In article ,
lid says...
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even grasp
the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better, assuming
there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to 'opinions' on
what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components and
how it 'should' be structured.

I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers. And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.


But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining
whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't
Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not
work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case
dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was
NOT a necessary component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and
still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s
claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that
and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more
complicated than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

JAD wrote:
your a well rounded bigot aren't you?


Bigot?? You never learned to read *and* understand at the same
time, is that correct??

"Peter" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
lid says...
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even grasp
the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better, assuming
there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to 'opinions' on
what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components and
how it 'should' be structured.

I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers. And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.


But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining
whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't
Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not
work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case
dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was
NOT a necessary component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and
still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s
claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that
and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more
complicated than that at the time.

Actually they succeeded in laming the browser from working, but could not
remove all the files associated and still have the OS work as advertised.



It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

Mxsmanic wrote:


In the world of computer software, the advantages of standardization
are so enormous that they sometimes take priority over almost
everything else, particularly from the standpoint of ordinary computer
users (as opposed to specialists).

Yeah, and as of next year you'll only be able to buy Ladas. :-)
What a bunch of horse petunias.

Thus, although Microsoft Windows is by far the dominant desktop
operating system, the advantages of it being so outweigh the
disadvantages in many respects for the average end user, which is why
it tends to remain the dominant operating system.

That's one way of looking at it I suppose. Not very insightful,
but a way.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined
32 million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission,
guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice
works. Judges are good at judging and rely on expert
witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even
grasp the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better,
assuming there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to
'opinions' on what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's
components and how it 'should' be structured.


I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in
ordinary contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You
even question the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

No, what they have a problem with is being clueless about
software.


You would have to be silly (as usual) to imagine that judges have
to know everything about every subject they judge.

I didn't say a thing about needing to "know everything." Or can't
you grasp the vast gulf between clueless and omniscience?


As easily as you can grasp the the difference between "clueless" and
"knowing something".

Your previous post proves otherwise.

But in fact some of
them are very insightful about the software business.

LOL

Well, if there are they're doing bang up job of hiding it.


Not if you pay close attention.

If you don't know any more about software than the judge does then it might
appear that way.

An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers.

What I want to 'promote' is a good product,


The way we do that in a civilized market based economy is to
foster competition.

Courts and Judges dictating product content isn't a free market.


It happens all the time in a free market.

Non sequitur. It is, by definition, not a free market when courts and
judges dictate product content. The seller is not able to offer the product
he otherwise would and the buyer has that choice removed from
consideration. Rather than 'free' the market is contorted to conform to the
court's opinion of what it 'should be'.

not some anti-business crusade.


You sound like a Libertarian zealot.

Only to anti-business fanatics.


To someone who believes in a rule-based society.

Hitler also believed in "a rule-based society."

The question is, and always has been, who should make the rules and what
should the rules be? But to say rules are right simply because they exist
is a fool's argument.

Clearly you believe that businesses should not have to play by rules
or the rules should not be enforced by the government because the
government can't do anything right.

You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.

Since it's an invention of your own making it'll sound like whatever you want.

And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating
system and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray
area but it's not that difficult to generally separate an
operating system from applications.

Which demonstrates you're almost as clueless as the judges are.


Maybe more so (in your head). Having been a big fan of the big
antitrust trial, for years I paid close attention and was
impressed by the judges' ability to understand and weigh the
facts.

I'm sure you were, when things came out the way you wanted. And
you then hated it when things didn't. That's not a 'guess' on my
part, it's taken straight from your assessment.


It's a wild guess. I think the final outcome to date was wrong. The
idea that I hated it exists only in your imagination. The appellate
court judges had plenty of insight and not all of the district
court's judgment was correct (in my opinion).

You just proved it wasn't a 'wild guess', as I had already explained.

They don't
have to know how to write programs, their main concern is the
software publishing business.

Since a significant part of the decision process was evaluating
what should, or should not, be a part of the O.S., among other
things, your claim is pure nonsense.


Speaking of nonsense. That was part of the proposed remedy, not part
of the trial, and that was done by the prosecution.

There's 'justice' for you: a remedy that springeth forth from no "part of
the trial" and the court's opinion "done by the prosecution."

Your opening was right on; you're speaking nonsense.

I smell a libertarian who believes everything the government
does is wrong (unless it agrees with his opinion).

Wrong, as usual.


Silly, as usual.

Yes, you were, but I decided to keep it simple with just plain
wrong.


So you're not willing to admit that you are a Libertarian who
thinks that everything government does is wrong (unless it agrees
with your opinion).

I'm never going to respond to any of your contrived nonsense.


You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.

Declining to discuss the case with you is not a defense of anyone.

But in fact if it weren't for our government every day
deciding in Microsoft's favor and using our police with guns
to physically inforce Microsoft's will, Microsoft would fall
apart like a playing card house. Put that in your Microsoft
defending libertarian fantasy land.

Nice piece of schizoid logic you got there


You are a Microsoft defender troll wearing very big blinders.

No, I'm a defender of facts and rational thought.


When are you going to defend the fact that Microsoft Windows is a
monopoly?



I've already explained why I am not going to discuss it with you.


Some silly notion about software being too complicated for anyone to
tell the difference between an operating system and applications.

Not even remotely close and I'm not going to go through it again.

David Maynard wrote:
John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Gary H wrote:



Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined
32 million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission,
guilty)


Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.



And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice
works. Judges are good at judging and rely on expert
witnesses.


I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even
grasp the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better,
assuming there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to
'opinions' on what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's
components and how it 'should' be structured.



I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in
ordinary contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You
even question the meaning of words in your own usage.


Judges don't have that problem.


No, what they have a problem with is being clueless about
software.



You would have to be silly (as usual) to imagine that judges have
to know everything about every subject they judge.


I didn't say a thing about needing to "know everything." Or can't
you grasp the vast gulf between clueless and omniscience?



As easily as you can grasp the the difference between "clueless" and
"knowing something".


Your previous post proves otherwise.

But in fact some of
them are very insightful about the software business.


LOL

Well, if there are they're doing bang up job of hiding it.



Not if you pay close attention.


If you don't know any more about software than the judge does then it
might appear that way.

An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers.


What I want to 'promote' is a good product,



The way we do that in a civilized market based economy is to
foster competition.


Courts and Judges dictating product content isn't a free market.



It happens all the time in a free market.


Non sequitur. It is, by definition, not a free market when courts and
judges dictate product content. The seller is not able to offer the
product he otherwise would and the buyer has that choice removed from
consideration. Rather than 'free' the market is contorted to conform to
the court's opinion of what it 'should be'.

not some anti-business crusade.



You sound like a Libertarian zealot.


Only to anti-business fanatics.



To someone who believes in a rule-based society.


Hitler also believed in "a rule-based society."

The question is, and always has been, who should make the rules and what
should the rules be? But to say rules are right simply because they
exist is a fool's argument.

Clearly you believe that businesses should not have to play by rules
or the rules should not be enforced by the government because the
government can't do anything right.


You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.


Since it's an invention of your own making it'll sound like whatever you
want.

And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating
system and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray
area but it's not that difficult to generally separate an
operating system from applications.


Which demonstrates you're almost as clueless as the judges are.



Maybe more so (in your head). Having been a big fan of the big
antitrust trial, for years I paid close attention and was
impressed by the judges' ability to understand and weigh the
facts.


I'm sure you were, when things came out the way you wanted. And
you then hated it when things didn't. That's not a 'guess' on my
part, it's taken straight from your assessment.



It's a wild guess. I think the final outcome to date was wrong. The
idea that I hated it exists only in your imagination. The appellate
court judges had plenty of insight and not all of the district
court's judgment was correct (in my opinion).


You just proved it wasn't a 'wild guess', as I had already explained.

They don't
have to know how to write programs, their main concern is the
software publishing business.


Since a significant part of the decision process was evaluating
what should, or should not, be a part of the O.S., among other
things, your claim is pure nonsense.



Speaking of nonsense. That was part of the proposed remedy, not part
of the trial, and that was done by the prosecution.


There's 'justice' for you: a remedy that springeth forth from no "part
of the trial" and the court's opinion "done by the prosecution."

Your opening was right on; you're speaking nonsense.

I smell a libertarian who believes everything the government
does is wrong (unless it agrees with his opinion).


Wrong, as usual.



Silly, as usual.


Yes, you were, but I decided to keep it simple with just plain
wrong.



So you're not willing to admit that you are a Libertarian who
thinks that everything government does is wrong (unless it agrees
with your opinion).


I'm never going to respond to any of your contrived nonsense.



You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.


Declining to discuss the case with you is not a defense of anyone.

But in fact if it weren't for our government every day
deciding in Microsoft's favor and using our police with guns
to physically inforce Microsoft's will, Microsoft would fall
apart like a playing card house. Put that in your Microsoft
defending libertarian fantasy land.


Nice piece of schizoid logic you got there



You are a Microsoft defender troll wearing very big blinders.


No, I'm a defender of facts and rational thought.



When are you going to defend the fact that Microsoft Windows is a
monopoly?


I've already explained why I am not going to discuss it with you.



Some silly notion about software being too complicated for anyone to
tell the difference between an operating system and applications.


Not even remotely close and I'm not going to go through it again.



Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

It could mean that they are showing off, or maybe they don't
understand that writing is to communicate with other people.

The better the vocabulary, the more precise and efficient the
communication.

You speak with words your audience can understand, if you have the
mental capacity to do so.


It's impossible to know another person's vocabulary level

You must have thought you knew, since you were talking about it.


unless he indicates his level in some way.

I thought that's how you knew.


People with large vocabularies have a natural tendency to use
those vocabularies to the fullest and do not necessarily realize
it when and if they exceed the recognition vocabularies of their
interlocutors.

A good writer knows his audience and speaks appropriately. He should
know how to step down his vocabulary and maybe use more words in the
process, as needed.

Sort of like a big/strong man doesn't physically handle everyone the
same in every situation.




--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganew s.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:32:09 -0600
From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:32:09 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: qdgrp1ta36mr1prs6lgmqfmc12pmf0g94a 4ax.com
References: ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net 4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com 11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com 11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com 11pofogljj3u3f2 corp.supernews.com %EXmf.400$PQ3.28531 news20.bellglobal.com jvnop1hrgmehjkin684rcrl7lr99eor362 4ax.com Xns972A10479A25Cfollydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
X-Trace: sv3-Luey5wfuBJ76wTOK6Uzb2ylrgCDZeBmCv3iA5TpqKzoyiOjG7o JJe/+ocvdLmj2H7JWnO1eVeWUPWV6!le90vMvU/q4hh7gWSwWfzkNKKbbod2+gQus38ausTCaB9B/xwvXEgySS/m6VXa1hsyXQX/c=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229803 sci.electronics.repair:432881 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452523

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

It wasn't all that Herculean. Apparently IBM didn't try very
hard. Microsoft did a good job of gaining a stranglehold on the
personal computer software market and never letting go, and
that's where we are today.

A stranglehold? Perhaps you meant a struggle, which far better
characterizes Microsoft's activities back in those days.


I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it published
Windows 95.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

That is a lot easier said than done. Many people think Microsoft
stifling personal computer growth is okay and would drive another
company out of business while they were working very hard to
switch operating systems.

In the world of computer software, the advantages of
standardization are so enormous that they sometimes take priority
over almost everything else, particularly from the standpoint of
ordinary computer users (as opposed to specialists).

Thus, although Microsoft Windows is by far the dominant desktop
operating system, the advantages of it being so outweigh the
disadvantages in many respects for the average end user,

That's true IMO.


which is why it tends to remain the dominant operating system.

The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects and
a positive feedback loop.

Programmers write for Windows because they can sell more copies.
Selling copies is how software publishers make money. Consumers by
Windows because so many programs are available. That positive
feedback loop is what keeps Windows entrenched.

The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.





--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganew s.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:36:36 -0600
From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:36:36 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com
References: ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net 4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com 11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com 11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com psnop159npj8vrqanalegtfacrna5dapb1 4ax.com QZgnf.481$El.105846 news20.bellglobal.com VDhnf.26032$a15.18063 newsfe5-win.ntli.net Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
X-Trace: sv3-VXB23SbuUBHR4ZM1Vy+GRN7eBbQjOzz8hjeXzUKGA0PRcgdulO 6wPVxl70toi4rDbIi2SCalL+qxTZN!rmhPg72xSDyyCq7JGTTD BDmc3GVKxsF4QZ9n5JoPqwJqrctBKQiTzoj4rFpyEG72H83Jj9 M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229806 sci.electronics.repair:432885 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452525

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.

I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's something
in the contract, like he gets a discount with every brown nosing
Microsoft defender reply.

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Gary H wrote:




Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined
32 million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission,
guilty)



Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.




And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice
works. Judges are good at judging and rely on expert
witnesses.



I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even
grasp the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better,
assuming there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to
'opinions' on what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's
components and how it 'should' be structured.




I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in
ordinary contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You
even question the meaning of words in your own usage.



Judges don't have that problem.



No, what they have a problem with is being clueless about
software.




You would have to be silly (as usual) to imagine that judges have
to know everything about every subject they judge.



I didn't say a thing about needing to "know everything." Or can't
you grasp the vast gulf between clueless and omniscience?




As easily as you can grasp the the difference between "clueless" and
"knowing something".



Your previous post proves otherwise.

But in fact some of
them are very insightful about the software business.



LOL

Well, if there are they're doing bang up job of hiding it.




Not if you pay close attention.



If you don't know any more about software than the judge does then it
might appear that way.

An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers.



What I want to 'promote' is a good product,




The way we do that in a civilized market based economy is to
foster competition.



Courts and Judges dictating product content isn't a free market.




It happens all the time in a free market.



Non sequitur. It is, by definition, not a free market when courts and
judges dictate product content. The seller is not able to offer the
product he otherwise would and the buyer has that choice removed from
consideration. Rather than 'free' the market is contorted to conform
to the court's opinion of what it 'should be'.

not some anti-business crusade.




You sound like a Libertarian zealot.



Only to anti-business fanatics.




To someone who believes in a rule-based society.



Hitler also believed in "a rule-based society."

The question is, and always has been, who should make the rules and
what should the rules be? But to say rules are right simply because
they exist is a fool's argument.

Clearly you believe that businesses should not have to play by rules
or the rules should not be enforced by the government because the
government can't do anything right.



You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.



Since it's an invention of your own making it'll sound like whatever
you want.

And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating
system and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray
area but it's not that difficult to generally separate an
operating system from applications.



Which demonstrates you're almost as clueless as the judges are.




Maybe more so (in your head). Having been a big fan of the big
antitrust trial, for years I paid close attention and was
impressed by the judges' ability to understand and weigh the
facts.



I'm sure you were, when things came out the way you wanted. And
you then hated it when things didn't. That's not a 'guess' on my
part, it's taken straight from your assessment.




It's a wild guess. I think the final outcome to date was wrong. The
idea that I hated it exists only in your imagination. The appellate
court judges had plenty of insight and not all of the district
court's judgment was correct (in my opinion).



You just proved it wasn't a 'wild guess', as I had already explained.

They don't
have to know how to write programs, their main concern is the
software publishing business.



Since a significant part of the decision process was evaluating
what should, or should not, be a part of the O.S., among other
things, your claim is pure nonsense.




Speaking of nonsense. That was part of the proposed remedy, not part
of the trial, and that was done by the prosecution.



There's 'justice' for you: a remedy that springeth forth from no "part
of the trial" and the court's opinion "done by the prosecution."

Your opening was right on; you're speaking nonsense.

I smell a libertarian who believes everything the government
does is wrong (unless it agrees with his opinion).



Wrong, as usual.




Silly, as usual.



Yes, you were, but I decided to keep it simple with just plain
wrong.




So you're not willing to admit that you are a Libertarian who
thinks that everything government does is wrong (unless it agrees
with your opinion).



I'm never going to respond to any of your contrived nonsense.




You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.



Declining to discuss the case with you is not a defense of anyone.

But in fact if it weren't for our government every day
deciding in Microsoft's favor and using our police with guns
to physically inforce Microsoft's will, Microsoft would fall
apart like a playing card house. Put that in your Microsoft
defending libertarian fantasy land.



Nice piece of schizoid logic you got there




You are a Microsoft defender troll wearing very big blinders.



No, I'm a defender of facts and rational thought.




When are you going to defend the fact that Microsoft Windows is a
monopoly?


I've already explained why I am not going to discuss it with you.




Some silly notion about software being too complicated for anyone to
tell the difference between an operating system and applications.



Not even remotely close and I'm not going to go through it again.



Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change your
mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.


Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.



Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per Se.
It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the control
factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt absolutely . The
sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually every single day of our
lives. Like Enron, Hollinger international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north American
continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes sky-high because of
the demand and heating oil drops and in the wintertime the price of
heating fuel goes sky-high because of demand and gas drops. The
immediate response or belief drilled into the general public is that
there is a shortage of oil. There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.

Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough to
power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the state of the
world's oil supply.

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody
is building extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.

They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't get
permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every technologically
feasible source of new energy production.

It's gotten to the
point where these *******s are driving the crap out of a barrel of oil
because (get this) they're expecting a friggin' snow storm in the
north-east of the continent.

Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a bloody
pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every other means of
transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever local supplies have
been pre stocked. That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

Since you've got all that excess oil, why don't you lobby the legislature
for a refinery permit? hmm?

snip of paranoia

David Maynard wrote:

Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.

And you got this little tid-bit where? "Psychology are Us".
You are sooo good at pulling bull**** out of the air and passing
it off as valid material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion
without verification and you sound so sure of it. You have no
idea who I am, what I do why I'm here, damn, you know nothing
about me yet, you are able to label me a "conspiracy buff" and a
"paranoid". How about letting me in on what my life will be
like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you want to
take a crack at it.

I got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind
of impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the
one you just horked up.

David Maynard wrote:

snip of stupidity

So there.

John Doe wrote:

Gary H wrote:


David Maynard wrote:


Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.


I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's something
in the contract, like he gets a discount with every brown nosing
Microsoft defender reply.

ROTFL

Within the last 24 hours I've been accused of being a Linux kook and now a
Microsoft OEM.

That averages out to well balanced.

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Gary H wrote:


David Maynard wrote:


Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.


I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's
something in the contract, like he gets a discount with every
brown nosing Microsoft defender reply.

ROTFL

Within the last 24 hours I've been accused of being a Linux kook
and now a Microsoft OEM.

Not by me. You always defend Microsoft.

I'm pretty sure I can find your quotes of the OEM license agreement
spoken as if you took them to heart.

Are you saying you are just a troll?

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational
'naive'.

And you got this little tid-bit where? "Psychology are Us".
You are sooo good at pulling bull**** out of the air and passing
it off as valid material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion
without verification and you sound so sure of it. You have no
idea who I am, what I do why I'm here, damn, you know nothing
about me yet, you are able to label me a "conspiracy buff" and a
"paranoid". How about letting me in on what my life will be
like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you want to
take a crack at it.

I got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind
of impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the
one you just horked up.

And he keeps going, and going, and going. It's like he perpetually
runs on fumes.

Peter wrote:


But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around
determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S?
Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the
O/S would not work...

Microsoft uses the same contemptuous argument in every bundling
case. That's what it said also in the European Union case about
Windows Media Player. The EU didn't buy it either.


Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case dragged on for so
long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a
necessary component.

That's something most of us could only say "DUH" to.

Some of the things Microsoft lawyers said during the trial were so
incredibly silly.

But you know, not long ago someone in here said that a computer
without the Internet is not a computer. And they were serious. Gives
me an eerie feeling, like it's Microsoft speak or something.


Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major
factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't just
a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have applications
as it's components, it was far more complicated than that at the
time.

I think the idea of separating the operating system from the
applications was the main part of the proposed remedy.

Consumers buy Windows because of so many available applications.
Software developers write for Windows because so many people buy
Windows. I think that's the positive feedback loop which the court
called "the applications barrier to entry" and that's how Microsoft
holds monopoly power.

Microsoft was concerned that the Java contained/distributed in
navigator would allow too many applications to run on non-Microsoft
operating systems and end Microsoft's monopoly power.

I think it was mainly about how Microsoft used its monopoly power to
force Netscape Navigator out of the market.


It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.


Same here even though I did follow it closely at the time.

I didn't realize it was going to drag on for years, I learned about
the slowness of major court proceedings too.

Peter wrote:


Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work?

Yes, I think the name is Felton. I e-mailed some of the court people
including that professor/whatever. I mentioned Windows 98lite and he
replied about it (but I've lost the reply). I think his was another
such program.

Apparently it was a minor offense, but Microsoft got into some
trouble trying to prove Windows could not function without Internet
Explorer.

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began
charging for it, which would seem to be an exercise in
monopolistic power... but maybe no one sued. Then, when Microsoft
gives away their browser, Netscape brings suit against Microsoft
for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84% market
share.

Amusing, eh?


Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The
difference between subjective perception and reality is sometimes
enormous.

You betcha. So much for 'blind' justice

You have a strange idea of justice. Netscape wasn't on trial. Some
people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the
entity instead of the facts.


It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'ICON on the
desktop' issue. One could always install Netscape on a Windows
machine, and sell it that way, but what Netscape wanted was for
OEMs, with, one imagines, a bit of prodding from Netscape, the
holder of monopoly power in the browser market, to be able to
*remove* I.E. from Microsoft's own product, not simply coexist,
and sell it with Netscape *only*.

Besides being corrupt, that's false.

In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell
Windows without Internet Explorer. Original Equipment Manufacturers
were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep
the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop. Original Equipment
Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because
Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the
desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical
help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.

The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put
Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's
attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding.
The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We
all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of
Windows (any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral
part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years
in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other
program.


One way of looking at it might be to say that Netscape was
complaining about Microsoft 'infringing' on their 'free use of
monopoly power'

Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly, but it was Microsoft's
monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator
out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong
to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding
monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another
market share is illegal.

The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't
understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the
applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their
case that way.









Path: newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsco n06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu! headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:42:55 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11mo3gvnmrp1r76 corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 11mfu9hnkt97qd3 corp.supernews.com Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 558im1dvkk1a2f45tlplql8vsge5milc20 4ax.com 11miosfrti53nca corp.supernews.com Xns9703E13A2C879follydom 207.115.17.102 heslm1h5ardae6t559rsuoccbki3b7k4pd 4ax.com 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com a69nm19fsppktu1hbgqmlh0sbtkq7gkcnc 4ax.com
In-Reply-To: a69nm19fsppktu1hbgqmlh0sbtkq7gkcnc 4ax.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 31
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:226053 sci.electronics.repair:427799 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:449117

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over
the personal computer operating system market long before our
courts finalized the issue.

The courts didn't finalize anything, except in a restricted legal
sense, and there was no general consensus on such questions before
or after the courts gave their opinions.

That makes sense, coming from someone who plainly states that
Microsoft Office is a single application. Methinks someone has been
reading too much Steve Ballmer.

The rest of the world knows better.


Intel has a comparable market share (currently around 81%, vs. 94%
for Microsoft in the desktop OS arena), and yet it does not appear
to raise so many questions of monopoly.

Market share by itself does not indicate monopoly power.

Nothing prevents me from buying an AMD processor which will run all
of the applications and Intel processor runs. And that's what I do.

There is no barrier to entry. Advanced Micro Devices is making a
profit competing with Intel.

We've agreed that multiple operating system makers would be
unacceptable (assuming they could not run the same programs). The
fact that multiple CPU makers is perfectly acceptable to consumers
should give you a clue about another reason why Intel does not hold
monopoly power.

John Doe writes:

You speak with words your audience can understand, if you have the
mental capacity to do so.

I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with
words I do not understand. There is no connection between my mental
capacity and the vocabularies of others.

You must have thought you knew, since you were talking about it.

No, I was not.

A good writer knows his audience and speaks appropriately. He should
know how to step down his vocabulary and maybe use more words in the
process, as needed.

USENET is not a novel. People express themselves as they naturally
do, without deliberately adjusting their levels for specific
individuals.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Doe writes:

I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it published
Windows 95.

Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Doe writes:

The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects and
a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done. You've contradicted yourself.

The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it want
to. The greater the number of applications that run under its OS, the
better.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

You speak with words your audience can understand, if you have
the mental capacity to do so.

I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with
words I do not understand.

Do you always speak loudly as possible? That makes about as much
sense.


There is no connection between my mental
capacity and the vocabularies of others.

Mental capacity has something to do with your ability/inability to
adapt.


You must have thought you knew, since you were talking about it.

No, I was not.

You were, like in this message.
Message-ID: jvnop1hrgmehjkin684rcrl7lr99eor362 4ax.com
You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.


A good writer knows his audience and speaks appropriately. He
should know how to step down his vocabulary and maybe use more
words in the process, as needed.

USENET is not a novel.

I wasn't referring to USENET as a novel. The same practice applies
to all different forums.


People express themselves as they naturally do, without
deliberately adjusting their levels for specific individuals.

If they are skilled or going by their instincts, they do so
automatically. At leastr people where I come from do.

Have you ever had kids?

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it
published Windows 95.

Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?


Not quite. Maybe you need to scroll up and reread your questions.

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it
published Windows 95.

Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?


Not quite. Maybe you need to scroll up and reread your questions.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects
and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done.

All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to steal
it. Now that Microsoft Windows is an entrenched monopoly, Microsoft
is putting the screws down.


You've contradicted yourself.

Where?


The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it
want to. The greater the number of applications that run under
its OS, the better.

Unless Microsoft is making all the money.






--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dc a.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:23:12 -0600
From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:23:08 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: 73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com
References: YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com 11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com 11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com psnop159npj8vrqanalegtfacrna5dapb1 4ax.com QZgnf.481$El.105846 news20.bellglobal.com VDhnf.26032$a15.18063 newsfe5-win.ntli.net Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102 lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com Xns972AB206F4F76follydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
X-Trace: sv3-8mGswK8iSLQiiUeXj1HB9yMbZ+ys8vTGDAl7ErzNirXXZ3TLUl d1RzAtR9S49zOlcoghrCgdyAdktR4!amaIdreLabnG1pS9GCsa 6RBixAvZlIo2dvpmEcyPk7jsw3DgwZKFKEYrnPgLVjGoMko1aG M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229868 sci.electronics.repair:432931 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452596

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects
and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done.

All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to steal
it. Now that Microsoft Windows is an entrenched monopoly, Microsoft
is putting the screws down.


You've contradicted yourself.

Where?


The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it
want to. The greater the number of applications that run under
its OS, the better.

Unless Microsoft is making all the money.






--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dc a.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:23:12 -0600
From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:23:08 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: 73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com
References: YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com 11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com 11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com psnop159npj8vrqanalegtfacrna5dapb1 4ax.com QZgnf.481$El.105846 news20.bellglobal.com VDhnf.26032$a15.18063 newsfe5-win.ntli.net Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102 lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com Xns972AB206F4F76follydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
X-Trace: sv3-8mGswK8iSLQiiUeXj1HB9yMbZ+ys8vTGDAl7ErzNirXXZ3TLUl d1RzAtR9S49zOlcoghrCgdyAdktR4!amaIdreLabnG1pS9GCsa 6RBixAvZlIo2dvpmEcyPk7jsw3DgwZKFKEYrnPgLVjGoMko1aG M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229868 sci.electronics.repair:432931 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452596

John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:


Gary H wrote:



David Maynard wrote:


Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.


I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's
something in the contract, like he gets a discount with every
brown nosing Microsoft defender reply.

ROTFL

Within the last 24 hours I've been accused of being a Linux kook
and now a Microsoft OEM.


Not by me.

I didn't say by you nor is it even implied.

You always defend Microsoft.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss is not a
defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times before, but you are
apparently to stupid to understand simple english.

I'm pretty sure I can find your quotes of the OEM license agreement
spoken as if you took them to heart.

Don't tell anyone but I have a special secret: I know how to look things up
and read =:O)

Are you saying you are just a troll?

Why don't you go find another word and expand your vocabulary?

John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:


Gary H wrote:



David Maynard wrote:


Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.


I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's
something in the contract, like he gets a discount with every
brown nosing Microsoft defender reply.

ROTFL

Within the last 24 hours I've been accused of being a Linux kook
and now a Microsoft OEM.


Not by me.

I didn't say by you nor is it even implied.

You always defend Microsoft.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss is not a
defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times before, but you are
apparently to stupid to understand simple english.

I'm pretty sure I can find your quotes of the OEM license agreement
spoken as if you took them to heart.

Don't tell anyone but I have a special secret: I know how to look things up
and read =:O)

Are you saying you are just a troll?

Why don't you go find another word and expand your vocabulary?

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:


You always defend Microsoft.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss
is not a defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times
before, but you are apparently to stupid to understand simple
english.

Understanding English and understanding your writing are two
different things.

You've been defending Microsoft throughout this long thread.

Whether or not I can understand English, I sure can speak it and I
don't miss typing one little bit. Amen brother.

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:


You always defend Microsoft.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss
is not a defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times
before, but you are apparently to stupid to understand simple
english.

Understanding English and understanding your writing are two
different things.

You've been defending Microsoft throughout this long thread.

Whether or not I can understand English, I sure can speak it and I
don't miss typing one little bit. Amen brother.

JAD wrote:

I find it amazing two people with not a single post referencing hardware,
however when they are given an off topic subject they know nothing about,
you can't shut them up.

Some people bitch, and do nothing. If anything, your the two with all the
answers. re-read your posts...then STFU once again. Maybe you and the expert
on one handed typing could get together and have a circle jerk.

I have no need to join your little club, thank you. As far as
"Hardware", which group are you posting from? Its cross posted
to: sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.repair,
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt. Some of us have worked on PCs for over
20 years. and have no need to hang around
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

As far as STFU: You should practice what you preach.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

JAD wrote:

I said STFU, do as your told!


YAWN. You barely get a .0001 on the "troll-o-meter". POAD

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell writes:

So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?

You're assimilating beggars with people who refuse to be helped. They
are not one and the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


I can only speak about those that I have met. I'm sure that there are
others, but I have never met any of them.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell writes:

So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?

You're assimilating beggars with people who refuse to be helped. They
are not one and the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


I can only speak about those that I have met. I'm sure that there are
others, but I have never met any of them.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


David Maynard writes:



The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began
charging for it, which would seem to be an exercise in
monopolistic power... but maybe no one sued. Then, when Microsoft
gives away their browser, Netscape brings suit against Microsoft
for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84% market
share.

Amusing, eh?


Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The
difference between subjective perception and reality is sometimes
enormous.

You betcha. So much for 'blind' justice


You have a strange idea of justice.

It's the one represented by the blindfolded lady of justice standing in
front of the court: that the case shall be judged on the merits and not who
one hates the most. And that was precisely the context of my comment.

Netscape wasn't on trial.

Netscape was a complainant and in a civil case both sides are equal and
equally under scrutiny. Neither is presumed innocent or guilty.

As for the government's case, it is a fundamental legal principle that one
cannot use the law to 'enforce' an illegality (for example, an illegal drug
supplier cannot sue his 'customer' for non payment and collect) so if
Netscape were behaving in an illegal manner the court should not 'enforce'
that illegality. So, yes, Netscape would also be 'on trial' in that context.

I presented it (below) as an "interesting" conundrum.

Some
people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the
entity instead of the facts.

And brother you should know.


It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'ICON on the
desktop' issue. One could always install Netscape on a Windows
machine, and sell it that way, but what Netscape wanted was for
OEMs, with, one imagines, a bit of prodding from Netscape, the
holder of monopoly power in the browser market, to be able to
*remove* I.E. from Microsoft's own product, not simply coexist,
and sell it with Netscape *only*.


Besides being corrupt, that's false.

It's 100% true and nothing you present here contradicts it.

In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell
Windows without Internet Explorer.

That was certainly Netscape's 'argument'. Whether there were actually any
OEMS crying over wanting Netscape *exclusively* is debatable.

Original Equipment Manufacturers
were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep
the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop.

They were expected to not cut and hack Microsoft's product up, yes. And no
one likes having their product mangled by OEMs.

Original Equipment
Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because
Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the
desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical
help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.

The argument that the user would be befuddled by two browsers was certainly
made but, frankly, as easy as it is to befuddle the average user I've never
noticed that being a problem no matter how many browsers they had. Seems a
lot of them can read, like "Internet Explorer" vs "Netscape" vs "Opera" vs
"Firefox," etc.


The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put
Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's
attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding.
The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We
all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of
Windows

Really? "we all know?" You must have been a busy beaver surveying the
population of the entire planet for that absolute, all inclusive, declaration.

All I know is I certainly wouldn't buy one without a browser, not that I
know of any that don't come with one, and, in that context at the very
least, it's a 'necessary part' so if I were making a desktop O.S. it would
be in the design specifications. In my opinion.

(any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral
part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years
in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other
program.

And I've used Netscape. And you, Mr. Post Headers Freak, should certainly
know I'm using it right now. Funny how I was never 'prevented' from doing
so by anyone, even without a law suit. Always had more than one media
player too.

One way of looking at it might be to say that Netscape was
complaining about Microsoft 'infringing' on their 'free use of
monopoly power'


Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly,

There's no maybe to it. And they acted in what textbooks describe, to show
why they're 'bad', the classic monopoly manner: first offering the
product at a low price, in their case free, and then, once a commanding
market share is established, increasing the price.

but it was Microsoft's
monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator
out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong
to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding
monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another
market share is illegal.

The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't
understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the
applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their
case that way.

I've told you a thousand times that I am not going to discuss the case with
you and my simply describing the state of affairs at that time isn't a
'defense' of anyone either.

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.


And you got this little tid-bit where?

From every conspiracy buff or paranoid I've ever run across, heard of,
read about, or seen in a movie. The retort to contradiction or disbelief is
that the other person is uninformed and/or naive, with naive being the last
resort after the disbeliever does not accept the 'evidence' provided as
irrefutable proof of said conspiracy.

"Psychology are Us". You are
sooo good at pulling bull**** out of the air and passing it off as valid
material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion without verification
and you sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why
I'm here, damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me
a "conspiracy buff" and a "paranoid".

I can only go by what you say here, which was "Your arguments are truly
those of a naive person. You'll change your mind after you've been bitten
on the ass a few times." And nothing else.

No discussion of any issue, fact, or statement of mine. No rebuttal of fact
or substance. No counter argument. Just a blanket claim I'm 'naive' because
I do not agree with your opinion.

It fit the pattern I've seen exhibited by conspiracy buffs and paranoids.

Nice snip job, btw.

How about letting me in on what
my life will be like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you
want to take a crack at it.

Getting a bit paranoid, are we?

I got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind of
impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the one you just
horked up.

A cut and paste will suffice here "Conclusion without verification and you
sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why I'm here,
damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me."

John Doe wrote:

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:


John Doe writes:


The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects
and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to steal
it.

ROTFLOL

Now that Microsoft Windows is an entrenched monopoly, Microsoft
is putting the screws down.


You've contradicted yourself.


Where?


The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it
want to. The greater the number of applications that run under
its OS, the better.


Unless Microsoft is making all the money.