|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:
John Doe wrote: David Maynard nospam private.net wrote: John Doe wrote: David Maynard nospam private.net 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 You mean the license to resell Windows. Of course IBM isn't going to want to pay $50 more per computer than Compaq. while simultaneously competing with MS in the O.S. There was no competition in the desktop operating system market. and business suite market. Microsoft was able to prevent that by threatening no license to resell Windows. Anyone can buy retail and IBM considered it. That may be true but irrelevant. As I said, I'm not sure I'd like the idea either of giving my competitor a discount on my products so they can make money on my products that they then use to bolster their own competing products they're trying to put me out of business with. At the time, Windows was the required monopoly operating system. There was no competition in the desktop operating system market. But you're repeating yourself. Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the Intel-based personal computer operating system market? Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!e asynews.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: David Maynard nospam private.net Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:18:01 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: 11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: v429f.441$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 11mfu9hnkt97qd3 corp.supernews.com Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102 In-Reply-To: Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com Lines: 63 Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225793 sci.electronics.repair:427468 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448852 |
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 02:02:13 GMT 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: Oh please! I had lost faith in the system when victims mostly gets screwed and the accused gets off lightly. And that doesn't count either. The real truth is the one with the most bucks usually wins. Did anything ever change with Microsoft, no not really after the ruling. And even if you believe in the system, do you believe the judge and jury is going to understand anything about geeks and lines of code? One in a thousand might, but that is the bright side of things. It is as plain as day to me, that Microsoft appears as a monopoly because Microsoft's competitors are whinny cry baby morons! They can't program their way out of a wet paper bag! And because they are so bad, they blame not themselves, but because Microsoft did it to them. Judges and juries like hearing this. But they are totally clueless when it comes right down to Microsoft competitors are nothing more than just plain old clueless idiots. And that makes Microsoft guilty? I think not! Case in point. The court had ruled that McDonalds was at fault because hot coffee was hot. Yes the coffee was at 190 degrees like hot coffee should be. But the stupid lady was too dumb to know that hot coffee was hot. So McDonalds had to pay like 3.5 million dollars to this dumb ass lady. Yes I'm sorry she was a dumb ass, but I am not sorry enough for dumb asses to give them 3.5 million dollars or whatever it was. Now because of this, McDonalds now has a warning that hot coffee is hot. Are you getting any of this now, John? Maybe to solve Microsoft's so-called monopoly problem, maybe MS should add a warning that its competitors are nothing but morons. Yes that's the ticket. 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 nospam private.net wrote: John Doe wrote: David Maynard nospam private.net wrote: John Doe wrote: David Maynard nospam private.net 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 You mean the license to resell Windows. No. The issue is whether you get the discount. Of course IBM isn't going to want to pay $50 more per computer than Compaq. while simultaneously competing with MS in the O.S. There was no competition in the desktop operating system market. IBM was competing with OS/2. and business suite market. Microsoft was able to prevent that by threatening no license to resell Windows. Anyone can buy retail and IBM considered it. That may be true but irrelevant. It's perfectly relevant because it shows the only issue is a matter of the discount. 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. At the time, Windows was the required monopoly operating system. There was no competition in the desktop operating system market. IBM was competing with OS/2. And if they weren't then why the hell did they keep trying to sell it? But you're repeating yourself. Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the Intel-based personal computer operating system market? That's irrelevant to giving discounts to your competition. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
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. Read the stories about how Netscape destroyed itself. The company had incompetent management from day one. Its Navigator succeeded only because there were no competitors; as soon as there were, it failed. It's a great case study in truly bad management. That's because Microsoft owns the required operating system. Microsoft didn't always own the operating system. Even so, it managed to succeed. Others can do the same, but they must be at least as well managed as 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. That has nothing to do with applications. Borland hit the skids because of poor management. Netscape failed because of poor management, too. There are many examples. That coming from Steve Ballmer's book? It's something that an unbiased observer can scarcely ignore. Even if that were true, the easy explanation would be because they know nothing else. It is true, and they don't want to know anything else. What geeks fail to understand is that most people see computers as appliances--something they must use to accomplish some other task. Usually the task is much more interesting than the tool. They have no emotional attachment to their computers, or to the software running on their computers. They don't care about "choice," any more than they care about the colors available for the agitators in their washing machines. It doesn't matter to them. They use what's there, they get the job done, and they live the rest of their life, the life they have away from the computer. That's how the real world works. Nobody "suffers" from the current arrangement except a handful of geeks who hate Microsoft, and a handful of companies who are too incompetent to compete with Microsoft and try to replace legitimate competition with endless legal harassment. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: I doubt they would agree with you on that ;) That's why they still have barely 5% of the market. They had a huge head start and they blew it. Perhaps but it's not unusual for the 'engineer', or geek type, who often like to 'build the best', or so they believe, and then blame limited acceptance on the 'stupidity' of the buyer, or a market conspiracy. If they don't run the company then it's 'stupid management'. But 'best' includes more than just the technical. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it was Apple's closed box approach that was so much the 'mistake', after all, they all were at that time, as it was IBM's mishandling of the PC, which threw it open to a flood of clones, along with Microsoft providing the missing link of a competent O.S.. Although, if Microsoft hadn't someone else surely would have because that became too big a market to ignore. But Apple might have fared much better if the market had remained proprietary system vs proprietary system, as it had always been. A market leader completely loosing control over their product simply hadn't happened before. True. And IBM did plenty to earn the wrath. Most dominant market players eventually become partially corrupt, mainly because people join the company who are greedier, more ambitious, and less ethical as it grows larger. Eventually the kind-hearted engineers are overruled by the marketroids and salespeople, and the revolving door of upper management. "Kind hearted engineers?" hehe Well, there certainly are some but there are some real SOBs too ;) But I'm not quite as willing to blame it all on 'corruption' as I am on the complexities of large hierarchical organizations populated by imperfect human beings. You don't have to be 'corrupt' to screw up ;) On the other hand, a well established path to corporate doom is for the entrepreneur who started it to try running the whole she-bang as it grows beyond the ability of any one person to manage. Do you remember their MCA bus licensing plan for clone makers? All I recall of the MCA bus was that it went nowhere. You not only had to pay a license for every machine sold using it (fair enough) but you were required to retro pay a license fee for every clone you had already made since the PC came out. They out licensed themselves because with a plan that ridiculous no one took it so MCA was shut out instead of the other way around. They made a mistake that is often one of the first symptoms of a company in decline: they depended too much on their brand, and not enough on their products. While there was certainly some of that involved I think it's more complicated. From what I understand IBM held the BIOS proprietary and expected that to 'protect' the PC from copies but Award reverse engineered it and that was all she wrote. So, from IBM's perspective, all the prior PCs were technically a 'violation' of their proprietary rights. There are some serious flaws in that logic but I can see IBM convincing themselves of it. Does makes one wonder, though, why they didn't simply 'upgrade' the BIOS to the 'new and improved' V2.0 with new proprietary code, and stop issuing source, once they realized it had been breached but, who knows? Sure seems simple enough. But after IBM's debacle with issuing BIOS source one can surely see why Microsoft doesn't do it. Major market players eventually get lazy and greedy and think that just stamping their well-established brand on garbage or overpriced goods will make them sell. It often works for a short time, but then people wise up, and the game is over. This often happens after the best engineers have left or have been pushed aside by the marketroids and salesmen and MBAs. Again, I think it's more fundamental. I mean, a 'soaring success' is often started by a 'great idea' but markets change, products mature, competitors move in, so where does the next 'great idea' come from? It isn't as if they're a dime a dozen, you know ;) You can see it happening right now at Hewlett-Packard. The leading edge of the phenomenon has started to appear at Microsoft. What, in particular, do you have in mind? -- 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, but the argument was Microsoft's business versus other software publishers business. Microsoft does almost all its business in operating systems and its Office suite. It has very little competition in both domains. It does not and cannot compete in any of the other thousands of application domains for PCs in the world, and even if it tried, it would be up against a lot of well-entrenched competition. The concerns about monopoly are thus exaggerated and not always well placed. Microsoft will eventually self-destruct. The golden age of the company in terms of development was over a decade ago. Revenue trails development by some years but it is notable that the stock price of Microsoft is no longer on the rise. The company is increasingly concerned with maintaining the revenue stream and making money generally, and less and less concerned with actually doing business in the computer industry. All companies go through this, especially after their founders retire or after an IPO, and it is their eventual downfall. So those who hate Microsoft need only be patient. Although it probably won't help much, because people who need to hate other people always manage to find new targets for their hate when the old ones disappear. You mean Microsoft bundles it with Windows. Sometimes, yes. It's hard to make money on it as a separate product. It's not a very good office-automation suite. Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that monopolies can be bad for our economy. Not necessarily. A lot of public utilities are run as regulated monopolies, because that's the only practical way to provide certain goods and services. In the case of computer operating systems, the overwhelming dominance of one operating system provides standardization and stability that hugely increases the number of available applications and encourages development and innovation in application systems, because it provides a very large, guaranteed market for any application written to run with the majority operating system. If there were five equally popular operating systems running on PCs, there would essentially be five different universes of applications as well, none of them completely adequate to address all the needs of the entire market. A lot of people would have to have multiple PCs just to run all the applications they might need. Our system thrives on competition. Some parts do, some parts don't. We don't have competition for the military. We don't have competition for first-class mail. In any given area there is virtually no competition for telephone service. Sometimes monopolies serve society better. Usually they have to be heavily regulated if they are turned over to private concerns in order to prevent abuse, though. That's not what programmers say. Programmers don't always know what they are talking about. I've heard different. From whom? Not ordinary consumers. You keep saying that and and then dodging the question about whether those thousands of other programs are very meaningful profit wise. They are extremely meaningful to the companies that produce them. Without a single dominant platform for applications, many applications would never see the light of day, because there simply would not be enough of a market to recover their costs of development. The larger the market, the easier it is to make money developing an application for that market. You see far more applications for Windows, and far more specialized and obscure applicatons for Windows, than you do for, say, the Mac, precisely because of this phenomenon. A lot of unusual applications that you can get for Windows will never exist on the Mac, because the market for the Mac is too small to cover the cost of developing (or even porting) the application. 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. Why just Microsoft? Lots of companies are just as successful as Microsoft. What property do you propose to seize from them? Why aren't you complaining about Intel, for example? -- 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:
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. His arguments seem a lot more objective and less emotional than most that one hears on USENET. All large companies tend to commit certain abuses at some point in their lifecycles, but contrary to widely held misconceptions, in the greater scheme of things their abuses rarely make much of a dent in their success or anyone else's failure. In order to do such things to begin with, they need to have a dominant position, and if they have a dominant position, doing bad things doesn't make it much more dominant. And if they are poorly managed overall, they will go down with or without abuses, as unethical practices alone will not save a company that is fundamentally incompetently managed. This has been proven again and again historically. -- 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:
So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? He is demonstrating that he understands how the market really works. -- 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?]
BillW50 writes:
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. Yes, and that's what many companies competiting with Microsoft try to do. They can't compete in business, so they try to attack in the courtroom. 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. Yes. Of course, sooner or later, someone smarter will come along, and then Microsoft will start its downward slide. That could be tomorrow, or forty years from now. Some people talk about Google, but I'm not convinced that Google is any kind of threat right now. Two different businesses. -- 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:
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. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it so. Court decisions don't establish reality, and they are independent of market and business forces. -- 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:
There is no easy answer. Here is a short course. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm Summarize the salient points. You must have developed your opinion based on something; describe what it was. -- 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 think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are frustrated with the current technology. No, most people aren't interested because they aren't geeks, period. They have lives outside of computers. They care no more about their computers than they care about their telephones or toasters. They use computers to accomplish some specific task, and then they are done. Their are neither frustrated nor pleased by computers--they are indifferent. Given your frustration with the current technology. I'm not frustrated with current technology. It all seems to work very well. Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future easier access to everyone. Non-disabled people don't need easier access. Who should pay for special accommodation of the disabled, and how much should they pay, and which disabled people should get which proportion of the money? There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are turned off by the current technology. Nobody is clamoring for speech recognition. Most people don't use computers that much and don't care. They are no more interested in speech for their PC than they are in speech for their DVD players. Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to steal market share. Which things? 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. Microsoft already provides more accommodation of the disabled than any other OS publisher. How much more do you want it to do? But not within personal computing. Within personal computing as well. But there are many types of disabilities, and they all deserve consideration, in proportion to the number of people afflicted with them. It's a question of balance. For example, money spent to accommodate wheelchairs exceeds all other expenditures on most other, more common disabilities combined, which is a great example of enormous _imbalance_. I don't advocate that for computers or for anything else. 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. Uh, Microsoft is more interested in these things than any other major software publisher. I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers. So you are doing it with special hardware, namely, a USB microphone and speakers. 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. Netscape crashed and burned all on its own. It did that so quickly that it's hard to imagine anything that Microsoft could have done that would have significantly accelerated the crash. Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office applications. That's easy living. Do you think so? Try it. Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate, forward-looking business. I don't believe any company that makes such a claim. Microsoft is no worse than anyone else, however. Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system and that is where speech belongs. Because you say so? -- 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's hardly current technology. If you're going to talk about making computers more accessible, you're going to have to offer solutions that don't require the latest, fastest, most expensive hardware available. A lot of people are running machines much slower than 400 MHz, and they cannot afford to buy new hardware. What do you suggest for them? Maybe I should say a medium to high end current store-bought computer. Why can't people use the computers they already have? It probably also depends on whether the system is loaded with many of the common bundled programs like Microsoft office and Norton Utilities. Not really. Most of these aren't running unless the user starts them. 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 Bigger and faster than 99.99% of all computers in the world. Hardly representative. The default voice, the only voice Microsoft currently provides is called Mary. There are lots of better voices. The only voice I see is Sam. With enough experience, you begin to realize that what Microsoft says is oftentimes mostly hype. That's a good example. What built-in text-to-speech function is available on Linux? What about the Mac? What about OS/2? Try using it. I did. Works well enough to get by. If someone wants a deluxe system, he can go out and buy one (after all, according to you, he can afford a top-of-the-line PC). Because it's not programmed to do so. Programming it to do so would be prohibitively expensive. 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. No, the real reason is that Microsoft servers are technically somewhat inferior to UNIX servers for most purposes. It has nothing to do with intelligence or product quality. Windows servers are of excellent quality, but they are more poorly suited to server roles than the simpler UNIX and Linux operating systems are, in most cases. Also, Windows is much more expensive, which makes a difference especially when one is purchasing thousands of licenses at a time. Only if he (or she) wants to live in a closet without being able to run the vast majority of personal computer software. So what do you suggest? Should application developers be prohibited from writing software for Windows and forced to develop software for the current underdog operating systems? At one point, Apple Computer almost went out of business simply because Microsoft temporarily decided to discontinue making Office for the Mac. Apple should have gone out of business long ago, based on its incompetence alone. It clings to life because it has a very loyal customer base. It's a long story. Summarize it, then. Bill Gates Jr. has more money than he or 10 generations could spend in a lifetime. Not true. I could spend it all in a year. But he gives a lot of his money away. 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. He has given away billions, not millions, and it has made a dent. I'm not saying they aren't doing anything about it, I am saying that they are not very concerned. They are more concerned than they need to be. They could just ignore it. 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. There are serious security issues with such a facility, and I doubt that it was used very much, even by the disabled. 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. Scripting is a vector for viruses. System-wide scripting would be a security nightmare. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes: I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are frustrated with the current technology. No, most people aren't interested because they aren't geeks, period. They have lives outside of computers. They care no more about their computers than they care about their telephones or toasters. They use computers to accomplish some specific task, and then they are done. Their are neither frustrated nor pleased by computers--they are indifferent. Given your frustration with the current technology. I'm not frustrated with current technology. It all seems to work very well. Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future easier access to everyone. Non-disabled people don't need easier access. Who should pay for special accommodation of the disabled, and how much should they pay, and which disabled people should get which proportion of the money? There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are turned off by the current technology. Nobody is clamoring for speech recognition. Most people don't use computers that much and don't care. They are no more interested in speech for their PC than they are in speech for their DVD players. Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to steal market share. Which things? 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. Microsoft already provides more accommodation of the disabled than any other OS publisher. How much more do you want it to do? But not within personal computing. Within personal computing as well. But there are many types of disabilities, and they all deserve consideration, in proportion to the number of people afflicted with them. It's a question of balance. For example, money spent to accommodate wheelchairs exceeds all other expenditures on most other, more common disabilities combined, which is a great example of enormous _imbalance_. I don't advocate that for computers or for anything else. 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. Uh, Microsoft is more interested in these things than any other major software publisher. I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers. So you are doing it with special hardware, namely, a USB microphone and speakers. 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. Netscape crashed and burned all on its own. It did that so quickly that it's hard to imagine anything that Microsoft could have done that would have significantly accelerated the crash. Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office applications. That's easy living. Do you think so? Try it. Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate, forward-looking business. I don't believe any company that makes such a claim. Microsoft is no worse than anyone else, however. Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system and that is where speech belongs. Because you say so? I'm really enjoying your messages because it's so refreshing to hear rational sanity on USENET. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard writes:
Perhaps but it's not unusual for the 'engineer', or geek type, who often like to 'build the best', or so they believe, and then blame limited acceptance on the 'stupidity' of the buyer, or a market conspiracy. The engineer is probably right, in a sense, but that won't pay the bills. Apple has come up with many interesting innovations, but it is rather blind in its belief that its ideas are the _best_ ideas, and it's also very obstinate in not backing down on its principles. I suppose that's commendable, in a way, but it doesn't bring in business. If I truly believed Apple to be the best, I might invest in it, but although Apple is distinctive, I'm not at all convinced that it's the best, so paying a price premium for it (and spending eternity under Apple's thumb for both the hardware and the OS) isn't justified. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it was Apple's closed box approach that was so much the 'mistake', after all, they all were at that time, as it was IBM's mishandling of the PC, which threw it open to a flood of clones, along with Microsoft providing the missing link of a competent O.S.. Although, if Microsoft hadn't someone else surely would have because that became too big a market to ignore. But Apple might have fared much better if the market had remained proprietary system vs proprietary system, as it had always been. As I recall, I skipped Apple just because it was far too expensive. I liked the concepts and the look and feel and so on, but not enough to pay such a severe price premium. Also, at work we used PCs from the beginning for everything except secretarial workstations, because they could easily be customized to work with our mainframes, whereas with Macs, there was either the Apple way or the highway. But I'm not quite as willing to blame it all on 'corruption' as I am on the complexities of large hierarchical organizations populated by imperfect human beings. You don't have to be 'corrupt' to screw up ;) Point taken. I guess it's easy to find ten smart people, but much more difficult to find 40,000 smart people. Eventually, you get a lot of stupid people in the company. On the other hand, a well established path to corporate doom is for the entrepreneur who started it to try running the whole she-bang as it grows beyond the ability of any one person to manage. Yes, but conversely, the beginning of the end for many companies is marked by the departure of the founder(s). Disney, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, IBM ... the list goes on and on. Notice that Microsoft has changed since Bill Gates left. But after IBM's debacle with issuing BIOS source one can surely see why Microsoft doesn't do it. IBM had a history of publishing source, which was the norm at one time for mainframes. Microsoft never had any exposure to that. Again, I think it's more fundamental. I mean, a 'soaring success' is often started by a 'great idea' but markets change, products mature, competitors move in, so where does the next 'great idea' come from? It isn't as if they're a dime a dozen, you know ;) If the first great idea was pure luck, that's true. But if it was the product of a really smart group of people, they should be able to come up with other great ideas. What, in particular, do you have in mind? Since Bill Gates assumed a background role, Microsoft has shown distinctly less innovation and much more bottom-line-style management. Steve Ballmer is a businessman rather than a geek, but he has no prior experience, and now he's in charge of a multi-zillion dollar company. Inevitably, mistakes are made, and eventually too many mistakes will be made and the company will being its downward slide. Like so many big companies, Microsoft will commit suicide; it won't be killed by the competition. -- 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?]
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-11-01, Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being 'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws. That is my impression, also. Worse yet, the "Apple way" isn't necessarily the best way from a technical standpoint--it's just Apple's way. If everything they did was unquestionably superior to everyone else's way of doing things, they might have something, but that's not the case. And even if it were, most people don't care much about computers, and given a choice between a $500 machine that gets the job done and a $1500 machine that is "technically superior," they'll buy the $500 machine. Or they'll buy a $1500 "PC" that's probably technically superior to the apple. Apple do use quality parts in their machines, but quality PC parts, and complete systems, are available too. 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. 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. ??? back in 92 I was dissapointed by the lack of quality in microsoft products proactically everything they did seemed incomplete. In 93 when the first "distribution" of linux came out I scored a copy of a friend ("Soft Landing System" - 20 5.25" floppies) and installed it on my 4 meg 25Mhz 386DX I could compile the kernel, format a floppy, play tetris for terminals, and download stuff using kermit (or a modified version of DSZRZ) all at once. Bye. Jasen |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: John Doe writes: I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are frustrated with the current technology. No, most people aren't interested because they aren't geeks, period. They have lives outside of computers. They care no more about their computers than they care about their telephones or toasters. They use computers to accomplish some specific task, and then they are done. Their are neither frustrated nor pleased by computers--they are indifferent. Given your frustration with the current technology. I'm not frustrated with current technology. It all seems to work very well. Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future easier access to everyone. Non-disabled people don't need easier access. Who should pay for special accommodation of the disabled, and how much should they pay, and which disabled people should get which proportion of the money? There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are turned off by the current technology. Nobody is clamoring for speech recognition. Most people don't use computers that much and don't care. They are no more interested in speech for their PC than they are in speech for their DVD players. Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to steal market share. Which things? 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. Microsoft already provides more accommodation of the disabled than any other OS publisher. How much more do you want it to do? But not within personal computing. Within personal computing as well. But there are many types of disabilities, and they all deserve consideration, in proportion to the number of people afflicted with them. It's a question of balance. For example, money spent to accommodate wheelchairs exceeds all other expenditures on most other, more common disabilities combined, which is a great example of enormous _imbalance_. I don't advocate that for computers or for anything else. 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. Uh, Microsoft is more interested in these things than any other major software publisher. I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers. So you are doing it with special hardware, namely, a USB microphone and speakers. 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. Netscape crashed and burned all on its own. It did that so quickly that it's hard to imagine anything that Microsoft could have done that would have significantly accelerated the crash. Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office applications. That's easy living. Do you think so? Try it. Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate, forward-looking business. I don't believe any company that makes such a claim. Microsoft is no worse than anyone else, however. Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system and that is where speech belongs. Because you say so? I'm really enjoying your messages because it's so refreshing to hear rational sanity on USENET. Thay makes two of us at least. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... John Doe writes: That's hardly current technology. If you're going to talk about making computers more accessible, you're going to have to offer solutions that don't require the latest, fastest, most expensive hardware available. A lot of people are running machines much slower than 400 MHz, and they cannot afford to buy new hardware. What do you suggest for them? Maybe I should say a medium to high end current store-bought computer. Why can't people use the computers they already have? It probably also depends on whether the system is loaded with many of the common bundled programs like Microsoft office and Norton Utilities. Not really. Most of these aren't running unless the user starts them. 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 Bigger and faster than 99.99% of all computers in the world. Hardly representative. The default voice, the only voice Microsoft currently provides is called Mary. There are lots of better voices. The only voice I see is Sam. With enough experience, you begin to realize that what Microsoft says is oftentimes mostly hype. That's a good example. What built-in text-to-speech function is available on Linux? What about the Mac? What about OS/2? Try using it. I did. Works well enough to get by. If someone wants a deluxe system, he can go out and buy one (after all, according to you, he can afford a top-of-the-line PC). Because it's not programmed to do so. Programming it to do so would be prohibitively expensive. 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. No, the real reason is that Microsoft servers are technically somewhat inferior to UNIX servers for most purposes. It has nothing to do with intelligence or product quality. Windows servers are of excellent quality, but they are more poorly suited to server roles than the simpler UNIX and Linux operating systems are, in most cases. Also, Windows is much more expensive, which makes a difference especially when one is purchasing thousands of licenses at a time. Only if he (or she) wants to live in a closet without being able to run the vast majority of personal computer software. So what do you suggest? Should application developers be prohibited from writing software for Windows and forced to develop software for the current underdog operating systems? At one point, Apple Computer almost went out of business simply because Microsoft temporarily decided to discontinue making Office for the Mac. Apple should have gone out of business long ago, based on its incompetence alone. It clings to life because it has a very loyal customer base. It's a long story. Summarize it, then. Bill Gates Jr. has more money than he or 10 generations could spend in a lifetime. At last. I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the subject of Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical Microsoft bashers always seem to reach that point in their arguments. This has been a very informative thread and I wish to congratulate the other posters on their self restraint and knowledge of the facts. PWY Not true. I could spend it all in a year. But he gives a lot of his money away. 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. He has given away billions, not millions, and it has made a dent. I'm not saying they aren't doing anything about it, I am saying that they are not very concerned. They are more concerned than they need to be. They could just ignore it. 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. There are serious security issues with such a facility, and I doubt that it was used very much, even by the disabled. 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. Scripting is a vector for viruses. System-wide scripting would be a security nightmare. -- 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?]
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: John Doe writes: I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are frustrated with the current technology. No, most people aren't interested because they aren't geeks, period. They have lives outside of computers. They care no more about their computers than they care about their telephones or toasters. They use computers to accomplish some specific task, and then they are done. Their are neither frustrated nor pleased by computers--they are indifferent. Given your frustration with the current technology. I'm not frustrated with current technology. It all seems to work very well. Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future easier access to everyone. Non-disabled people don't need easier access. Who should pay for special accommodation of the disabled, and how much should they pay, and which disabled people should get which proportion of the money? There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are turned off by the current technology. Nobody is clamoring for speech recognition. Most people don't use computers that much and don't care. They are no more interested in speech for their PC than they are in speech for their DVD players. Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to steal market share. Which things? 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. Microsoft already provides more accommodation of the disabled than any other OS publisher. How much more do you want it to do? But not within personal computing. Within personal computing as well. But there are many types of disabilities, and they all deserve consideration, in proportion to the number of people afflicted with them. It's a question of balance. For example, money spent to accommodate wheelchairs exceeds all other expenditures on most other, more common disabilities combined, which is a great example of enormous _imbalance_. I don't advocate that for computers or for anything else. 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. Uh, Microsoft is more interested in these things than any other major software publisher. I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers. So you are doing it with special hardware, namely, a USB microphone and speakers. 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. Netscape crashed and burned all on its own. It did that so quickly that it's hard to imagine anything that Microsoft could have done that would have significantly accelerated the crash. Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office applications. That's easy living. Do you think so? Try it. Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate, forward-looking business. I don't believe any company that makes such a claim. Microsoft is no worse than anyone else, however. Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system and that is where speech belongs. Because you say so? I'm really enjoying your messages because it's so refreshing to hear rational sanity on USENET. Damn right David. I have enjoyed this thread more than any for awhile.......:-). I have no need to add anything...... Ed |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:
John Doe writes: Maybe, but the argument was Microsoft's business versus other software publishers business. Microsoft does almost all its business in operating systems and its Office suite. It has very little competition in both domains. It does not and cannot compete in any of the other thousands of application domains for PCs in the world, and even if it tried, it would be up against a lot of well-entrenched competition. The concerns about monopoly are thus exaggerated and not always well placed. That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape Navigator. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html Microsoft will eventually self-destruct. Just like IBM self-destructed. Just like Ford Motor Co. self-destructed. Just like Standard Oil self-destructed (actually had serious antitrust problems). Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the personal computer software market. Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away. So those who hate Microsoft need only be patient. A Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of the other capable software developers here in the United States. Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies. If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of the facts. Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that monopolies can be bad for our economy. Not necessarily. A lot of public utilities are run as regulated monopolies, And in fact, there's very little difference. Our system thrives on competition. Some parts do, some parts don't. What part of "competition" don't you understand? We don't have competition for the military. lol Sometimes monopolies serve society better. Usually they have to be heavily regulated if they are turned over to private concerns in order to prevent abuse, though. That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble. Then George Bush Jr. came along, and his might-makes-right justice system let up on correcting Microsoft. Snipped silliness I've heard different. From whom? Not ordinary consumers. I guess you haven't interacted with consumers. You keep saying that and and then dodging the question about whether those thousands of other programs are very meaningful profit wise. They are extremely meaningful to the companies that produce them. Without a single dominant platform for applications, I have plainly stated at least once already that multiple platforms might not be a good idea. 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. Why just Microsoft? Lots of companies are just as successful as Microsoft. What property do you propose to seize from them? I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively bludgeons another person to death. I could not care less whether you legally acquired and own that baseball bat. What part of "justice" don't you understand? Why aren't you complaining about Intel, for example? Because I'm using AMD very well. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:00:50 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:00:48 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com References: 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 e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com Xns9701B2F457861follydom 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: 94 X-Trace: sv3-CuP+A378gpwxrNhKwrgvEp9PpPJQItqoA7wppK/2pKCqoCK+Fqvrztw+37NRcfMLc1E+dNFyyLSxQa2!4/B/1pCSzanE1HMsrxXBpPyw43dH2uCBkSrvha21OsLL5qxVX+UPN2 sZcMOOfQZY8w== 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:225823 sci.electronics.repair:427524 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448868 |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
I didn't have to wait for the system to tell me that Microsoft owns
personal computer software. I provided that proof for your benefit. Obviously you have some very strange views about Microsoft's dominance. "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote: Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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 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 llU9f.4499$8W.2606 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701C504D5F55follydom 207.115.17.102 Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Lines: 59 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: keW9f.4522$8W.3043 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130901520 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:18:40 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:18:40 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: TSU[ I_AOXSMBPPYHZOZOUDBUSXB DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIEL_NTKAH_[JTXDX_KI\VB]JBVMS^YT_G[CZVWAOS\DHFWEH] KGXYHB\_CMDSFABP^J[AHHRKARLE_JDBLJ\XA[JRMEI]MGJSPB\Y]^KG\ S^ VQKI_Q[G _ACSARASDEFLBJ]S\GFNTUAVBL Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:18:40 GMT Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225804 sci.electronics.repair:427494 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448862 "John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns9701C504D5F55follydom 207.115.17.102... Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:02:13 GMT 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: Oh please! I had lost faith in the system when victims mostly gets screwed and the accused gets off lightly. And that doesn't count either. The real truth is the one with the most bucks usually wins. Did anything ever change with Microsoft, no not really after the ruling. And even if you believe in the system, do you believe the judge and jury is going to understand anything about geeks and lines of code? One in a thousand might, but that is the bright side of things. It is as plain as day to me, that Microsoft appears as a monopoly because Microsoft's competitors are whinny cry baby morons! They can't program their way out of a wet paper bag! And because they are so bad, they blame not themselves, but because Microsoft did it to them. Judges and juries like hearing this. But they are totally clueless when it comes right down to Microsoft competitors are nothing more than just plain old clueless idiots. And that makes Microsoft guilty? I think not! Case in point. The court had ruled that McDonalds was at fault because hot coffee was hot. Yes the coffee was at 190 degrees like hot coffee should be. But the stupid lady was too dumb to know that hot coffee was hot. So McDonalds had to pay like 3.5 million dollars to this dumb ass lady. Yes I'm sorry she was a dumb ass, but I am not sorry enough for dumb asses to give them 3.5 million dollars or whatever it was. Now because of this, McDonalds now has a warning that hot coffee is hot. Are you getting any of this now, John? Maybe to solve Microsoft's so-called monopoly problem, maybe MS should add a warning that its competitors are nothing but morons. Yes that's the ticket. 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?]
Are you saying that you don't recognize/understand that Windows is
the monopoly operating system on personal computers? Most computer savvy users knew that long before it was concretely decided in our federal courts. Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews .com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.c om!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:07:53 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:07:50 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: vd0hm15gij5jj0gs0eljoseqmbkckc92oo 4ax.com References: 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 llU9f.4499$8W.2606 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701C504D5F55follydom 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: 25 X-Trace: sv3-awo4YH2hKFBv8O7R+HU8CLswKjwIwl7N2R1lLfrJmVt1BYOUQL/+XFGtm+ge3FdKgXTski4NrQWU01e!SCFdvyK5wUVoXL3e7eaho ph7cZ4SqNAx4xQIJCO7iaWIqDxDYUMHgSh/9Li4Cxzv6g== 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:225827 sci.electronics.repair:427528 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448872 John Doe writes: 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. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it so. Court decisions don't establish reality, and they are independent of market and business forces. -- 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?]
No, he is actually claiming that Microsoft does not hold monopoly
power through windows. Are you agreeing with that trollish idea? Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews .com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:04:44 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:04:41 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: g80hm1dek3o20r9ctl4q5tfa2veubpuk04 4ax.com References: 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 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 10 X-Trace: sv3-jKixljC9rIpxJG4wzxOBlzSA+hQS3s0rMKGJTzZ/EB1ynBRWaim0kfngOvc2hNHSOsy+IJEJntfPdle!ChVQrWYRLJ 33ZKSoFC00dV6so4UauqHx8Tz4nCMEsUoVFqzkekj3spDBdj2R zcPT3g== 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:225825 sci.electronics.repair:427526 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448870 John Doe writes: So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? He is demonstrating that he understands how the market really works. -- 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?]
Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the
desktop operating system market? Or are you just a troll? Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:03:52 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:03:47 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: q10hm1tq1pjdm20re41ubr5igj0n5dsvgs 4ax.com References: 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 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 X-Trace: sv3-rOSThzfXA2+AJdlDDjk+mkuzUHVMenG90O1atE9ZBnKvONgLcd i9p+x4WkOqOc1FdT+E4Y6v4m1OZhc!6SVlPI++tuJgv646yJVI GCCsNa820dKZgw0S07HczL6Qlo7Q8B1Oi+DWBu6uMaP0bg== 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:225824 sci.electronics.repair:427525 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448869 John Doe writes: 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. His arguments seem a lot more objective and less emotional than most that one hears on USENET. All large companies tend to commit certain abuses at some point in their lifecycles, but contrary to widely held misconceptions, in the greater scheme of things their abuses rarely make much of a dent in their success or anyone else's failure. In order to do such things to begin with, they need to have a dominant position, and if they have a dominant position, doing bad things doesn't make it much more dominant. And if they are poorly managed overall, they will go down with or without abuses, as unethical practices alone will not save a company that is fundamentally incompetently managed. This has been proven again and again historically. -- 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?]
The whole document is full of salient points.
Do you really believe that Microsoft does not hold monopoly power over the desktop operating system market? Or are you just a troll. Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews .com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:10:00 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:09:57 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: 5i0hm190sdoei4ldh7vvu3n0ahusls9tcf 4ax.com References: 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 790fm1dpt874j9mp9vnl6ac94jhtsuqe0g 4ax.com Xns9701B454BB80Ffollydom 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: 10 X-Trace: sv3-ZtCvSeT3zrSgiYbfHSn9cnL8kjJEPJOB9RKHRFSuBKCgY1xDLX 2zFxCg+6W7Ov8IEl9exQegSUaqdnu!bbhcuJv80Qp6l5ETtbVz p1CYE2uN1WeYPHEYzYC85X+yPBcCGXZbh8Ajf/fH8NNVJg== 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:225829 sci.electronics.repair:427529 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448873 John Doe writes: There is no easy answer. Here is a short course. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm Summarize the salient points. You must have developed your opinion based on something; describe what it was. -- 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?]
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:
John Doe wrote: .... IBM was competing with OS/2. And if they weren't then why the hell did they keep trying to sell it? The findings of fact explain what you need to know. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html It's good reading. Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the Intel-based personal computer operating system market? That's irrelevant to giving discounts to your competition. You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us knew long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds monopoly power, you might endanger your business status with Microsoft. If you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power, then you lump yourself in with the few remaining zealots who defend Microsoft. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other? Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com! newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy .com!prodigy.com! newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!logbridge.u oregon.edu! newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberk eley!sn-xit-02!sn- xit-11!sn-xit-05!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for- From: David Maynard nospam private.net Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc- homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:31:12 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: 11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: 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 11mfu9hnkt97qd3 corp.supernews.com Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102 In-Reply-To: Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com Lines: 121 Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225811 sci.electronics.repair:427507 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448863 |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
This troll is whining about Bill Gates bashing. But in fact, his
side entered the argument. Message-ID: 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com "PWY" pyork22 *mail.com wrote: Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news-east.rr.com!news-feed-01.tampabay.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-post.tampabay.rr.com!twister.southeast.rr.com.POST ED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "PWY" pyork22 *mail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt References: dxb9f.36934$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 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Lines: 141 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Message-ID: 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:26:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.190.19.87 X-Complaints-To: abuse rr.com X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1130945212 65.190.19.87 (Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:26:52 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:26:52 EST Organization: RoadRunner - Triad Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225843 sci.electronics.repair:427557 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448885 "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic gmail.com wrote in message news:8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com... John Doe writes: That's hardly current technology. If you're going to talk about making computers more accessible, you're going to have to offer solutions that don't require the latest, fastest, most expensive hardware available. A lot of people are running machines much slower than 400 MHz, and they cannot afford to buy new hardware. What do you suggest for them? Maybe I should say a medium to high end current store-bought computer. Why can't people use the computers they already have? It probably also depends on whether the system is loaded with many of the common bundled programs like Microsoft office and Norton Utilities. Not really. Most of these aren't running unless the user starts them. 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 Bigger and faster than 99.99% of all computers in the world. Hardly representative. The default voice, the only voice Microsoft currently provides is called Mary. There are lots of better voices. The only voice I see is Sam. With enough experience, you begin to realize that what Microsoft says is oftentimes mostly hype. That's a good example. What built-in text-to-speech function is available on Linux? What about the Mac? What about OS/2? Try using it. I did. Works well enough to get by. If someone wants a deluxe system, he can go out and buy one (after all, according to you, he can afford a top-of-the-line PC). Because it's not programmed to do so. Programming it to do so would be prohibitively expensive. 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. No, the real reason is that Microsoft servers are technically somewhat inferior to UNIX servers for most purposes. It has nothing to do with intelligence or product quality. Windows servers are of excellent quality, but they are more poorly suited to server roles than the simpler UNIX and Linux operating systems are, in most cases. Also, Windows is much more expensive, which makes a difference especially when one is purchasing thousands of licenses at a time. Only if he (or she) wants to live in a closet without being able to run the vast majority of personal computer software. So what do you suggest? Should application developers be prohibited from writing software for Windows and forced to develop software for the current underdog operating systems? At one point, Apple Computer almost went out of business simply because Microsoft temporarily decided to discontinue making Office for the Mac. Apple should have gone out of business long ago, based on its incompetence alone. It clings to life because it has a very loyal customer base. It's a long story. Summarize it, then. Bill Gates Jr. has more money than he or 10 generations could spend in a lifetime. At last. I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the subject of Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical Microsoft bashers always seem to reach that point in their arguments. This has been a very informative thread and I wish to congratulate the other posters on their self restraint and knowledge of the facts. PWY Not true. I could spend it all in a year. But he gives a lot of his money away. 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. He has given away billions, not millions, and it has made a dent. I'm not saying they aren't doing anything about it, I am saying that they are not very concerned. They are more concerned than they need to be. They could just ignore it. 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. There are serious security issues with such a facility, and I doubt that it was used very much, even by the disabled. 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. Scripting is a vector for viruses. System-wide scripting would be a security nightmare. -- 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?]
Interesting take on why computer clocks can't keep time.
Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies. What?!! Microsoft is a capitalist's wet dream. Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that monopolies can be bad for our economy. 25 different OS's and nobody being able to share files or communicate would be better for the economy? I wonder what a program like Photoshop would cost if Adobe had to write 15 different version so it could run on every possible OS. I wonder if Photoshop would even exist in a world with that many different OS's. Fact is, Microsoft is an example of what can be achieved via Capitalism. Do you really think that a company of this magnitude would have ever emerged out of the Soviet union or any other Communist country..? You don't have to like Microsoft but calling it Communism is just silly. "John Doe" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: John Doe writes: Maybe, but the argument was Microsoft's business versus other software publishers business. Microsoft does almost all its business in operating systems and its Office suite. It has very little competition in both domains. It does not and cannot compete in any of the other thousands of application domains for PCs in the world, and even if it tried, it would be up against a lot of well-entrenched competition. The concerns about monopoly are thus exaggerated and not always well placed. That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape Navigator. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html Microsoft will eventually self-destruct. Just like IBM self-destructed. Just like Ford Motor Co. self-destructed. Just like Standard Oil self-destructed (actually had serious antitrust problems). Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the personal computer software market. Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away. So those who hate Microsoft need only be patient. A Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of the other capable software developers here in the United States. Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies. If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of the facts. Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that monopolies can be bad for our economy. Not necessarily. A lot of public utilities are run as regulated monopolies, And in fact, there's very little difference. Our system thrives on competition. Some parts do, some parts don't. What part of "competition" don't you understand? We don't have competition for the military. lol Sometimes monopolies serve society better. Usually they have to be heavily regulated if they are turned over to private concerns in order to prevent abuse, though. That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble. Then George Bush Jr. came along, and his might-makes-right justice system let up on correcting Microsoft. Snipped silliness I've heard different. From whom? Not ordinary consumers. I guess you haven't interacted with consumers. You keep saying that and and then dodging the question about whether those thousands of other programs are very meaningful profit wise. They are extremely meaningful to the companies that produce them. Without a single dominant platform for applications, I have plainly stated at least once already that multiple platforms might not be a good idea. 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. Why just Microsoft? Lots of companies are just as successful as Microsoft. What property do you propose to seize from them? I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively bludgeons another person to death. I could not care less whether you legally acquired and own that baseball bat. What part of "justice" don't you understand? Why aren't you complaining about Intel, for example? Because I'm using AMD very well. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:00:50 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:00:48 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com References: 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 e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com Xns9701B2F457861follydom 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: 94 X-Trace: sv3-CuP+A378gpwxrNhKwrgvEp9PpPJQItqoA7wppK/2pKCqoCK+Fqvrztw+37NRcfMLc1E+dNFyyLSxQa2!4/B/1pCSzanE1HMsrxXBpPyw43dH2uCBkSrvha21OsLL5qxVX+UPN2 sZcMOOfQZY8w== 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:225823 sci.electronics.repair:427524 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448868 |
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 18:36:00 GMT I didn't have to wait for the system to tell me that Microsoft owns personal computer software. Me neither. Yes Microsoft does develop personal computer software. But so does thousands of other companies as well. So this rules out Microsoft as a monopoly. I provided that proof for your benefit. Your proof is from known liars who hides the truth under the umbrella of nation security and many other things. Obviously you have some very strange views about Microsoft's dominance. I have no strange views about Microsoft's dominance. I freely admit they have a huge following using their software. Although what the *facts* don't show is how this dominance means that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market. That is ridiculous! How can that be? As they would had to have complete control over the PC. This isn't the case at all. As Microsoft's largest threat is probably Linux. So get that silly idea out of your head, because it just isn't so. As there are probably millions of PCs not running any MS product at all. And you are totally ignoring this *fact*. Why is that? Is it because the lying system told you so? Thus are you trying us to believe known liars? Why? I easily shown you how ridiculous calling Microsoft a monopoly sounds by using the known *facts*. Don't follow others in their ignorance, think for yourself. __________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000) -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0 "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote: "John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns9701C504D5F55follydom 207.115.17.102... Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:02:13 GMT 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: Oh please! I had lost faith in the system when victims mostly gets screwed and the accused gets off lightly. And that doesn't count either. The real truth is the one with the most bucks usually wins. Did anything ever change with Microsoft, no not really after the ruling. And even if you believe in the system, do you believe the judge and jury is going to understand anything about geeks and lines of code? One in a thousand might, but that is the bright side of things. It is as plain as day to me, that Microsoft appears as a monopoly because Microsoft's competitors are whinny cry baby morons! They can't program their way out of a wet paper bag! And because they are so bad, they blame not themselves, but because Microsoft did it to them. Judges and juries like hearing this. But they are totally clueless when it comes right down to Microsoft competitors are nothing more than just plain old clueless idiots. And that makes Microsoft guilty? I think not! Case in point. The court had ruled that McDonalds was at fault because hot coffee was hot. Yes the coffee was at 190 degrees like hot coffee should be. But the stupid lady was too dumb to know that hot coffee was hot. So McDonalds had to pay like 3.5 million dollars to this dumb ass lady. Yes I'm sorry she was a dumb ass, but I am not sorry enough for dumb asses to give them 3.5 million dollars or whatever it was. Now because of this, McDonalds now has a warning that hot coffee is hot. Are you getting any of this now, John? Maybe to solve Microsoft's so-called monopoly problem, maybe MS should add a warning that its competitors are nothing but morons. Yes that's the ticket. 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?]
John Doe writes:
That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape Navigator. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html As hard as it may be to believe, the declaration of a court is not any kind of final or universal authority, except in legal terms. Just like IBM self-destructed. Just like Ford Motor Co. self-destructed. Just like Standard Oil self-destructed (actually had serious antitrust problems). Exactly. Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the personal computer software market. Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems. That's about it. Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away. I don't understand this statement. Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of the other capable software developers here in the United States. Legal "corrections" are notorious for their ineffectiveness. Market forces are much more balanced and reliable, even if they don't move as quickly as some might like. Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies. I don't see a connection between the two. If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of the facts. Or I simply disagree with you, which is not the same thing. And in fact, there's very little difference. In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public utilities, then? What part of "competition" don't you understand? I understand it, but I also know that it's not always desirable. lol I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the military? That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble. Microsoft has had a lot of legal trouble because it has made a lot of well-funded enemies by virtue of its exceptional performance. I guess you haven't interacted with consumers. I've been doing it for most of my life. I have plainly stated at least once already that multiple platforms might not be a good idea. Then why do you seem to object to Windows as a single platform? I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively bludgeons another person to death. I could not care less whether you legally acquired and own that baseball bat. You'd prefer to let that mass murderer with the machine gun continue to shoot at innocent bystanders? What part of "justice" don't you understand? There isn't any part that I don't understand. I understand it only too well. Do you know why the personification of justice is blindfolded? Because I'm using AMD very well. Maybe you should buy a Mac. -- 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:
Are you saying that you don't recognize/understand that Windows is the monopoly operating system on personal computers? I'm saying that repeating the same statement a hundred times doesn't make it any more valid or cogent than it was on the first iteration. Most computer savvy users knew that long before it was concretely decided in our federal courts. Federal courts don't make such decisions in reality, they only make such decisions within the framework of the courts. -- 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:
You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is rather telling. You're attempting to bolster your position with personal attacks. That is rather telling, too. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other? Because not everyone treats operating systems as religions, and reality is much more complex and subtle than black and white. -- 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?]
PWY writes:
I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the subject of Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical Microsoft bashers always seem to reach that point in their arguments. A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft. Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by intelligently managing a computer software company, because they cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves. Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply because Microsoft would not hire them. -- 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:
This troll is whining about Bill Gates bashing. But in fact, his side entered the argument. You're attempting to base your position on personal attacks and personality conflicts. Others base their positions on arguments relevant to the topic under discussion, with personalities being ignored and personal attacks being nonexistent. What might this imply? -- 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?]
Good point!
Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to use a computer? And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is ****ed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed.. Before anyone gets ****ed, is all in jest :-) BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax evasion.... I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol.... Good day... "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... PWY writes: I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the subject of Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical Microsoft bashers always seem to reach that point in their arguments. A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft. Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by intelligently managing a computer software company, because they cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves. Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply because Microsoft would not hire them. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Perhaps but it's not unusual for the 'engineer', or geek type, who often like to 'build the best', or so they believe, and then blame limited acceptance on the 'stupidity' of the buyer, or a market conspiracy. The engineer is probably right, in a sense, but that won't pay the bills. Apple has come up with many interesting innovations, but it is rather blind in its belief that its ideas are the _best_ ideas, and it's also very obstinate in not backing down on its principles. I suppose that's commendable, in a way, but it doesn't bring in business. If I truly believed Apple to be the best, I might invest in it, but although Apple is distinctive, I'm not at all convinced that it's the best, so paying a price premium for it (and spending eternity under Apple's thumb for both the hardware and the OS) isn't justified. Well, yes, and that's what my comment "But 'best' includes more than just the technical" meant to address. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it was Apple's closed box approach that was so much the 'mistake', after all, they all were at that time, as it was IBM's mishandling of the PC, which threw it open to a flood of clones, along with Microsoft providing the missing link of a competent O.S.. Although, if Microsoft hadn't someone else surely would have because that became too big a market to ignore. But Apple might have fared much better if the market had remained proprietary system vs proprietary system, as it had always been. As I recall, I skipped Apple just because it was far too expensive. I liked the concepts and the look and feel and so on, but not enough to pay such a severe price premium. Also, at work we used PCs from the beginning for everything except secretarial workstations, because they could easily be customized to work with our mainframes, whereas with Macs, there was either the Apple way or the highway. Yes, but I think you're talking about a time period slightly after the period I was, before the clones were in swing. Although, IBM *did* leave the hardware open to encourage third party add-on suppliers, just not copies, while Apple kept things much closer to the vest. But the mainframe point is well taken and IBM would, of course, have a lot more experience in that what with them being the premier mainframe supplier at the time. But I'm not quite as willing to blame it all on 'corruption' as I am on the complexities of large hierarchical organizations populated by imperfect human beings. You don't have to be 'corrupt' to screw up ;) Point taken. I guess it's easy to find ten smart people, but much more difficult to find 40,000 smart people. Eventually, you get a lot of stupid people in the company. Well, 'average' people ;) or, simply, lots of people. And that'll take managing because you simply can't expect everyone to be a genius, much less a genius at everything. Not to mention you can't have even geniuses going in every which a way direction. There has to be focus. On the other hand, a well established path to corporate doom is for the entrepreneur who started it to try running the whole she-bang as it grows beyond the ability of any one person to manage. Yes, but conversely, the beginning of the end for many companies is marked by the departure of the founder(s). Disney, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, IBM ... the list goes on and on. Notice that Microsoft has changed since Bill Gates left. Yes, there's the 'vision' thing. Still, there's the matter of why would someone be induced to change the vision? Stagnation is one possibility and the other is the 'new guy' making his mark with his own 'vision', but if things are humming merrily along he'd be foolish to change things too much so we get back to "where do we go now?" But after IBM's debacle with issuing BIOS source one can surely see why Microsoft doesn't do it. IBM had a history of publishing source, which was the norm at one time for mainframes. Microsoft never had any exposure to that. Sure it was the norm because it only ran on the company's proprietary hardware so, go to it folks, make more stuff for our proprietary hardware, which is where the money was to begin with, and you're not releasing into the market the thing that makes it proprietary, your hardware. IBM failed to recognize just how utterly trivial it was, compared to 'mainframes', to duplicate the hardware, not to mention they had simply purchased a public domain design made from freely available parts, and then to publish the one and only 'proprietary' piece, BIOS source, *PLUS* haven given away rights to sell the DOS (same, "who cares about the software?" notion)... well, woops. I'm not saying it should have been obvious at the time but it sure is in hindsight and I'd imagine Microsoft noticed it along with everyone else. Again, I think it's more fundamental. I mean, a 'soaring success' is often started by a 'great idea' but markets change, products mature, competitors move in, so where does the next 'great idea' come from? It isn't as if they're a dime a dozen, you know ;) If the first great idea was pure luck, that's true. But if it was the product of a really smart group of people, they should be able to come up with other great ideas. Sounds simple but, in practice, it isn't as it usually takes more than just a really smart group of people as familiarity, experience, insight, or whatever combination that went into the particular 'great idea' isn't necessarily translatable into another one. I think it was you, yourself, who pointed out that Microsoft was good at the business suite business but not very good in others as they just don't have sufficient experience or insight for them. That's one reason why companies are always searching for a 'process' that is, essentially, 'one-time genius' independent. I.E. idea generation from market feedback, hire/consult 'experts' in the new thing, brain storming sessions, focus group studies, etc.. What, in particular, do you have in mind? Since Bill Gates assumed a background role, Microsoft has shown distinctly less innovation and much more bottom-line-style management. Steve Ballmer is a businessman rather than a geek, but he has no prior experience, and now he's in charge of a multi-zillion dollar company. I wonder if that's because Bill Gates is 'gone' or if it's more the result of this being about as far as a business suite/'Windows'O.S. combination can take them, especially in a U.S. market, at least, that is closer to saturation than it is the wide open early days of growing by leaps and bounds and where you have to now do upgrades, or 'something', just to stay even. The wave they were riding ain't there no more. And there isn't another 'IBM' giant poised to dominate a huge future market that you can sell DOS to and clean up when someone cracks their BIOS code nor is anyone going to give them 'sell to others' license rights, so those 'great ideas' aren't going to happen again no matter how 'smart' they are. Inevitably, mistakes are made, and eventually too many mistakes will be made and the company will being its downward slide. Like so many big companies, Microsoft will commit suicide; it won't be killed by the competition. When you first posed that scenario I thought it made a lot of sense but the more I think about it the more I question it, at least as a 'universal'. It can certainly happen that way but you can also be simply obsoleted by the next 'great idea'. For example, the introduction of calculators put the slide rule folks out of business, at least in that business, virtually overnight without them having to make 'too many mistakes'. Of course, I suppose you can always call it a 'mistake' to not be diversified enough (that's those bottom-line-style management types you don't like), not see that microcomputers can do almost anything (electronics wasn't their business), or whatever the 'next great idea' is (how are you going to get around the patent/copyright?) but that's stretching the 'mistake' concept a bit. It's fun musing about it though. -- 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?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft. I wouldn't mind having his bucks, or even what he pays in taxes, but I've hated his software since he was nothing but a rich kid with a couple of computers. Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by intelligently managing a computer software company, because they cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves. More than anything Gates was (and is) a marketer. He knows how to put just enough stuff into a box to get people to buy the box. I'd never claim to be able to make money as well as he does. Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply because Microsoft would not hire them. Microsoft would never hire me; I have no degrees. However, I still lay claim to having asked the question, would I ever work for Microsoft? and answered in the negative long before I ever considered the question you pose. -- 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?]
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to use a computer? I hate mice. I hate graphics tablets worse, and I hate trackballs only marginally less than I hate mice, but I hate mice with a passion. I am to pointing devices what Yosemite Sam is to rabbits. -- 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 accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote: John Doe wrote: ... IBM was competing with OS/2. And if they weren't then why the hell did they keep trying to sell it? The findings of fact explain what you need to know. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html It's good reading. I've already read it, stem to stern, and since you apparently don't have a single independent thought about it there's nothing to 'discuss'. Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the Intel-based personal computer operating system market? That's irrelevant to giving discounts to your competition. You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us knew long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds monopoly power, you might endanger your business status with Microsoft. If you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power, then you lump yourself in with the few remaining zealots who defend Microsoft. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other? And what does it matter whether I "say one way or the other?" But since it seems you're going to hound me for all of eternity I'll tell you why I've declined in the past; because you are an irrational ideologue about it who, regardless of the context, topic, time period, or anything else, does little more than repeat over and over 'the court said so' and paste links to it as if the court is omniscient and infallible in every word and jot Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe that no guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent person ever convicted nor any injustice ever done, and that's where the court works best. It's even more absurd to think the court is infallible in business law suits and just plain nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what does, or does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what the features of an O.S. 'should be', and software/product content in general. You can't even get a room full of 'experts' to agree on it and the court ain't no 'expert'. Put simply, they got no clue. And then there's the matter that you seem to think "holds monopoly power" and "is a monopoly" are equivalent, since you use them interchangeably, and they're not. That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final findings but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel' of anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the text of it. And since that is the entirety of your 'argument', for everything, there is nothing to 'discuss'. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes: You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is rather telling. You're attempting to bolster your position with personal attacks. That is rather telling, too. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other? Because not everyone treats operating systems as religions, and reality is much more complex and subtle than black and white. Bingo! Attempting to discuss the nuances of a rainbow with a black and white TV set is an exercise in futility. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter