You are being trolled very successfully.
-------------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message ...
On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
Jack wrote:
Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.
I have taken the liberty of snipping out
the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
and confusion thus reigns.
Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
as to "topic".
Excellent point!
And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
the story. Me too, I guess:-/
Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
the bull**** many, many times. During those days the only support MS
had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
earning a living from MS garbage products.
If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
is a forum where some sense remains amongst
all the trolling.
I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
up my ass".
I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
to run a network.
My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
think totally perfect. Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
figured it out.
Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
any company to sell a non-existent product?
I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC. I
think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
the public has been screwed, over and over.
Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
worked through a lot of command line structure to get
a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.
Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
and everything worked dependably.
The job didn't work out and I started my own company
and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
five years and a few good employees.
WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/
There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
really sucks.
yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(
Sometimes I like to rub the burr...
jes saying, like.
No responses please.
One of the things I love about Usenet is everyone gets to say their
piece. Requesting no response never works. To get no response, you have
to stay out of the water:-)
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com