John Doe wrote:

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.

Feel free to explain the difficulties your version of English has
understanding "I refuse to discuss it with you."

You've been defending Microsoft throughout this long thread.

Feel free to explain the difficulties your version of English has
understanding "declining to discuss is not a defense of anyone."

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

I've noticed.

Peter wrote:

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.


You're pretty close but I don't think anyone managed to remove every bit
and piece of IE and if it there wasn't already some theory of what is not a
'part of the O.S.' then attempting to remove it would be moot. I mean, if
it *is* a 'part' then what's the point?

The problem with these kinds of things, though, is they're nebulous,
subject to opinion and interpretation, and you can 'prove' just about
anything, to your own satisfaction at least, depending on your underlying
assumptions and how you want it to come out.

Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it isn't
'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue they intentionally made it
break the O.S. when removed so failing to remove it proves nothing. They
'could' do it 'right' if forced to, or so you'd argue (and believe).

On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser? Would most
people? And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the
product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S.
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism,
hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than
whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product
schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a
necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?

But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you
just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine
if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball
(and you'd believe it).

And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because
there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S.
product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."

But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the
user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates,
who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?


You're quite right that it's more complicated.

David Maynard wrote:
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.

Overly simplistic bull****. It's all of the sources worldwide
that supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It
will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..

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.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.

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.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is
not permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way*
you guys want to do it. We *do* have environmental protection
rules up this way, and where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as
well. Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from
it's appointed rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.

That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves
behind the eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll
just walk in and take it like you feel it's your right. What is
it you folks call it down there? Oh yes, "American interests".

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

We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs
up this way. Other countries are responsible for their own
refining capacity construction programs. Unless the oil
companies there, wish to keep the cost of fuel artificially
high. And, what it's priced at on the good old New York Stock
Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the friggin' world,
pay for it.

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
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

Holy freaking crap that was undoubtedly one of the most ridiculous things
ever typed!
Which in my mind ends this convo, your not playing with a full deck, a
sandwich shy of a picnic, your elevator never sees the top floor, and your a
brick shy of a complete wall.

AND ABOVE ALL JD-Gary H - Mikey, you guys wouldn't know what to do if you
were suddenly dropped into BG's shoes. Other than put the company in ruin.
BUT if you struggled to make your company what it was, just to have whiners
try and take it from you, I am SURE you would sing a whole nother tune.

Whiners = those who wanted in, but didn't want the risk, and now think
because they 'thought' about getting in, they should have a piece of the
browser/OS pie. Anything that helps standardize, is a great thing for
advancing the technology. Thank you all those that screwed themselves, by
trying to screw others.



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.

"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .
David Maynard wrote:
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.

Where are your geo. credentials? I live in California, does that make me an
expert on California oil deposits?

Unless you live in California, I could care less.Your oil means nothing to
me(or at least it shouldn't). 93% of my gas comes from California crude. So
why is it that gas prices here, are even effected by 'OPEC? Its a CON, and
as far as 'plenty' maybe for you - yourself, but as far as the world is
concerned, we better find an alternative soon, if in fact we don't already
have one. And pulling out the last drop of 'ballast' from the earth would
be a good thing?



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.

Overly simplistic bull****. It's all of the sources worldwide that
supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It will eventually
run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll get their money now, while
the gettin' is good..

Yes it is, yet you seem not to get it. OIL is the biggest CON of all.
Evetually? It has been 'running out' for 10 years or more, We reached
maximum capasity long ago, and demand has coninued to grow.


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.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.

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.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys want
to do it. We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as well.
Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from it's appointed
rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.

That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves behind the
eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll just walk in and
take it like you feel it's your right. What is it you folks call it down
there? Oh yes, "American interests".

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

We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs up this
way. Other countries are responsible for their own refining capacity
construction programs. Unless the oil companies there, wish to keep the
cost of fuel artificially high. And, what it's priced at on the good old
New York Stock Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the friggin'
world, pay for it.

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

snipped the usual Microsoft defender nonsense

The federal appeals court wrote:

"...we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

"...we reject Microsoft's argument that we should vacate the
District Court's Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer
confusion."

"The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in
licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing
browsers other than IE."

"By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to
IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a
rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the
competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we
conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive."

"These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. (March 1997
letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: "We are responsible for
the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of
calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated
by your product.... We must have more ability to decide how our
system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another
supplier, based on your actions in this area, you would not be our
supplier of choice.")."

"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."

"In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the
OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft's
market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate
justification. The restrictions therefore violate section 2 of the
Sherman Act."











Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed.telu splanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!news-out2.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!xindi.nntp .kabelfoon.nl!138.199.65.86.MISMATCH!sn-ams-06!sn-ams-04!sn-post-ams-02!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:03:30 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11pssi349vi9v0e 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 11mo3gvnmrp1r76 corp.supernews.com Xns972AC7F976F09follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns972AC7F976F09follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 148
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229890 sci.electronics.repair:432950 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452606

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:

JAD wrote:

snipped the usual top-posted troll


which group are you posting from? Its cross posted
to: sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.repair,
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

So what? The original poster is not a regular in any of those
groups.


Some of us have worked on PCs for over 20 years. and have no need
to hang around alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

The hardware group is not a subgroup of the electronics group.

I would be very impressed if (in reality) you never had a question
appropriate for the homebuilt PC group.


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

Telling someone "shut up" on the Internet is a joke, isn't it?





--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida


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!border2.nn tp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!elnk-atl-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthl ink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!b1 a104da!not-for-mail
Message-ID:
From: "Michael A. Terrell"
Reply-To:
Organization: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
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?]
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:26:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.110.15.31
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1134455189 24.110.15.31 (Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:26:29 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:26:29 PST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229883 sci.electronics.repair:432946 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452603

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:

JAD wrote:

I said STFU, do as your told!


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

At least you finally figured it out.




--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!207.69.154.102.MISMATCH!elnk-atl-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthl ink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!b1 a104da!not-for-mail
Message-ID: 439E69E7.A5A2525E earthlink.net
From: "Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net
Reply-To: mike.terrell earthlink.net
Organization: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
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?]
References: 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net 4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net ajuhp1t8tteh81n9jke52ldstpd9bpojgs 4ax.com dtmjp1p7vuo5l07pj7bb9bcbprftqua2m5 4ax.com d4lmf.11503$tQ7.8070 fe04.lga 439A09AE.C187A86 earthlink.net mmlkp1po49fb15vc309ov7n5f03t4tni2b 4ax.com 439A6E3A.F857771A earthlink.net pan.2005.12.11.00.32.21.914028 doubleclick.net 439BA98E.E354C897 earthlink.net 04vnp15gka4d7ffi3gp9ehofgfr9jpj31i 4ax.com 439C67B4.FF564383 earthlink.net mUZmf.4530$ES.4450 fe05.lga 439C9417.12D570A8 earthlink.net a6inf.11$It6.7 fe02.lga
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:28:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.110.15.31
X-Complaints-To: abuse earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1134455283 24.110.15.31 (Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:28:03 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:28:03 PST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229885 sci.electronics.repair:432947 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452604

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Peter wrote:

In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue

David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory to
a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to know
better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it in
fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?

Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use the
computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an operating
system with no browser.

A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid to
have access to the ever increasing universe of information on the
Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored to
help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

snipped the rest of David Maynard's Microsoft Speak












Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:12:49 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11pt44i55gpote9 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: oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com 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 GkYmf.6406$Eu3.5706 fe07.lga WEYmf.92$El.19427 news20.bellglobal.com 11ppupr51udv23e corp.supernews.com Xns972A100D147Afollydom 207.115.17.102 11pq9qep0bghd9e corp.supernews.com Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102 MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net
In-Reply-To: MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 111
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229896 sci.electronics.repair:432955 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452613

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

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

Just a troll.

Message-ID: 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact and
not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about Netscape giving
Navigator away is true, it is no different than allowing pirates to
steal Windows and later putting the squeeze on us (think Windows
Product Activation WPA).









Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!new sfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:31:31 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11psu6kc5pt47c5 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: 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 73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 43
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229893 sci.electronics.repair:432952 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452608

John Doe writes:

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

No, it does not. I can easily and immediately assess the level of
ambient noise and adjust the loudness of my voice in consequence. I
cannot immediately assess the vocabulary of the person with whom I'm
communicating, and so I cannot know whether it is larger or smaller
than my own.

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

Yes, but intelligence is not prescience.

You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.

Where?

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

John Doe writes:

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

"Allow pirates to steal it"? So Microsoft is essentially damned if it
does and damned if it doesn't.

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

How?

Unless Microsoft is making all the money.

It's not. The vast majority of money in the PC world is made by
companies other than Microsoft.

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

John Doe writes:

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true ...

You don't know for sure?

... it is no different than allowing pirates to
steal Windows and later putting the squeeze on us (think Windows
Product Activation WPA).

The "squeeze" is put on pirates, who had never acquired Windows
legally to begin with. Why is this bad?

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

JAD wrote:
"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .

David Maynard wrote:

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.


Where are your geo. credentials? I live in California, does that make me an
expert on California oil deposits?

Unless you live in California, I could care less.Your oil means nothing to
me(or at least it shouldn't). 93% of my gas comes from California crude. So
why is it that gas prices here, are even effected by 'OPEC? Its a CON, and
as far as 'plenty' maybe for you - yourself, but as far as the world is
concerned, we better find an alternative soon, if in fact we don't already
have one. And pulling out the last drop of 'ballast' from the earth would
be a good thing?


There we go, the old "F**k you Jack, I'm all right" mentality.
I already said that where I live we're net exporters of oil yet
we still pay horrendously high prices. Taking into account
exchange rates, we pay much more than you do. Take a look at
the price of crude coming out of the gulf states. It's the
goddam stock market and Wall St in general that's keeping prices
sky high. GREED.




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.

Overly simplistic bull****. It's all of the sources worldwide that
supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It will eventually
run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll get their money now, while
the gettin' is good..


Yes it is, yet you seem not to get it. OIL is the biggest CON of all.
Evetually? It has been 'running out' for 10 years or more, We reached
maximum capasity long ago, and demand has coninued to grow.


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.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.


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.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys want
to do it. We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as well.
Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from it's appointed
rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.


That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves behind the
eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll just walk in and
take it like you feel it's your right. What is it you folks call it down
there? Oh yes, "American interests".


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

We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs up this
way. Other countries are responsible for their own refining capacity
construction programs. Unless the oil companies there, wish to keep the
cost of fuel artificially high. And, what it's priced at on the good old
New York Stock Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the friggin'
world, pay for it.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true ...

You don't know for sure?

Know what for sure?


... it is no different than allowing pirates to steal Windows and
later putting the squeeze on us (think Windows Product Activation
WPA).

The "squeeze" is put on pirates, who had never acquired Windows
legally to begin with.

You are naïve if you really think so.

The squeeze is on typical American families who are not technically
inclined and who would like to install Windows XP on their kids
computer as well. Anybody who is technically inclined (pirates
included) and most everybody outside of the United States can get
Windows XP for free and install it on all their computers. The
squeeze is put on ordinary home users here in the United States.







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


Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:50:24 -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 19:50:20 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: rs5up1t91d1e3tkdjgndefoa3l7sj77ti1 4ax.com
References: 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 73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102 11psu6kc5pt47c5 corp.supernews.com Xns972B7D6202A4Cfollydom 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: 15
X-Trace: sv3-FkAaF5gU9LFYJJTBw7dG/p0r+rICgbMgyGeOPDCBkoPYvu0PSWQFk4wL8KwOckNXM7y5qfz qu3EyTPd!MJh9uaNb72mwETBpBi7QfVsA+04mrCHCInEMBqhgi VKVVKn2t2WQ5XDIcQdnHW8u4jKByoQ=
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:229945 sci.electronics.repair:432993 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452662

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

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

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

I can easily and immediately assess the level of
ambient noise and adjust the loudness of my voice in consequence.
I cannot immediately assess the vocabulary of the person with whom
I'm communicating,

Can you remember?

and so I cannot know whether it is larger or smaller
than my own.

Because you're so forgetful.

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

Yes, but intelligence is not prescience.

You can't even remember your own two hour old argument.

Your short term memory problem would benefit by quoting more than
one level in your replies.

You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.

Where?

In just another of your forgotten writings.

One incredibly clueless troll.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:48:41 -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 19:48:31 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: op5up1l1qjqlj72ga1bue1nvude7cg14tq 4ax.com
References: 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 73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102.gnresend
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-wwzTSyOXZq+pz3svi2xiUL+uhbvq7YfjVdSB2DA5y0RQwTjy5p YHg002QHtTefVmRL+Gi8ZIzmH4vz6!bKp52yAxFmNRNqKOPC0f GHf9/MmKIi8zK1Y3BYelOsgtPkIh6SHTtuzPVzMn4aMEB0A2d5Q=
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:229944 sci.electronics.repair:432992 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452661

John Doe writes:

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

"Allow pirates to steal it"? So Microsoft is essentially damned if it
does and damned if it doesn't.

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

How?

Unless Microsoft is making all the money.

It's not. The vast majority of money in the PC world is made by
companies other than Microsoft.

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

JAD wrote:
"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .

David Maynard wrote:

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.


Where are your geo. credentials? I live in California, does that make me an
expert on California oil deposits?

Don't need 'em. It's called *known* reserves. You just have to
follow the words of the guys who bored the holes. They actually
print that stuff for public consumption you know? Gawd, "geo.
credentials" what a maroon.


Unless you live in California, I could care less.Your oil means nothing to
me(or at least it shouldn't). 93% of my gas comes from California crude. So
why is it that gas prices here, are even effected by 'OPEC? Its a CON, and
as far as 'plenty' maybe for you - yourself, but as far as the world is
concerned, we better find an alternative soon, if in fact we don't already
have one. And pulling out the last drop of 'ballast' from the earth would
be a good thing?

Of all the people on this continent, you guys are the biggest
fossil fuel guzzlers of the bunch. With your honkin' big SUVs
and your mile long motor homes and other assorted uh-huh toys.
What are we up to now, four car families or what? Why don't you
sell some of those suckers and save a quart or two? And don't
be screaming *too* much about self sufficiency, if it wasn't for
the Canadian hydro supplies you folks in California would be
groping around in the dark wondering why the goddam light
switches don't work. As an aside, you've also screwed up most
of your potable fresh water and where are you are your eyeballs
swinging now. Why north of course. You know, those dumb
Canuks got lots we can have and besides, why should they be
allowed to own all that water anyway.
Guy, you folks are born super consumers, who give very little
thought to consequences of your actions until one resource or
another is just about all gone. So please, don't preach to me,
you have got *absolutely nothing* to teach me.




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.

Overly simplistic bull****. It's all of the sources worldwide that
supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It will eventually
run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll get their money now, while
the gettin' is good..


Yes it is, yet you seem not to get it. OIL is the biggest CON of all.
Evetually? It has been 'running out' for 10 years or more, We reached
maximum capasity long ago, and demand has coninued to grow.


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.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.


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.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys want
to do it. We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as well.
Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from it's appointed
rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.


That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves behind the
eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll just walk in and
take it like you feel it's your right. What is it you folks call it down
there? Oh yes, "American interests".


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

We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs up this
way. Other countries are responsible for their own refining capacity
construction programs. Unless the oil companies there, wish to keep the
cost of fuel artificially high. And, what it's priced at on the good old
New York Stock Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the friggin'
world, pay for it.

John Doe writes:

Can you remember?

Within limits, yes.

In just another of your forgotten writings.

If it is forgotten, how are you able to refer to it?

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

John Doe writes:

Know what for sure?

Whether or not what David says is true. You said "assuming," which
implies that you didn't know whether it was truth or not and that you
did no research.

The squeeze is on typical American families who are not technically
inclined and who would like to install Windows XP on their kids
computer as well.

It's illegal for them to install the same copy of Windows on more than
one machine.

And typical American families don't do this, anyway. They buy
machines with Windows preinstalled, so no legal issues arise.

Anybody who is technically inclined (pirates
included) and most everybody outside of the United States can get
Windows XP for free and install it on all their computers.

Perhaps, but only dishonest people do this.

The squeeze is put on ordinary home users here in the United States.

How? They have Windows preinstalled on their machines, and so they
have no reason to pirate it. Additionally, most of them are honest,
and so they wouldn't necessarily pirate it even if they had a reason
to do so.

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

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



snip of John Doe's inability to have a single thought of his own

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Peter wrote:


In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory to
a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to know
better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it in
fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes and what
were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just as the previously
popular cars with hand crank starters no longer are.

On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use the
computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an operating
system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that novel theory.

A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid to
have access to the ever increasing universe of information on the
Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored to
help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all preinstalled, or add one.

snipped the rest of David Maynard's Microsoft Speak

Which just proves that John Doe can't think of anything at all without knee
jerk labeling it Microsoft 'something' because I never mentioned Microsoft.

Not to mention the disingenuous snip and hack job distorting the context.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


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


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was one of the
most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Message-ID: 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Didn't forget a thing, pal.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact and
not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about Netscape giving
Navigator away is true,

You can try obfuscating it all you want but it is a matter of record that
Netscape was free.

it is no different than allowing pirates to
steal Windows and later putting the squeeze on us (think Windows
Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?

John Doe wrote:

I would be very impressed if (in reality) you never had a question
appropriate for the homebuilt PC group.


I have repaired computers for 23 years. I teach free classes on
computer repair and how to build your own. I have worked with embedded
controllers, both custom design and PC-104 format. Some of my computer
work is in orbit aboard the ISS. Now that I am a 100% non service
connected disabled veteran I have started a program to collect and
repair computers which are given to disabled veterans who can't afford
to purchase on on their disability pension. I repair some motherboards
and other computer circuit boards, monitors and printers. I owned a used
computer business for a few years before I went back to electronics
manufacturing of communications equipment. Do you have any idea how much
bandwidth is available to the ISS, or what equipment they use? I worked
on the KU band equipment used for data and private video link to the
ISS.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

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.


Overly simplistic bull****.

Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that
supplies the planet

Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.

You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will
eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll get their
money now, while the gettin' is good..

But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

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.


Again, overly simplistic bull****.

Just the facts, mam.

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.


Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.

Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way,
and where we have them, we apply them.

Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as well.
Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from it's appointed
rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.

I hope your house in on the docks then.

That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves behind
the eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll just walk in
and take it like you feel it's your right. What is it you folks call it
down there? Oh yes, "American interests".

I have absolutely no idea what the heck any of that is supposed to mean or
by what twisted logic it came from.

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


We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs up this
way.

Glad to hear it, so I don't suppose you have a problem then.

Other countries are responsible for their own refining capacity
construction programs. Unless the oil companies there, wish to keep the
cost of fuel artificially high. And, what it's priced at on the good
old New York Stock Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the
friggin' world, pay for it.

Supply and demand.

JAD wrote:

"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .

David Maynard wrote:

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.


Where are your geo. credentials? I live in California, does that make me an
expert on California oil deposits?

Unless you live in California, I could care less.Your oil means nothing to
me(or at least it shouldn't). 93% of my gas comes from California crude. So
why is it that gas prices here, are even effected by 'OPEC?

Because it's a world market and if oil is going for X everywhere else why
would a 'local' sell it there for Y when they could sell it to someone else
for the X world price?

Its a CON, and
as far as 'plenty' maybe for you - yourself, but as far as the world is
concerned, we better find an alternative soon, if in fact we don't already
have one. And pulling out the last drop of 'ballast' from the earth would
be a good thing?

Uh, what do you think the earth might 'sink' into? Space?


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.

Overly simplistic bull****. It's all of the sources worldwide that
supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It will eventually
run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll get their money now, while
the gettin' is good..


Yes it is, yet you seem not to get it. OIL is the biggest CON of all.
Evetually? It has been 'running out' for 10 years or more, We reached
maximum capasity long ago, and demand has coninued to grow.

Proven Oil Reserves (billions of barrels)

World OPEC
2003 1213 819
2002 1031 819
2001 1028 814
2000 1016 802
1999 1034 800
1998 1019 797
1997 1019 789
1996 1007 777
1995 1000 770
1994 999 772

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I would be very impressed if (in reality) you never had a
question appropriate for the homebuilt PC group.


I have repaired computers for 23 years. I teach free classes on
computer repair and how to build your own. I have worked with
embedded controllers, both custom design and PC-104 format. Some
of my computer work is in orbit aboard the ISS. Now that I am a
100% non service connected disabled veteran I have started a
program to collect and repair computers which are given to
disabled veterans who can't afford to purchase on on their
disability pension. I repair some motherboards and other computer
circuit boards, monitors and printers. I owned a used computer
business for a few years before I went back to electronics
manufacturing of communications equipment.

Maybe you should write an autobiography, elsewhere.


Do you have any idea how much bandwidth is available to the ISS,

The ISS has a 20 MHZ bandwidth KU-Band data link to and from the
ground.

See if you can focus all that bandwidth on the current topic.


or what equipment they use? I worked on the KU band equipment used
for data and private video link to the ISS.

That suggests you are all knowing about picking parts for,
assembling, booting, and configuring a personal computer (and maybe
every other subject you discuss), but only in your head.








--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!207.69.154.102.MISMATCH!elnk-atl-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthl ink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!b1 a104da!not-for-mail
Message-ID: 439F8FDC.9FC91077 earthlink.net
From: "Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net
Reply-To: mike.terrell earthlink.net
Organization: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!!
References: 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net 4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net ajuhp1t8tteh81n9jke52ldstpd9bpojgs 4ax.com dtmjp1p7vuo5l07pj7bb9bcbprftqua2m5 4ax.com d4lmf.11503$tQ7.8070 fe04.lga 439A09AE.C187A86 earthlink.net mmlkp1po49fb15vc309ov7n5f03t4tni2b 4ax.com 439A6E3A.F857771A earthlink.net pan.2005.12.11.00.32.21.914028 doubleclick.net 439BA98E.E354C897 earthlink.net 04vnp15gka4d7ffi3gp9ehofgfr9jpj31i 4ax.com 439C67B4.FF564383 earthlink.net mUZmf.4530$ES.4450 fe05.lga 439C9417.12D570A8 earthlink.net yB0nf.553$PQ3.98759 news20.bellglobal.com fdinf.15$It6.5 fe02.lga 439E6988.73EBEF85 earthlink.net Xns972B7618CDE98follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 25
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:23:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.110.15.31
X-Complaints-To: abuse earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1134530591 24.110.15.31 (Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:23:11 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:23:11 PST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229991 sci.electronics.repair:433048 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452690

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Peter wrote:


In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.

The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.

Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.


A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.

Which could better be included by OEMs or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.


The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.

I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.












Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!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!logbridge.uor egon.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu! newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:03:04 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11pv2r8ph6386eb 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: oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com 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 GkYmf.6406$Eu3.5706 fe07.lga WEYmf.92$El.19427 news20.bellglobal.com 11ppupr51udv23e corp.supernews.com Xns972A100D147Afollydom 207.115.17.102 11pq9qep0bghd9e corp.supernews.com Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102 MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net 11pt44i55gpote9 corp.supernews.com Xns972B7AA8118C9follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns972B7AA8118C9follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 87
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229988 sci.electronics.repair:433044 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452688

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

Know what for sure?

Whether or not what David says is true.

And what was that?


The squeeze is on typical American families who are not
technically inclined and who would like to install Windows XP on
their kids computer as well.

It's illegal for them to install the same copy of Windows on more
than one machine.

You could drop dead and no one would notice.


And typical American families don't do this, anyway. They buy
machines with Windows preinstalled, so no legal issues arise.

Many computers are handed down.


Anybody who is technically inclined (pirates
included) and most everybody outside of the United States can get
Windows XP for free and install it on all their computers.

Perhaps, but only dishonest people do this.

Scatter brain.


The squeeze is put on ordinary home users here in the United
States.

How?

I think your memory is getting shorter by the minute.


They have Windows preinstalled on their machines,

You are out of touch.


and so they
have no reason to pirate it. Additionally, most of them are
honest, and so they wouldn't necessarily pirate it even if they
had a reason to do so.

They do and they feel justified. Everybody else in the world gets it
for free, Americans don't like being the only support for
Microsoft's empire.

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


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


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was one
of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,

Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.


Message-ID: 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Didn't forget a thing, pal.

Obviously you did.


Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?

I think you have it backwards. Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market. That loss
was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

Can you remember?

Within limits, yes.

What can you remember?


In just another of your forgotten writings.

If it is forgotten, how are you able to refer to it?

Refer to what?







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


Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.ne wshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMA TCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.co m!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com. POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:41:53 -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: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:41:47 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: ci1vp158m8kcmse7c40evmim7eqoks8o3a 4ax.com
References: 11pofogljj3u3f2 corp.supernews.com %EXmf.400$PQ3.28531 news20.bellglobal.com jvnop1hrgmehjkin684rcrl7lr99eor362 4ax.com Xns972A10479A25Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 qdgrp1ta36mr1prs6lgmqfmc12pmf0g94a 4ax.com Xns972AB091EEA62follydom 207.115.17.102 6tisp11s7ui1ttpncuagvsjeqemdk37meg 4ax.com Xns972AD27AF956Efollydom 207.115.17.102.gnresend tl5up1dhrr1if8arr4od386iapkspkbdjp 4ax.com Xns972BA2B09FA2Dfollydom 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: 12
X-Trace: sv3-4WOMFJsdaeuO+ldb5p8CpLgXxJUhWlWjdmc3SXx0omTO8ToFcp sLez5jNSNKaO/ZrwxGdjIMUZK3hRN!9EmIGsyG3pkt8fo4L8uy+kvTUK9YU9kP3 T1xx3zql0jahIcyUhid3XwYZ/L26dbUvWspwQ0=
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:229981 sci.electronics.repair:433038 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452683

John Doe writes:

Many computers are handed down.

A handed-down computer still contains the operating system originally
installed upon it, so this is not an excuse to pirate the software.

You are out of touch.

Every ordinary desktop computer I see these days has something
preinstalled on it, typically Microsoft Windows.

They do and they feel justified.

Crooks always feel justified. But not everyone is a crook.

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

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



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


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was one
of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.

Now you've descended into witless name calling, not that it was all that
grand a descent from where you started.


Message-ID: 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Didn't forget a thing, pal.


Obviously you did.

Obviously not.


Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?


I think you have it backwards.

Then you'd be wrong.

Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market.

That's when they returned to giving it away.

Netscape began life as Mosaic Communications Corp in April 1994 and took on
the name Netscape in November of the same year.

Read and weep http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/newsrelease1.html

"Netscape, Available Now,
Builds On Tradition of Freeware for the Net

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (October 13, 1994) -- Mosaic Communications
Corporation today announced that it is offering its newly introduced
Netscape network navigator free to users via the Internet.
..
..
..
"Making Netscape freely available to Internet users is Mosaic
Communications' way of contributing to the explosive growth of innovative
information applications on global networks," said Andreessen, vice
president of technology at Mosaic Communications.
"


That loss
was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

After they wiped out the competition and acquired a dominate position, yes.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



Peter wrote:



In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.


A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.

or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.

Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.

Liar troll

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-06!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: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:00:09 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11pvgnqdmkqic9f 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: oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com 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 GkYmf.6406$Eu3.5706 fe07.lga WEYmf.92$El.19427 news20.bellglobal.com 11ppupr51udv23e corp.supernews.com Xns972A100D147Afollydom 207.115.17.102 11pq9qep0bghd9e corp.supernews.com Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102 MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net 11pt44i55gpote9 corp.supernews.com Xns972B7AA8118C9follydom 207.115.17.102 11pv2r8ph6386eb corp.supernews.com Xns972BEAA7F92D6follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns972BEAA7F92D6follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 131
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:230005 sci.electronics.repair:433071 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452709

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



Peter wrote:



In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.


A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.

or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.

Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

Many computers are handed down.

A handed-down computer still contains the operating system
originally installed upon it,

Many people upgrade the hardware and then update the operating
system. You act stupid.

snipped an opinion based on the incorrect premise


You are out of touch.


Crooks always feel justified.

The United States appeals court wrote:
"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."


But not everyone is a crook.

Microsoft is.






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


Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!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: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:52:13 -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: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:52:06 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: dlcvp1pdm0auvr06ue4831jk75uiih4hhq 4ax.com
References: Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102 lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com Xns972AB206F4F76follydom 207.115.17.102 73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102 11psu6kc5pt47c5 corp.supernews.com Xns972B7D6202A4Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 rs5up1t91d1e3tkdjgndefoa3l7sj77ti1 4ax.com Xns972BA0DE3F99Afollydom 207.115.17.102 oj1vp1trin234sn96pnqmduepokp2fc6q2 4ax.com Xns972BECB9975Dfollydom 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: 18
X-Trace: sv3-EWtIkbVCwuLHjzV25QkURiNp0m0LkwwTBKZqzdGnA+JAItkKDq ys4deRT3iSW9vj9N7UbaRqyzM08OR!rnrLjWMkE74UQylIx47L zwK68F5nFZP0VuxvYsuqqbtU7pfQm2XUlnZn8lEDTIVYEPcFql w=
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:230001 sci.electronics.repair:433063 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452707

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-12-13, David Maynard wrote:

Peter wrote:


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?

if I already had a browser.

Would most people?

most people buy a computer with the software already installed.
they could as easily buy an OS and a browser as buy an OS with a browser.

And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the
product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S.
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism,
hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than
whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product
schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a
necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?

There's no need for the browser to be part of the critical update mechanism.

But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you
just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine
if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball
(and you'd believe it).

Debian's update mechanism works fine without a browser.

And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because
there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S.
product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."

But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the
user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates,
who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?

say what?

Bye.
Jasen

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



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


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was
one of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.

Now you've descended into witless name calling, not that it was
all that grand a descent from where you started.

My name calling should flatter you. Obviously you will say anything
not no matter how frivolous, in an attempt to win an argument. Any
technical advice you give should be verified by the reader with
someone who can be trusted.


Message-ID: 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?


I think you have it backwards.

Then you'd be wrong.

Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market.

That's when they returned to giving it away.

Netscape began life as Mosaic Communications Corp in April 1994
and took on the name Netscape in November of the same year.

Read and weep http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/newsrelease1.html

You provided a citation. I am impressed.


That loss was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

After they wiped out the competition and acquired a dominate
position, yes.

Which doesn't mean anything by itself. If Netscape were
overcharging, Microsoft would have been able to gain market share
without illegally using its Windows monopoly.

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-12-13, Gary H wrote:



Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is
not permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way*
you guys want to do it. We *do* have environmental protection
rules up this way, and where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as
well. Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from
it's appointed rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.

pack ice?

Bye.
Jasen

The federal appeals court wrote:

"...we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

"...we reject Microsoft's argument that we should vacate the
District Court's Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer
confusion."

"The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in
licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing
browsers other than IE."

"By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to
IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a
rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the
competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we
conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive."

"These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. (March 1997
letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: "We are responsible for
the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of
calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated
by your product.... We must have more ability to decide how our
system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another
supplier, based on your actions in this area, you would not be our
supplier of choice.")."

"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."

"In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the
OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft's
market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate
justification. The restrictions therefore violate section 2 of the
Sherman Act."