The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeff writes:

... I only wish that there was some form of real competition for
MS and their huge market share to cause some real inovation,
choice and fair pricing.

Well, write some applications for operating systems other than
Microsoft, and help the cause.

Companies don't work that way.

Programmers are locked into Windows because it's the only operating
system that sells. Consumers buy Windows because programmers write
for it. It's called a "positive feedback loop" that keeps Windows
the desktop operating system monopoly.

Remember, Microsoft is really only dominant for operating systems
and its Office suite of products.

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software publishing.

In other domains, someone else is dominant.

Other domains?

Office and operating systems won't keep Microsoft is
business forever.

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software publishing
business forever.

Cooperative and Preemptive Multitasking [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-10-30, Bob Masta wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:53:25 GMT, "BillW50" wrote:

All DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1 preemptively.

I hadn't heard of this before. Can you explain how it worked?
I had the impression that the DOS application took over and
Windows apps didn't get any time at all. If there were time
slices for Windows apps, do you recall how they did this?

you needed a '386 (or better) and atleast 2megs of ram.

then you could run windows in "386 enhanced" mode and when you did that
you could multitask dos apps like FS4 and Telix if you selected the right
options in the Pif files.

Bye.
Jasen

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"Jeff" wrote:

This is begining to sound like an arguement based soley on which
company you hate more, IBM or Microsoft. You each seem to be
stating facts and then coloring them to suit your own arguements.
I personally dont care who screwed who in the origins of the OS
world, I only wish that there was some form of real competition
for MS and their huge market share to cause some real inovation,
choice and fair pricing.

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one
software publisher over another probably would level the software
playing field. I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be
a good idea. Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation. How to handle the
operating system maker is a good question.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:

....
Just like Intel--their first microprocessor was developed for a
calculator, but the calculator company (Busicom) decided to drop
it and signed over all rights to Intel. And if these things had
not happened, we might not have microprocessors or PC operating
systems or even PCs today. So be glad.

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech input
and output. Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system. To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of money.
So even though speech will be part of the future personal computer
(or hybrid), we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it. At the same
time, other companies are lazy about software development simply
because Microsoft can put them out of business by developing a lower
quality but Windows-integrated version of the same software.

Cooperative and Preemptive Multitasking [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-10-30, Mxsmanic wrote:
Anthony Fremont writes:

That's what they say, but.......

But it's true.

Right, you don't really have much choice but to use the machine as an
admin.

That's not the fault of the OS. There are some applications that will
run without special privileges.

You'd have to go to pretty good lengths to write code that would hang
Linux just because you ran it as root.

No more so than for XP.

Hanging the kernel is primarily
accomplished by device drivers, which are running in kernel space, so
all bets are really off there.

The same is true for XP.

My point is that hanging windows is allot easier.

Except that it's not.

On Linux it's fairly tricky just getting into position to
be able to start slapping the kernel around unless you're a device
driver of course.


If you're running a GUI, it's easy.


how so? in linux the GUI runs in user space, ditto the windowing subsystem,
it's only the video driver that has some priviledges,

I have the same background. XP is stable.

The same goes for security. Even Linux upsets me greatly at
times, especially MythTV and the ivtv driver. But that tends to be the
fault of the third party programmers and not the Linux kernel.

Linux and UNIX are quite insecure, compared to NT.

how so? I heard that Microsoft moved the webservers from NT to unix
(I think solaris or BSD) for security reasons a few years ago. Hmm,
they seem to be running IIS again now.

I can't fault the OS if hardware dies but, depending upon the particular
hardware, the driver might be graceful about it.

The driver is usually written by the hardware vendor. Many drivers
are very poorly written.

That's why linux admins like the hardware that has open source drivers.

Bye.
Jasen

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

Programmers are locked into Windows because it's the only operating
system that sells. Consumers buy Windows because programmers write
for it. It's called a "positive feedback loop" that keeps Windows
the desktop operating system monopoly.

Yes, but that is not Microsoft's doing, nor does Microsoft have to do
anything to maintain it. Indeed, Microsoft can't really change it,
either--the company has little choice but to continue to produce OS
environments that are compatible with the current Windows environment.
Anything else would be a huge and extremely risky gamble, and
Microsoft is now moving into that phase of a company's life when it
becomes very averse to risk.

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software publishing.

Actually, no. Only a small fraction of desktop computer software is
operating systems and office-automation suites. For example, on the
computer I use at home, Microsoft software represents only about 5% of
the total dollar value of all the software on the computer. Which
means that for every dollar Microsoft makes selling software, other
companies are making about $19.

Other domains?

Yes. Computers are used for other things besides text processing and
spreadsheets, and in virtually every other application domain,
Microsoft is either non-existent or a very minor player.

Furthermore, Microsoft lacks the know-how to enter just about all of
these markets; the company writes software very well, but you have to
know more than just how to write software to crack a particular
application market. MS did well with Office because it helped define
the market by being one of the first to address it. It does fairly
well with software development tools because it has to use the tools
itself, and thus has learned how to build good ones. But it doesn't
know how to do anything else.

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software publishing
business forever.

Forever is a long time. It's very difficult to change the status quo
in operating systems, but it has happened before, and sooner or later
it will happen again. My prediction is that eventually Microsoft will
push itself out of the market, by trying to force people into
expensive, bloated upgrades in order to maintain its revenue stream.
At some point they'll be pushed towards alternative operating systems.

If another publisher were to come up with an OS that ran Windows
applications transparently and flawlessly with no significant loss of
performance, the dominance of Microsoft would be severely threatened.
However, that is so difficult and expensive to do technically that I'm
not particularly concerned about it, and I don't think Microsoft is,
either.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one
software publisher over another probably would level the software
playing field.

There's really no legal or ethical basis for such a prohibition, and
it would have no effect on the market, anyway, because Microsoft isn't
writing any significant applications to begin with. And Microsoft
isn't significantly favoring anyone, either.

Microsoft is in the position of having a reliable cash cow in the
Windows operating system, but it's also constrained by that position
because even Microsoft cannot really propose a new operating system,
unless it walks and talks just like the existing Windows OS. It went
out on a limb with Windows NT and that was uncomfortably uncertain for
years--and NT is an operating system that looks and feels just like
preceding versions of Windows to users. Trying something completely
new might not work at all, and with the cost of a new operating system
now in the billions of dollars, it's a dangerous gamble. And these
days Microsoft is becoming increasingly wary of gambling.

I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be
a good idea.

It's not. From a consumer standpoint, standardization on a single
operating system is generally best. The only question is which
operating system would be technically ideal. Windows is nice but it's
probably not ideal. The competition (such as it is) is far worse,
however.

Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation.

There's no legal or ethical basis for this, either.

How to handle the operating system maker is a good question.

The best way to change things--if change is a good idea--is to come up
with a better operating system ... and one that will run everything
that Windows runs, because nobody is going to rewrite 250,000
applications overnight.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from.

No, he's thinking about Microsoft, a very tiny company back in those
days.

As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's
compliance.

During the period under discussion, Microsoft wasn't in a position to
force anyone to do anything.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech input
and output.

There's very little demand for that, and it requires a lot of
horsepower. It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party
drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If someone
writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be substituted
for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it just fine. Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual
information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and
requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating them
than such customers bring in.

So even though speech will be part of the future personal computer
(or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not. I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement. They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and see,
they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such
hardware, nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software development simply
because Microsoft can put them out of business by developing a lower
quality but Windows-integrated version of the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because they
don't see any money in it, and they are not operating as charities.
The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small to
allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

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

It rhymes, which is neat, but what definition of "transpose" are you using,
none of the usual ones seem to fit the contect?

--

Bye.
Jasen

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes:

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software
publishing.

Actually, no. Only a small fraction of desktop computer software
is operating systems and office-automation suites. For example,
on the computer I use at home, Microsoft software represents only
about 5% of the total dollar value of all the software on the
computer. Which means that for every dollar Microsoft makes
selling software, other companies are making about $19.

:)
You don't represent the vast majority of personal computer users.
Your last assertion does not follow.

Computers are used for other things besides text processing
and spreadsheets,

Like browsing the Internet. If Microsoft hadn't gotten into trouble
for destroying Netscape Navigator, we might be paying for Internet
Explorer too.

and in virtually every other application domain,
Microsoft is either non-existent or a very minor player.

I would just repeat my prior statement about the operating system
and office applications. I don't know where you got the idea those
were a small share of the applications market.

I will be happy to compare resources on the subject.

Furthermore, Microsoft lacks the know-how to enter just about all
of these markets; the company writes software very well, but you
have to know more than just how to write software to crack a
particular application market.

Microsoft can buy any programmers it needs.

MS did well with Office because it helped define
the market by being one of the first to address it.

Windows integration helps. New users are going to use what's there.

It does fairly well with software development tools because it has
to use the tools itself, and thus has learned how to build good
ones. But it doesn't know how to do anything else.

I agree that Microsoft produces decent software for its own use and
sells it to the rest of us. But competition is usually a better way
to innovation.

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software
publishing business forever.

Forever is a long time. It's very difficult to change the status
quo in operating systems, but it has happened before,

Not in the personal computer operating system market.

and sooner or later
it will happen again. My prediction is that eventually Microsoft
will push itself out of the market, by trying to force people into
expensive, bloated upgrades in order to maintain its revenue
stream. At some point they'll be pushed towards alternative
operating systems.

Switching operating systems would be massively expensive and require
lots of coordination between consumers and programmers. Maybe if
everyone were desperate and had powerful political/media help.

If another publisher were to come up with an OS that ran Windows
applications transparently and flawlessly with no significant loss
of performance, the dominance of Microsoft would be severely
threatened. However, that is so difficult and expensive to do
technically that I'm not particularly concerned about it, and I
don't think Microsoft is, either.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:31:23 GMT
David Maynard wrote:

...
What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a
handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation',
no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else
in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old
IBM. What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM
into the deal?

Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from. As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's
compliance.

So? Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And I
believe this is only fair. Why don't you?


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes:

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one
software publisher over another probably would level the software
playing field.

There's really no legal or ethical basis for such a prohibition,

In your opinion.

and
it would have no effect on the market, anyway, because Microsoft
isn't writing any significant applications to begin with.

Still wondering where you got that idea.

And Microsoft isn't significantly favoring anyone, either.

Microsoft favors its own applications developers.

Microsoft is in the position of having a reliable cash cow in the
Windows operating system,

And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade
version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its Works
suite.

I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be
a good idea.

It's not. From a consumer standpoint, standardization on a single
operating system is generally best.

Programmers choose the (monopoly) operating system. Consumers choose
applications (except for Office applications). There are other
monopolies, but they are minor in comparison to Windows and Office.

Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation.

There's no legal or ethical basis for this, either.

The basis would be to spur innovation. Whether it is legal or
ethical is up to the government and its religious leaders I guess.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"BillW50" wrote:
"John Doe" wrote in message

....
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

So?

There.

Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And
I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the
politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech
input and output.

There's very little demand for that,

I have a very great demand for that.

and it requires a lot of horsepower.

My system, probably no better than a current store-bought computer,
is running it just fine, input and output.

It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about
text to speech, it's very understandable even though probably not
very good sounding to most people. If you're talking about speech
recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

Then again, some day that will be water under the bridge.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party
drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If
someone writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be
substituted for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it
just fine.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual
information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and
requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of
money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating
them than such customers bring in.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point. I guess
it depends on whether you believe the disabled people should have
equal access. But again, as I stated below, it also has to do with
the future and how easily we get there.

So even though speech will be part of the future personal
computer (or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not.

It certainly will.

I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is way
superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's what I'm
doing, but current technology does require a good speaking voice and
the ability to properly configure sound input.

They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and
see, they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

Sorry, but you're just making excuses for your own inability to use
the current technology.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such
hardware,

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software
development simply because Microsoft can put them out of business
by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated version of
the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because
they don't see any money in it,

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced better
speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a valid part
of the operating system. And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in
it is the question.

and they are not operating as charities.

The future is not a charity.

The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small
to allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating system.
Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any copies. In
this argument, you are very much aware of the fact that costs of
development must be recovered.





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

Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.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, 01 Nov 2005 05:41:04 -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, 01 Nov 2005 12:41:01 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com
References: Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 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: 52
X-Trace: sv3-dvRGJVUbdpPNNVuTOuwiZ2WTy8l0eoTAHFUBXjMQz9fZZyyVdM QuPaiWLMwgteQpGulmQLm/XGb1A+h!kmahICdUx2Q3irwAi+/zBex8zr0cRdyGsdBwLj4ghBglJBWmWZRKV4TOdV56TWOU+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:225701 sci.electronics.repair:427328 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448767

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:31:15 GMT

"BillW50" wrote:
"John Doe" wrote in message

...
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

So?

There.

Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And
I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the
politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.

How did Microsoft prevent competition? As the end user had no
problems installing Lotus SmartSuite if they wanted to. So no
problems there. And MS Office is not free anyway, again no problems
there.

And there has been awhile now, Sun's OpenOffice which can be had for
free! Claims to open MS Office files and all. If it were any good,
it would wipe out MS Office off of the map for sure. But the truth
is, it ain't as good. Thus it still isn't a threat to MS.

You somehow believe MS stifles competition. While I believe just the
opposite. As at anytime, anybody can come along and actually do
something better than Microsoft. And often it does happen in niche
areas of Windows and it has made them (not MS) rich. This has been
great for competition. Because when something comes out better, MS
plays catch up to try to match or exceed their competition.

I actually believe Windows is the de facto desktop today because of
competition. As there were other competitors for a GUI on top of DOS
like GEM and GEOS. And they were doing well until Apple sued
Microsoft for the look and feel. And MS quickly improved Windows to
be as good and sometimes better than the competition. In this case,
in all of them (GEM, GEOS, and the Mac).

So don't tell me that Microsoft stifles competition. Because that
just ain't so! Although I would agree that Microsoft has enough
resources to usually come out on top. Maybe that is what you really
have a problem with.


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

You don't represent the vast majority of personal computer users.
Your last assertion does not follow.

Traditionally most PCs have been used in business, not at home, so
most PC users have even more expensive software installed than I do.
It's true that those who are at home may not have as much, especially
when you consider how much they've probably pirated.

Like browsing the Internet. If Microsoft hadn't gotten into trouble
for destroying Netscape Navigator, we might be paying for Internet
Explorer too.

Microsoft didn't destroy Netscape. Netscape was almost unbelievably
poorly managed. It was self-destructing without Microsoft's help.
Read the story of Netscape; it's amazing.

I would just repeat my prior statement about the operating system
and office applications. I don't know where you got the idea those
were a small share of the applications market.

They are a small percentage of the applications available. I don't
even have Office on my computer; it's too bloated and expensive, and I
haven't found a use for it.

Microsoft can buy any programmers it needs.

Programmers that are both good at programming and experts in a
specific applications field and are superb systems analysts are
scarce, at any price. And you need lots and lots of them to build new
applications. Additionally, you need a complete chain of command that
understands the business, not just programmers and analysts.

Windows integration helps. New users are going to use what's there.

Yes. Microsoft did it, and others did not.

I agree that Microsoft produces decent software for its own use and
sells it to the rest of us. But competition is usually a better way
to innovation.

There _is_ competition, but it's not very good. Borland was another
case of bad management, even when they were beating Microsoft.

In fact, in many cases, it's not that Microsoft made the right
decisions so much as the competition consistently made the wrong
decisions.

There have been resounding Microsoft failures, such as the oft-cited
Microsoft Bob, but also things like Photo Draw 2000, which was a joke
(Image Composer, which MS had bought earlier, was much better, but MS
still abandoned it, thinking it could rewrite something superior from
scratch--MS was wrong).

Microsoft still has a hard time with database servers, since it knows
nothing about database production environments. The same handicap
keeps it behind the curve in the server market as well.

What Microsoft does, it does well. But it really has a hard time
learning new things.

Not in the personal computer operating system market.

From the Mac to Windows. From MS-DOS to Windows. From CP/M to
MS-DOS. And so on.

Granted, the greater the inertia, the slower the change.

Switching operating systems would be massively expensive and require
lots of coordination between consumers and programmers. Maybe if
everyone were desperate and had powerful political/media help.

Well, right now, everyone is happy with Microsoft Windows, except for
a handful of whining geeks who want to change things. The average
business or home user, though, gets everything he needs from Windows,
and has no reason whatsoever to change. In fact, a sudden change
would be bad for consumers, not good, no matter how much it might
please the geeks.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

In your opinion.

Deliberately crippling a company that is successful is never a good
idea, and historically has had either no effect or a negative effect.

Still wondering where you got that idea.

As I've explained, Microsoft builds operating systems, and a suite of
office-automation applications. And that's essentially it. Almost
all its revenue comes from these two product areas (especially the
latter).

Microsoft favors its own applications developers.

No doubt, but that's what companies are supposed to do. However, the
only applications it develops are Office applications.

And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade
version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its Works
suite.

Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office. Works is not worth
buying, and indeed MS gives it away sometimes.

Programmers choose the (monopoly) operating system. Consumers choose
applications (except for Office applications). There are other
monopolies, but they are minor in comparison to Windows and Office.

So what? Who is losing here? Not the programmers writing for
Windows. Not the consumers using it. Not Microsoft. Not the
publishers of those other 249,998 Windows applications. Where is the
problem, exactly?

The basis would be to spur innovation.

How much innovation do you expect when companies know that their
intellectual property will be seized and placed in the public domain
if they become too successful?

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market.

Exactly how does Microsoft use Windows to "prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications," and why does it even matter, given that
Microsoft only really sells one application?

I really couldn't care less about the politics. I don't care
which team you are rooting for.

People who root for teams are in for disappointment. It's all just
business.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe writes:

I have a very great demand for that.

As you pointed out to me, you may not be representative.

My system, probably no better than a current store-bought computer,
is running it just fine, input and output.

If it's fast enough, it should.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about
text to speech, it's very understandable even though probably not
very good sounding to most people. If you're talking about speech
recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

I'm talking about both. The slowness and lack of accuracy of speech
systems holds them back. That's why people tend not to use them
unless they have to. I'd much rather type than have to speak to my
computer to write things. It would take forever with speech.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Why? There's almost no demand for it.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

Both are extremely difficult if you want truly integrated solutions.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point.

It's not pure guesswork. Virtually without exception, putting in
features for a tiny minority of users is a net loss. Companies only
do it for PR, out of corporate conscience, or when the law requires
it. They certainly don't do it to make money.

I guess it depends on whether you believe the disabled people
should have equal access.

Within reason, I believe they should. But I do not believe that vast
resources should be spent on accommodating them when the same
resources could do more good for a larger number of people if spent in
a different way.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is way
superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's what I'm
doing, but current technology does require a good speaking voice and
the ability to properly configure sound input.

That's the easy part. Just as generating sound is the easy part of
speech synthesis. The hard part is compressing information into an
audio channel, and making sense of input or reformatting output to fit
it.

Sorry, but you're just making excuses for your own inability to use
the current technology.

Which technology am I unable to use?

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

If you want to do it right, you need hardware solutions.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

No, it can't. There are a lot of clever and/or well-funded
competitors out there. Not every company is as stupid as Netscape.

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

Microsoft builds what sells. That's business.

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced better
speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a valid part
of the operating system.

Speech is no more a "valid" part of the operating system than text.

And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in it is the question.

Whether any company does. For extreme niche markets, small companies
are usually better at turning a profit than large companies.

The future is not a charity.

The future will be just like the present.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating system.
Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any copies. In
this argument, you are very much aware of the fact that costs of
development must be recovered.

In that prior post, I was making it obvious why people _don't_ write
applications for obscure operating systems.

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

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:01:30 GMT

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech
input and output.

There's very little demand for that,

I have a very great demand for that.

Are you visually impaired?

and it requires a lot of horsepower.

My system, probably no better than a current store-bought computer,
is running it just fine, input and output.

I'm using a Celeron 400MHZ with 192MB of RAM under Windows 2000. And
it hits really hard here.

It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about
text to speech, it's very understandable even though probably not
very good sounding to most people. If you're talking about speech
recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

Then again, some day that will be water under the bridge.

Hopefully.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party
drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If
someone writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be
substituted for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it
just fine.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Huh? Windows has text to speech built right into it.

Narrator is intended to help people with low vision to setup
their own computers, or use other people's computers. Narrator
may not perform well with some applications. Most users with
visual impairments will need a utility with higher
functionality for daily use.

For a list of Windows-based screen reader utilities, see
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual
information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and
requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

Screen reading is right there in at least Windows 2000/XP.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of
money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating
them than such customers bring in.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point. I guess
it depends on whether you believe the disabled people should have
equal access. But again, as I stated below, it also has to do with
the future and how easily we get there.

You know some people can push this disabled stuff too far. So where
do you draw the line? For example, real disabled people still can't
get good parking. Yet zillions of dollars were forced from people's
pockets to build them. And one of the lawyers who did the forcing
and made probably zillions of dollars, didn't even have handicap
parking at his own office (this was on like 20/20 or something). Go
figure! It always comes down to it's about the money and who is
going to pay for it, now isn't it?

So even though speech will be part of the future personal
computer (or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not.

It certainly will.

I'm not betting on that. As humans have a clear advantage over
computers when it comes to speech recognition. And I haven't even
heard of a workable theory in how computers could ever surpass
humans in this area.

I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is way
superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's what I'm
doing, but current technology does require a good speaking voice and
the ability to properly configure sound input.

They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and
see, they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

Sorry, but you're just making excuses for your own inability to use
the current technology.

Huh? The current technology in this area is very frustrating.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such
hardware,

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

You need a microphone and speakers for one. And I don't know how
anybody can reroute the keyboard to a mic and the screen output to
speakers without added drivers? So you're saying that Windows has
this ability built in? Gee and here I thought you were saying it
does not.

nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

Not so. They would like to make Linux disappear and can't for
starters. They probably would like IBM to fade away and can't. And I
bet they wished they didn't have to improve their products when
someone comes out with something better. And lastly, Microsoft has
no power over the end user! As the end user can choose what they
want to do with their money.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software
development simply because Microsoft can put them out of business
by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated version of
the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because
they don't see any money in it,

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

Can you elaborate?

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced better
speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a valid part
of the operating system. And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in
it is the question.

and they are not operating as charities.

The future is not a charity.

Well Bill Gates has given millions of dollars to charity all of the
time. And while the future is not a charity, the future also isn't
here yet as well.

The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small
to allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating system.
Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any copies. In
this argument, you are very much aware of the fact that costs of
development must be recovered.

Are you aware that Microsoft does have disability features built
into Windows itself right now? And offers a web page for other
solutions between Windows for the disabled? How can you imply they
are not doing anything about it?


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

David Maynard wrote:
Microsoft had the vision of running the same software on anyone's 'PC
clone' and while it may seem obvious today it was anything but obvious in
1980 as the 'home computer' world was a hodge podge of individual hardware
types each running their own O.S. (of a sorts) just like the mainframe
world was. Commodore stuff didn't run on an Apple and Apple stuff didn't
run on an Atari, and Atari stuff didn't run on a CPM machine (CPM being the
closest to a 'multiple hardware supplier' O.S.).

You're attributing to Microsoft what rightfully belongs to Digital Research
and CP/M. Kildall had the vision of running the same software on anyone's
PC, with a uniform set of utility programs and system calls. Paterson
copied it and Gates bought the copy.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:
Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than
about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of
course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In
those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and
root for Microsoft.

I was stuck using Microsoft crap in 1980 and beyond, and I had no love
for Microsoft or their products. I considered getting out of the business
when I was told PC-DOS was by Microsoft, until I found out they bought it
rather than wrote it.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

BillW50 wrote:
And there has been awhile now, Sun's OpenOffice which can be had for
free! Claims to open MS Office files and all. If it were any good,
it would wipe out MS Office off of the map for sure. But the truth
is, it ain't as good. Thus it still isn't a threat to MS.

Maybe it's just me, but the only thing I can find wrong with it is that
it has trouble writing some Microsoft output formats. OpenOffice can do
something that most versions of Office can't do, that is to open Word 6
documents.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe wrote:
Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation.

The industry would be set back two years while the laughter died down
enough for IT people to resume working.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic wrote:
ATMs don't run Windows 95. They started switching from OS/2 to
Windows NT Workstation ages ago, and I don't know what they are
running most often today, but it's not Windows 95.

I don't know what BP gas pumps run, but what I saw a little while back
was unmistakably a BSOD.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

MS Works for $100??? [ The truth about OS/2!!!]
 

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:51:50 +0100

And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade
version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its Works
suite.

Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office. Works is not worth
buying, and indeed MS gives it away sometimes.

I meant to say something about this since I was a big Works fan
until I got Office 97. As I used MS Works v2, 3, 4, 5, and I never
installed v6 (but it is sitting right here). And MS Works as far
back as I can remember was dirt cheap. Like $29.95 or something. And
the $100 version was called Works Suite I think and it included
Word. Which was a good deal if you only wanted Word from the MS
Office.

MS always in the past (I don't know about now), always kept macro
ability out of Works. And if it ever did, I probably wouldn't have
ever bothered with Office at all. As Works v4 and 5 were really
quite good IMHO. Almost as good as other software that called
themselves as Suite. Although no macro ability made it suck! And I
believe this was on purpose so not to cut into the Office sales.

I'm saying this in regards as MS Works did everything and I bet many
others needed for simple tasks. On the other hand, I bet virtually
nobody uses over 90% of Office features. There are just too many of
them. Heck, I've been using Office for about 8 years now and I still
don't know everything that it can do yet. grin


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:
John Doe writes:

I have a very great demand for that.

As you pointed out to me, you may not be representative.

I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are
frustrated with the current technology.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking
about text to speech, it's very understandable even though
probably not very good sounding to most people. If you're talking
about speech recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

I'm talking about both.

Well that's just not true for text to speech.

The slowness and lack of accuracy of speech systems holds them
back.

Which is something that will be made up for given time and research.

That's why people tend not to use them
unless they have to.

That's true

I'd much rather type than have to speak to my
computer to write things.

Given your frustration with the current technology. Otherwise,
that's just weird.

It would take forever with speech.

Doesn't take me forever with speech. In fact, it's faster and much
easier than typing.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Why?

Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future
easier access to everyone.

There's almost no demand for it.

There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are
turned off by the current technology.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

Both are extremely difficult if you want truly integrated
solutions.

If you have a clear speaking voice and a modern personal computer
with properly configured sound input, it works very well.

If you don't mind wearing a microphone all of the time :)
I am so enjoying it, I put the headset microphone on even during
extended periods of no use.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point.

It's not pure guesswork. Virtually without exception, putting in
features for a tiny minority of users is a net loss.

Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to
steal market share.

Companies only
do it for PR, out of corporate conscience, or when the law
requires it. They certainly don't do it to make money.

That's the norm. Microsoft could include high-quality speech if it
were truly interested in innovation. But it's not. You can blame it
on the fact that Microsoft must please its shareholders, nonetheless
it's true.

I guess it depends on whether you believe the disabled people
should have equal access.

Within reason, I believe they should.

But not within personal computing.

But I do not believe that vast
resources should be spent on accommodating them when the same
resources could do more good for a larger number of people if
spent in a different way.

I agree with that principle. But Microsoft trumpets the idea that
it's a compassionate, forward-looking high-technology company. Given
the lack of interest in speech, I don't believe it.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is
way superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's
what I'm doing, but current technology does require a good
speaking voice and the ability to properly configure sound input.

That's the easy part.

For most of us in the homebuilt computer group, it is.

Just as generating sound is the easy part of
speech synthesis.

Generating sound and generating clear speech are two different
things. I totally understand where you're coming from. If you search
hard enough, you might be able to find my expressions of the same
sentiment as you on USENET. Being turned away by speech recognition
is extremely frustrating in my experience. I spent some years
dictating everyday notes into a digital voice recorder. I guess that
helped.

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

If you want to do it right, you need hardware solutions.

I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

No, it can't. There are a lot of clever and/or well-funded
competitors out there. Not every company is as stupid as
Netscape.

I am intimately familiar with the big antitrust trial. Microsoft
illegally destroyed Netscape's Navigator Internet browser business.
That is a fact and that was 17% of Netscape's revenue.

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

Microsoft builds what sells. That's business.

Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office
applications. That's easy living.

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced
better speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a
valid part of the operating system.

Speech is no more a "valid" part of the operating system than
text.

Which is a whole lot more valid than an Internet browser.

And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in it is the question.

Whether any company does.

Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate,
forward-looking business.

For extreme niche markets, small companies
are usually better at turning a profit than large companies.

Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system
and that is where speech belongs.

The future is not a charity.

The future will be just like the present.

Hey ya Burt.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating
system. Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any
copies. In this argument, you are very much aware of the fact
that costs of development must be recovered.

In that prior post, I was making it obvious why people _don't_
write applications for obscure operating systems.

"Well, write some applications for operating systems other than
Microsoft, and help the cause."
Message-ID:
Message-ID: ntpcm19s263p625pvldulfnoqogq29pn6i 4ax.com







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


Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dc a.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:02:05 -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, 01 Nov 2005 16:02:04 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: sc0fm19vvg3157d2quttib6vd6rnpo9fm6 4ax.com
References: iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 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: 103
X-Trace: sv3-hi4rAcFOjJ4BSm/sLEEQ+rbBZJ/0zyVu4+ugiWUhxZbrxZWL730kupOfheZONz4z2ABlNTczHXhKw 6u!xH25lzWLQimmKD9HLQVunwmt+cGpadY7SKfyxSfHvCmSN4S oDb+5RTOY0mOvFA5F0Q==
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:225725 sci.electronics.repair:427364 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448786

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

You don't represent the vast majority of personal computer users.
Your last assertion does not follow.

Traditionally most PCs have been used in business, not at home, so
most PC users have even more expensive software installed than I
do. It's true that those who are at home may not have as much,
especially when you consider how much they've probably pirated.

But seriously.

Like browsing the Internet. If Microsoft hadn't gotten into
trouble for destroying Netscape Navigator, we might be paying for
Internet Explorer too.

Microsoft didn't destroy Netscape. Netscape was almost
unbelievably poorly managed. It was self-destructing without
Microsoft's help. Read the story of Netscape; it's amazing.

Read the factual story about how Microsoft destroyed Netscape
Navigator. It's free and easy to access in many different places on
the Internet, including right here.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

If you were an active PC user during the time, you might find that
interesting reading, however exhausting.

I would just repeat my prior statement about the operating system
and office applications. I don't know where you got the idea
those were a small share of the applications market.

They are a small percentage of the applications available.

True, but meaningless.

Windows integration helps. New users are going to use what's
there.

Yes. Microsoft did it, and others did not.

That's because Microsoft owns the required operating system.

I agree that Microsoft produces decent software for its own use
and sells it to the rest of us. But competition is usually a
better way to innovation.

There _is_ competition, but it's not very good. Borland was
another case of bad management, even when they were beating
Microsoft.

The fact that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the desktop
operating system market is a fact that has been well known to most
of us computer savvy users long before it was proven in federal
court.

In fact, in many cases, it's not that Microsoft made the right
decisions so much as the competition consistently made the wrong
decisions.

That coming from Steve Ballmer's book?

Switching operating systems would be massively expensive and
require lots of coordination between consumers and programmers.
Maybe if everyone were desperate and had powerful political/media
help.

Well, right now, everyone is happy with Microsoft Windows, except
for a handful of whining geeks who want to change things. The
average business or home user, though, gets everything he needs
from Windows, and has no reason whatsoever to change.

But seriously.

Even if that were true, the easy explanation would be because they
know nothing else. Most don't and they still complain.








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


Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newssvr14.news.prodigy. com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prod igy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news .prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.co m!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.g iganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.gig anews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:48:08 -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, 01 Nov 2005 15:48:08 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: uruem11bko2quvmtf93cimu42h3nt0k86n 4ax.com
References: dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga ntpcm19s263p625pvldulfnoqogq29pn6i 4ax.com Xns9701304A0F01Efollydom 207.115.17.102 jijem1hbqmsujpbhvb088vg49olrsmr5rt 4ax.com Xns97013D3C8B15Ffollydom 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: 82
X-Trace: sv3-pU0lgioVkuUVd5cs86M6kdZ7Md3m3oFwqDzoI4lJ/skTOSLx4JEJtqk39RscnGWBUzJ4GIrXegetFJl!KqRGN/drvAWCfSoK0p1RB2uUEEbWhcUQC+CXgCo7DEz+R59iZkyWE4X2 GQ92rcjXzA==
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:225722 sci.electronics.repair:427361 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448782

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

...

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a
handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation',
no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else
in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old
IBM. What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM
into the deal?


Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the original
IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that Microsoft screwed
IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to non-IBM computers.

As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's
compliance.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on every prior
computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because you have
IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and a competing office
suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off the business scene they want
their competitor to give them preferred OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

In your opinion.

Deliberately crippling a company that is successful is never a
good idea, and historically has had either no effect or a negative
effect.

True, but irrelevant. Without quoted material, you are difficult to
follow sometimes.

Still wondering where you got that idea.

As I've explained, Microsoft builds operating systems, and a suite
of office-automation applications. And that's essentially it.
Almost all its revenue comes from these two product areas
(especially the latter).

Maybe, but the argument was Microsoft's business versus other
software publishers business.

Microsoft favors its own applications developers.

No doubt, but that's what companies are supposed to do. However,
the only applications it develops are Office applications.

But seriously.

And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade
version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its
Works suite.

Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office. Works is not worth
buying, and indeed MS gives it away sometimes.

You mean Microsoft bundles it with Windows.

Programmers choose the (monopoly) operating system. Consumers
choose applications (except for Office applications). There are
other monopolies, but they are minor in comparison to Windows and
Office.

So what? Who is losing here?

Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that
monopolies can be bad for our economy. Our system thrives on
competition. Monopolies thwart competition. That's why antitrust
laws were developed.

Our competitive system works great except when the company reaches a
point where it can stifle competition. Then its business becomes
contrary to our system and might need correction.

Not the programmers writing for Windows.

That's not what programmers say.

Not the consumers using it.

I've heard different.

Not Microsoft.

Of course not. At least not until they drag everybody down.

Not the
publishers of those other 249,998 Windows applications.

You keep saying that and and then dodging the question about whether
those thousands of other programs are very meaningful profit wise.

Where is the problem, exactly?

In front of your nose.

The basis would be to spur innovation.

How much innovation do you expect when companies know that their
intellectual property will be seized and placed in the public
domain if they become too successful?

I guess that stuff depends on your definition of "too successful".
I'm talking about Microsoft Corp., the owner of Windows, the
required monopoly operating system for personal computers.






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


Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.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, 01 Nov 2005 08:51:51 -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, 01 Nov 2005 15:51:50 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com
References: fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102 7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com Xns97013EF13E444follydom 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: 43
X-Trace: sv3-TI0x08Vk7o7WnbYzIVONo6OPTymBgIRwW0ywB4T0s1MkCwe8Sv twsEJFRxGpg7nj8IpOTEgudbuUAus!OW7y1h5ybqE9AJ1Ewzxy +u6NR4H/AdIpDzEDWgLDKVeKwntcAs11sXJ8VQXkQpnxNQ==
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:225723 sci.electronics.repair:427362 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448783

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

If you don't recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer desktop operating system market,
then your arguments are probably meaningless to most people.

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!n ewssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com 11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102 kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130852389 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:39:49 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:39:49 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: OP\MBX_ESZRMBUX[N[O _WH YR_B EXLLBWLOOAFQATJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS BP^]C RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW C[AFKBBQS E DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:39:49 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225712 sci.electronics.repair:427347 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448777


"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:31:15 GMT

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:
"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message

...
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

So?

There.

Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And
I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the
politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.

How did Microsoft prevent competition? As the end user had no
problems installing Lotus SmartSuite if they wanted to. So no
problems there. And MS Office is not free anyway, again no problems
there.

And there has been awhile now, Sun's OpenOffice which can be had for
free! Claims to open MS Office files and all. If it were any good,
it would wipe out MS Office off of the map for sure. But the truth
is, it ain't as good. Thus it still isn't a threat to MS.

You somehow believe MS stifles competition. While I believe just the
opposite. As at anytime, anybody can come along and actually do
something better than Microsoft. And often it does happen in niche
areas of Windows and it has made them (not MS) rich. This has been
great for competition. Because when something comes out better, MS
plays catch up to try to match or exceed their competition.

I actually believe Windows is the de facto desktop today because of
competition. As there were other competitors for a GUI on top of DOS
like GEM and GEOS. And they were doing well until Apple sued
Microsoft for the look and feel. And MS quickly improved Windows to
be as good and sometimes better than the competition. In this case,
in all of them (GEM, GEOS, and the Mac).

So don't tell me that Microsoft stifles competition. Because that
just ain't so! Although I would agree that Microsoft has enough
resources to usually come out on top. Maybe that is what you really
have a problem with.


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

John Doe writes:

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market.

Exactly how does Microsoft use Windows to "prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications,"

There is no easy answer. Here is a short course.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm







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


Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm01.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, 01 Nov 2005 08:53:34 -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, 01 Nov 2005 15:53:31 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: 790fm1dpt874j9mp9vnl6ac94jhtsuqe0g 4ax.com
References: fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com 11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102 kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
X-Trace: sv3-9df4FXsIIZDeSLDgFkBOdx6YXDCS9Y1sq8v3i/ofsuo2qlGPwwv19peBMujJFpsFvE6d0Cj2xG8Bhd0!Vfr1epS7 WPWOgqshtA58J5rqeva9avDw+N1xLqzV102PVuuyESuojUm6C1 2OKeodUg==
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:225724 sci.electronics.repair:427363 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448784

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:40:41 GMT

If you don't recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer desktop operating system market,
then your arguments are probably meaningless to most people.

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

Until you realize that Microsoft competitors are mostly controlled
by MBA morons, you will never understand! As to beat a computer
nerd, you need a better computer nerd. Something that Harvard will
never understand. And believe me, Bill Gates as a nerd isn't all
that great. In that respect he was lucky and he knows it. And the
only thing he is really good at is beating MBA types. But most nerds
has no problems in that area since those MBA types are generally are
just morons anyway. Maybe someday you'll learn the truth. Maybe
today or never, who knows?


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message
news:Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102... Date: Tue, 01 Nov
2005 13:01:30 GMT

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:
John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech
input and output.

There's very little demand for that,

I have a very great demand for that.

Are you visually impaired?

Nope. I am a exceptionally active personal computer user intimately
familiar with the required monopoly operating system.

and it requires a lot of horsepower.

My system, probably no better than a current store-bought
computer, is running it just fine, input and output.

I'm using a Celeron 400MHZ with 192MB of RAM under Windows 2000.
And it hits really hard here.

That's hardly current technology.

Maybe I should say a medium to high end current store-bought
computer. It probably also depends on whether the system is loaded
with many of the common bundled programs like Microsoft office and
Norton Utilities.

These are my specs, all homemade.
.... MSI K7N2 Delta2-LSR mainboard
.... Athlon XP 3000+
.... PC 3200, 1 GB RAM
.... Western Digital Raptor 37 GB 10,000 rpm HDD
.... external Creative Labs USB Live sound box

It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking
about text to speech, it's very understandable even though
probably not very good sounding to most people. If you're talking
about speech recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

Then again, some day that will be water under the bridge.

Hopefully.

Hopefully soon. The eventual outcome is clearly logical.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for
third-party drivers to be installed to support just about any
device. If someone writes drivers that allow a microphone and
speaker to be substituted for a keyboard and screen, Windows
will support it just fine.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Huh? Windows has text to speech built right into it.

The default voice, the only voice Microsoft currently provides is
called Mary. There are lots of better voices.

Narrator is intended to help people with low vision to setup
their own computers, or use other people's computers.
Narrator may not perform well with some applications. Most
users with visual impairments will need a utility with higher
functionality for daily use.

With enough experience, you begin to realize that what Microsoft
says is oftentimes mostly hype. That's a good example.

Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the
visual information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean
task, and requires skills and techniques that nobody actually
has right now.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

Screen reading is right there in at least Windows 2000/XP.

Try using it.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of
money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating
them than such customers bring in.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point. I
guess it depends on whether you believe the disabled people
should have equal access. But again, as I stated below, it also
has to do with the future and how easily we get there.

You know some people can push this disabled stuff too far. So
where do you draw the line? For example, real disabled people
still can't get good parking.

Again, experience suggests otherwise. The handicapped parking spaces
are often very useful to people with disabilities. As an in-line
skater, I definitely appreciate curbs that include ramps.

I pray that the implementation can be bad. Public transportation in
my city is a good example of bad. There are better ways, but they
haven't put enough thought into the design.

Yet zillions of dollars were forced from people's
pockets to build them. And one of the lawyers who did the forcing
and made probably zillions of dollars, didn't even have handicap
parking at his own office (this was on like 20/20 or something).
Go figure! It always comes down to it's about the money and who is
going to pay for it, now isn't it?

Sounds like you aren't willing to try.

So even though speech will be part of the future personal
computer (or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not.

It certainly will.

I'm not betting on that.

I'm using it.

As humans have a clear advantage over
computers when it comes to speech recognition. And I haven't even
heard of a workable theory in how computers could ever surpass
humans in this area.

Sounds like frustration. I hear you.

I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is
way superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's
what I'm doing, but current technology does require a good
speaking voice and the ability to properly configure sound input.

They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and
see, they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

Sorry, but you're just making excuses for your own inability to
use the current technology.

Huh? The current technology in this area is very frustrating.

Most computer things are very frustrating as I learned/learn them
for the first time. Attempting speech-recognition and failing was
worse than frustrating. It might even radically alter your opinion
about the subject. With Microsoft's vast resource dollars and
proficient management, Microsoft could help, investor willingness
aside. Bill Gates owns a large percentage of Microsoft anyway.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for
such hardware,

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

You need a microphone and speakers for one.

:)
I don't think anyone in the homebuilt PC group would consider that
an obstacle.

And I don't know how
anybody can reroute the keyboard to a mic and the screen output to
speakers without added drivers? So you're saying that Windows has
this ability built in? Gee and here I thought you were saying it
does not.

Because it's not programmed to do so.

nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

Not so. They would like to make Linux disappear and can't for
starters.

Microsoft has met serious resistance at the server operating system
market. One of the factors is probably that CEOs are typically more
intelligent than an average personal computer user and they don't
want Microsoft limiting their server operating system quality.

They probably would like IBM to fade away and can't.

Microsoft was able to force IBM not to use its own Lotus SmartSuite
office applications on Microsoft's own personal computer line. Then
IBM gave up the business of selling personal computers.

And I
bet they wished they didn't have to improve their products when
someone comes out with something better. And lastly, Microsoft has
no power over the end user! As the end user can choose what they
want to do with their money.

Only if he (or she) wants to live in a closet without being able to
run the vast majority of personal computer software.

At one point, Apple Computer almost went out of business simply
because Microsoft temporarily decided to discontinue making Office
for the Mac.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software
development simply because Microsoft can put them out of
business by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated
version of the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because
they don't see any money in it,

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

Can you elaborate?

It's a long story.

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced
better speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a
valid part of the operating system. And indeed, whether Microsoft
sees money in it is the question.

and they are not operating as charities.

The future is not a charity.

Well Bill Gates has given millions of dollars to charity all of
the time.

Bill Gates Jr. has more money than he or 10 generations could spend
in a lifetime. All of the millions Bill Gates has given to women and
race-based charities hasn't put a dance in his tens of billions in
personal wealth.

The market for such specialized hardware and software is too
small to allow the costs of development to be recovered in
sales.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating
system. Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any
copies. In this argument, you are very much aware of the fact
that costs of development must be recovered.

Are you aware that Microsoft does have disability features built
into Windows itself right now? And offers a web page for other
solutions between Windows for the disabled? How can you imply they
are not doing anything about it?

Offers a web page with links? That's hardly exciting.

I'm not saying they aren't doing anything about it, I am saying that
they are not very concerned. Microsoft used to publish a systemwide
macro recorder called Macro Recorder. It came with Windows 3.11.
According to Microsoft, one of its uses was to help the disabled.
Unfortunately, Macro Recorder went out the back door. The lack of
built-in scripting and speech are two areas where Microsoft clearly
proves to me that Microsoft is not really interested in enabling
users.




__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0




Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!n ewssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 193
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130858116 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:15:16 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:15:16 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: T[O]SYWDSRWUSQPYZBCBNWX RJ_XPDLMN GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB X^B_OCJLPZ ET_O[G\XSG E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_] A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:15:16 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225732 sci.electronics.repair:427369 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448789

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft
holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system
market?

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!n ewssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com 11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102 kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102 FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: TyT9f.4495$8W.3325 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130890547 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:15:47 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:15:47 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: T[O]SYWDSRWUSQPYZBCBNWX RJ_XPDLMN GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB X^B_OCJLPZ ET_O[G\XSG E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_] A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:15:47 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225781 sci.electronics.repair:427454 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448842


"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:40:41 GMT

If you don't recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer desktop operating system market,
then your arguments are probably meaningless to most people.

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

Until you realize that Microsoft competitors are mostly controlled
by MBA morons, you will never understand! As to beat a computer
nerd, you need a better computer nerd. Something that Harvard will
never understand. And believe me, Bill Gates as a nerd isn't all
that great. In that respect he was lucky and he knows it. And the
only thing he is really good at is beating MBA types. But most nerds
has no problems in that area since those MBA types are generally are
just morons anyway. Maybe someday you'll learn the truth. Maybe
today or never, who knows?


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

...

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a
handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business
reputation', no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and
nothing else in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and
'screwed' poor old IBM. What in the world do these folks think MS
used to 'force' IBM into the deal?


Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the
original IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that
Microsoft screwed IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to
non-IBM computers.

As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on every
prior computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because
you have IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and a
competing office suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off the
business scene they want their competitor to give them preferred
OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.



Microsoft refused to allow IBM a license to Windows, unless IBM
dropped its bundling of Lotus SmartSuite on IBM personal computers.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:27:07 GMT

So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft
holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system
market?

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

No you still don't get it! Microsoft is only a so-called monopoly by
default. But that isn't true either. As there are other OS available
for the personal computer as well. But the dumb MBAs think they can
outsmart Bill Gates and they fall like match sticks.

So let's say you or I had a business and all of our competitors were
nothing but morons! And it was nothing for us to outsmart them even
in our sleep. Some would call us a monopoly, now wouldn't they? Of
course they would.

But the truth is our competitors were just too stupid to compete.
This is exactly what Microsoft have found themselves in. And it
isn't their fault that their competitors are just morons. They just
are thanks to the likes of Harvard and the Harvard want to be's.

You just don't get it. A bunch of nerds get together and they start
kicking Microsoft's butt. Somehow someone gets the idea that they
need a MBA. Now Microsoft while before shaking in their boots (GEOS
is a perfect example), comes along and wipes them clean. Why don't
you get it?

I was in the business before Bill Gates' first program. I know
exactly how he thinks and I know how to beat him is just child's
play. But I sit here for all of these years and watch how his
competitors screw up royally every time. Boy if I was greedy, I
would have made a killing long ago. grin

Someday I hope you get it. Although unfortunately I believe you are
currently not even close yet. But there is still hope. grin


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
 

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard wrote:

...


What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a
handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business
reputation', no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and
nothing else in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and
'screwed' poor old IBM. What in the world do these folks think MS
used to 'force' IBM into the deal?


Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the
original IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that
Microsoft screwed IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to
non-IBM computers.


As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on every
prior computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because
you have IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and a
competing office suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off the
business scene they want their competitor to give them preferred
OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.


Microsoft refused to allow IBM a license to Windows, unless IBM
dropped its bundling of Lotus SmartSuite on IBM personal computers.

The 'license' you speak of is an OEM discount agreement and, in particular,
the one IBM wanted was 'like Compaq'. I.E. preferred OEM status while
simultaneously competing with MS in the O.S. and business suite market.

Anyone can buy retail and IBM considered it.

As I said, I'm not sure I'd like the idea either of giving my competitor a
discount on my products so they can make money on my products that they
then use to bolster their own competing products they're trying to put me
out of business with.

But you're repeating yourself.

The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
 

One year, Microsoft pumped $650 million into our judicial system.
That same system clearly settled that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the desktop operating system market.

From the federal district court of the United States.

"Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems."

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

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

There ain't no doubt about it.

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!n ewssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com 11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102 kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102 FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102 TyT9f.4495$8W.3325 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701BBB667D77follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 46
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: llU9f.4499$8W.2606 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130893777 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:09:37 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:09:37 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: TSU[ IONBZUKBUPY]ZHHO\TDFZ\ FXLM TDOCQDJ _ FNXACNVOPCWZBL[\YUWHANGYZEFNHFZPNLOBUNSS^_LGEVWEY\PHO YJSSWBBDT\PFD^ESBTXVCCMTD]JCJLE\_IJMFNRY]SWE[S[D_CNB__ZK^VGVCKHA[S COB^[ ZQSDFQ\BPMS DZVUKQTJL
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:09:37 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225791 sci.electronics.repair:427464 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448849


"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns9701BBB667D77follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:27:07 GMT

So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft
holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system
market?

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

No you still don't get it! Microsoft is only a so-called monopoly by
default. But that isn't true either. As there are other OS available
for the personal computer as well. But the dumb MBAs think they can
outsmart Bill Gates and they fall like match sticks.

So let's say you or I had a business and all of our competitors were
nothing but morons! And it was nothing for us to outsmart them even
in our sleep. Some would call us a monopoly, now wouldn't they? Of
course they would.

But the truth is our competitors were just too stupid to compete.
This is exactly what Microsoft have found themselves in. And it
isn't their fault that their competitors are just morons. They just
are thanks to the likes of Harvard and the Harvard want to be's.

You just don't get it. A bunch of nerds get together and they start
kicking Microsoft's butt. Somehow someone gets the idea that they
need a MBA. Now Microsoft while before shaking in their boots (GEOS
is a perfect example), comes along and wipes them clean. Why don't
you get it?

I was in the business before Bill Gates' first program. I know
exactly how he thinks and I know how to beat him is just child's
play. But I sit here for all of these years and watch how his
competitors screw up royally every time. Boy if I was greedy, I
would have made a killing long ago. grin

Someday I hope you get it. Although unfortunately I believe you are
currently not even close yet. But there is still hope. grin


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0