Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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





  #202   Report Post  
BillW50
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #203   Report Post  
David Maynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #204   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #205   Report Post  
David Maynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #206   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #207   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #208   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #209   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #210   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #211   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #212   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #213   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #214   Report Post  
David Maynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #215   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #216   Report Post  
Jasen Betts
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #217   Report Post  
PWY
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #218   Report Post  
PWY
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #219   Report Post  
Ed Medlin
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #220   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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







  #221   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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








  #222   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.






  #223   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.






  #224   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.






  #225   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.








  #226   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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-
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 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





  #227   Report Post  
John Doe
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.







  #228   Report Post  
DBLEXPOSURE
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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







  #229   Report Post  
BillW50
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #230   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #231   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #232   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #233   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #234   Report Post  
Mxsmanic
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #235   Report Post  
DBLEXPOSURE
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.





  #236   Report Post  
David Maynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #237   Report Post  
clifto
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #238   Report Post  
clifto
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #239   Report Post  
David Maynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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'.





  #240   Report Post  
David Maynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
computer clocks Lurch UK diy 199 December 21st 04 11:43 PM
Are PC surge protectors needed in the UK? greywolf42 Electronics Repair 82 July 13th 04 12:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"