that there was not the same rush to purchase XP that occurred for Windows98. Many people realized that XP didn't do anything that Windows98 didn't already do. Even M$ knew that, as is evicenced by the ads for XP in which the only "advantage" or selling point to talk about was the implication that we would then be able to "fly"! The cosmetic changes are not enough to get me to purchase XP. I have the "ExPerience" to know better and I have yet to see any XP user that can now fly.
I hope that the next time M$ realeses a supposed "NEW" operating system, the world will just say NO.
Any company can make any product and sell it for any amount they want to. Of course, the quality and the price must respond to market pressures.
When you have a monopoly where there are almost no market pressures, the rules get a little different and should be enforced by government. But in this case, the government gets M$ software for a very low price and government does not want to mess that up.
If MicroSlob should ever want to clean up their image, they would produce a product and sell the product for a price which gives them a fair profit.
Lacking the integrity to practice ethically, Billy gets the exorbitant profits. Then he, very publically, gives a small fraction of that money to charity. And he gets praised by the world for giving our money to charity and getting the tax deduction for giving our money away. I think that M$ would get a fair profit if they sold XP-PRO for $50 and required each purchaser to donate $1 to charity.
And if by chance, some other group produces a product that might be a competitor, such as Lindows, M$ will drag them thru courts until they agree to not be a competitor or go bankrupt. So now Lindows will not go forward and improve that product to where it will run all windows programs.
Years ago when Windows95 was the new thing, I came across a definition:
"Windows95: <win-doz-nin-te-fiv> n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can’t stand 1 bit of competition."
Everyone suffers when a monopoly is allowed to continue. It's what allowed M$ to discontinue support of Windows98, the last good operating system from M$. It's what caused large companies to switch from thousands of copies of WordPerfect to Word (IMPERFECT) because they get a special deal on their thousands of copies of Windows.
I'm glad to see that there was not the same rush to purchase XP that occurred for Windows98. Many people realized that XP didn't do anything that Windows98 didn't already do. Even M$ knew that, as is evicenced by the ads for XP in which the only "advantage" or selling point to talk about was the implication that we would then be able to "fly"! The cosmetic changes are not enough to get me to purchase XP. I have the "ExPerience" to know better and I have yet to see any XP user that can now fly.
I hope that the next time M$ realeses a supposed "NEW" operating system, the world will just say NO.
XP doesn't do anything that Win98 doesn't already do?
I'm assuming that's a typo saying that Win2k doesn't already do... XP is incredibly different than Win98... there's no reasonable technical summation which can back up the claim that XP was essentially the same OS as 98.
-Rob
I'm assuming that's a typo saying that Win2k doesn't already do... XP is incredibly different than Win98... there's no reasonable technical summation which can back up the claim that XP was essentially the same OS as 98.
-Rob
skiflyer;
There was no typo. WindowsXP is Windows98/WindowsME with things moved around to be more like WindowsNT/Windows2000. The announced goal was to merge Windows98/WindowsME and WindowsNT/Windows2000 so that there would be a single product. At a higher price of course.
Chris C.
There was no typo. WindowsXP is Windows98/WindowsME with things moved around to be more like WindowsNT/Windows2000. The announced goal was to merge Windows98/WindowsME and WindowsNT/Windows2000 so that there would be a single product. At a higher price of course.
Chris C.
That's just factually incorrect. Win2k/WinXP have an entirely different kernel that Win98. Win98 does not support a protected kernel mode... a huge difference. Been running several XP/2k boxes for quite some time now, and I have yet to see an application error bring down the operating system... it now takes an operating system error to do that.
In alot of ways Win98 was still sitting on top of DOS, that claim can't be made about Win2k/XP.
And those're just the kernel differences, if you want to talk OS features, like system restore, then the differences get greater and greater... but since those are more like applications in my mind, I don't really consider them a part of this discussion.
The announced goal as I recall was to move the consumer grade products to the NT kernel for stability and <stifle a chuckle> security. Also allowing SMNP with their desktop quality OS allowing professional grade workstations to run it.
-Rob
In alot of ways Win98 was still sitting on top of DOS, that claim can't be made about Win2k/XP.
And those're just the kernel differences, if you want to talk OS features, like system restore, then the differences get greater and greater... but since those are more like applications in my mind, I don't really consider them a part of this discussion.
The announced goal as I recall was to move the consumer grade products to the NT kernel for stability and <stifle a chuckle> security. Also allowing SMNP with their desktop quality OS allowing professional grade workstations to run it.
-Rob
skiflyer;
Sure. M$ wants to be rid of DOS, so in XP they hide it better and try to make it impossible to boot to DOS. But every Windows release has been going in that direction.
And "protected kernal mode" means nothing to the average user and certainly wouldn't persuade someone to move from Windows98 to XP.
Operating system errors have been around for quite some time. Lets see - there was DOS 1.0, DOS 2.0, Dos 3.x, DOS 4.x, etc. The most famous one was when Gates was doing the public demonstration of Windows98 (I think it was that one) and got a BSOD. Now they hide a BSOD and allow the user to send it to M$ where it will be ignored or we can just ignore it.!
When you read about WindowsXP and optimization, right up near the top of the list is to turn off system restore. And no matter what is said at the same time about good backups, users have a way of ignoring that.
Windows up thru 3.1 and 3.11 was simply a DOS extension. For Windows95, see the definition in an earlier post. And things got much better in Windows98, but DOS is still handy even on XP, NT and 2000.
I maintain a network with the server running NT Workstation and workstations on Windows98se. You'd be hardpressed to convince users in that data center that they don't have a "professional grade" workstation. Or perhaps M$ has been fooling us so well all these years that we no longer know the diff??!!
With proper setup and usage guidlines, WindowsNT was pretty secure especially in combination with Novell Server (which is my background for the last 5 or so years). And the chuckle still applies in XP and 2000. I wonder if 2003 will finally accomplish perfection?
This started out to question the ethics of selling hot air at inflated prices. Let's get back on topic?!
Respectfully Chris C.
Sure. M$ wants to be rid of DOS, so in XP they hide it better and try to make it impossible to boot to DOS. But every Windows release has been going in that direction.
And "protected kernal mode" means nothing to the average user and certainly wouldn't persuade someone to move from Windows98 to XP.
Operating system errors have been around for quite some time. Lets see - there was DOS 1.0, DOS 2.0, Dos 3.x, DOS 4.x, etc. The most famous one was when Gates was doing the public demonstration of Windows98 (I think it was that one) and got a BSOD. Now they hide a BSOD and allow the user to send it to M$ where it will be ignored or we can just ignore it.!
When you read about WindowsXP and optimization, right up near the top of the list is to turn off system restore. And no matter what is said at the same time about good backups, users have a way of ignoring that.
Windows up thru 3.1 and 3.11 was simply a DOS extension. For Windows95, see the definition in an earlier post. And things got much better in Windows98, but DOS is still handy even on XP, NT and 2000.
I maintain a network with the server running NT Workstation and workstations on Windows98se. You'd be hardpressed to convince users in that data center that they don't have a "professional grade" workstation. Or perhaps M$ has been fooling us so well all these years that we no longer know the diff??!!
With proper setup and usage guidlines, WindowsNT was pretty secure especially in combination with Novell Server (which is my background for the last 5 or so years). And the chuckle still applies in XP and 2000. I wonder if 2003 will finally accomplish perfection?
This started out to question the ethics of selling hot air at inflated prices. Let's get back on topic?!
Respectfully Chris C.
You have multi-processor workstations running on 98? My mistake, I didn't think that was possible.
My point wasn't that DOS is or is not present, it's a matter of whether it's an application (as in XP), or whether it's the real OS which windows is sitting on top of... and protected kernel mode means a ton to the average user, it's the difference between an application crash bring the blue screen of death, or the error reporting being able to handle it smoothly and without reboot or loss of other application data.
My point is simply this, in my estimation you have families of windows products, upgrading inside the family is for bells and whistles, upgrading outside the family does actually make a difference... I write them up like so...
DOS/Win3.x
Win9x/ME
NT < 4
NT4
Win2k/XP/2003
Eh, sorry if I'm seeming off topic, but the discussion about whether or not MS is overcharging by releasing the same topic just seemed off to me with those 2 products, because to me they're very different. Now, saying there're should've been a dirt cheap upgrade from 2k to XP, I totally agree with, it's like MicrosoftPLUS for 2k.
-Rob
My point wasn't that DOS is or is not present, it's a matter of whether it's an application (as in XP), or whether it's the real OS which windows is sitting on top of... and protected kernel mode means a ton to the average user, it's the difference between an application crash bring the blue screen of death, or the error reporting being able to handle it smoothly and without reboot or loss of other application data.
My point is simply this, in my estimation you have families of windows products, upgrading inside the family is for bells and whistles, upgrading outside the family does actually make a difference... I write them up like so...
DOS/Win3.x
Win9x/ME
NT < 4
NT4
Win2k/XP/2003
Eh, sorry if I'm seeming off topic, but the discussion about whether or not MS is overcharging by releasing the same topic just seemed off to me with those 2 products, because to me they're very different. Now, saying there're should've been a dirt cheap upgrade from 2k to XP, I totally agree with, it's like MicrosoftPLUS for 2k.
-Rob
- Status
Similar threads
