 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
"clifto" wrote in message ... Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:43:34 -0600 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 love and use both DOS and GUI. Somethings still can't easily been done under the GUI (which is one of the weak things about the GUI that has been true since day one). OTOH somethings are also easier under the GUI instead of DOS. So I use whichever one is best suited for the task. 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 don't hate mice. But I'll use a mouse if my hands aren't doing anything important on the keyboard. OTOH I know most of the keyboard shortcuts when my hands are on the keyboard. So I try to use one or the other for long periods of time. Trackballs are about the same to me as mice. The rubber tiny joystick thing on the keyboard I can use better than most. Although I only like it if my hands are already on the keyboard. And highlighting with this thing seems to be the hardest to do for me. I have used touchpads and I think they are just as useful for the most part. Although none of my many computers have this device. I only use it on other people's computers. First time was a real trip. As I was thinking how the heck do you work this thing? grin I am to pointing devices what Yosemite Sam is to rabbits. I guess I am a bit lucky, it doesn't matter much by me. Mice, without, or whatever. I still get the work done. grin __________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000) -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0 |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
clifto wrote:
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. Careful, Yosemite Sam always loses  |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard writes:
Still, there's the matter of why would someone be induced to change the vision? If the new guy lacks the vision, he has no choice. 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?" In the case of Microsoft, it would be because the only way to keep things humming along is through continuous exercise of the same vision--and that vision is now gone. Steve Ballmer is a businessman, not a visionary, and he belongs much more to the standard MBA school of management. I understand he reads all the latest "how-to" books on management (literally). 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. Yes. Customers had source so they could change it if they needed to. It was never going to run on any other platform, anyway, so it didn't matter. 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. I think it was obvious even then. PCs were clearly a different ball game. IBM has always thought about everything in the same way. I remember renting a typewriter from them once, and it was just amazing how they did it, with invoices and purchase orders and service contracts and so on. If something went wrong with the typewriter, I had to schedule a visit from a field engineer--I couldn't just bring the broken part in somewhere and get it replaced. The cost of one visit from a field engineer was greater than six months of rental fees. 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.. And has any company ever succeeded at this? Success requires being smart, and no process can produce intelligence where it didn't previously exist. 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. I think it's both, and the wave has definitely broken on the beach and is now starting to pull back out to sea. Unless they come up with something entirely new (not just another "upgrade" of the OS or Office), the tide has permanently turned. I don't expect them to come up with anything new. The whole business model of continually forced upgrades isn't going to work forever, either. Eventually consumers will get tired of moving to a new OS every year. Even now, there are untold millions of PCs that are never "upgraded" beyond the OS they had when first installed. Each time Microsoft tries an "upgrade" to maintain revenue, it increases the incoherence of the installed base, which has more and more versions of Windows up and running, from Windows 3.1 to XP. 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. Yes. I think MS has a comfortable number of years ahead of it, but there will be no major breakthroughs or skyrocketing growth now. MS is becoming the very company with which it fought when it was little. MS is the new IBM. But the wheel will continue to turn. 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'. The next great idea need not come from another company; in theory it could come from MS just as it has in the past. But the visionary is gone at MS, so it won't come from MS this time. If a single brilliant CEO could live forever, then companies could be successful forever. But that's impossible, so virtually all companies end up with bad management at some point and dwindle or disappear. There are very rare exceptions, such as GE, which is so diversified that it can scarcely avoid making money no matter who is at the helm. Microsoft has no diversification at all, though, and that's very dangerous. Its attempts at diversification have been largely unsuccessful, too (MSN was a disaster and has only survived through constant infusion of billions to keep it in business). 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) ... For long-term, large-scale success, diversification is essential. There are few areas of business that are so constant and guaranteed that you can specialize in them over the long term and still make money. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. In fact,
Microsoft holds a monopoly on personal computer operating system software. Capitalists believe in competition. Microsoft has no competition for Windows, mainly because of network effects and a positive feedback loop. The only capitalists who adore Microsoft are mainly those stockholders who have made a killing. Many capitalists don't like Microsoft at all. "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.midco.n et!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:24:06 -0600 From: "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt 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 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:22:15 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net Lines: 182 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108 X-Trace: sv3-wv1vumB7w/E2svQM+Ubb+UgagM/jBz396sDaaNUJ8h7v5mFqYDeeBN+yDD3Mfr/CB755ap0YwfiKHYC!SMJlpwUyeAD/ndG5tTPTL9I8gAH2jaXytNI/S39v5f5Lrlp+p+M8RmG2mjmhfwJubCrvWA== X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net 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:225859 sci.electronics.repair:427583 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448907 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" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102... 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 |
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
"John Doe" wrote in message ... Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:45:21 GMT Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. In fact, Microsoft holds a monopoly on personal computer operating system software. John... you are such a liar! Linux itself is a personal computer OS which is being used by millions. Capitalists believe in competition. Microsoft has no competition for Windows, John you lie like the devil! Linux is hot on Microsoft's Windows butt and is actually competing against Windows. OS/2 tried. but was managed by IBM and was doomed from mismanagement. mainly because of network effects and a positive feedback loop. The only capitalists who adore Microsoft are mainly those stockholders who have made a killing. Many capitalists don't like Microsoft at all. You are still lying your butt off John. There are tons of third party companies making a killing off of Windows applications alone. Ignoring the facts is just making you look foolish. Maybe you should give up. __________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000) -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0 |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
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. Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on the Internet. 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 what I thought. You don't believe what most technically inclined computer users have understood long before our federal courts decided the issue. Are you a Libertarian? Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away. I don't understand this statement. Microsoft has a stranglehold on personal computer software. 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. The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the operating system maker making applications. It's kind of like being on a farm. Let's say the operating system is your farm machinery, and the applications are your various crops. You wouldn't want the farm machinery favoring one crop or another or you're likely to end up with munched up potatoes. The likely scenario is this. As Microsoft grows old and lazy, it will continue to suck applications into its maelstrom. Microsoft already owns the biggest money makers. The lazier Microsoft gets, the more applications it will have to add to its collection. First it has been the most lucrative applications and applications that Microsoft and its family might need or enjoy. Second it is applications that make the most money. Eventually, any software that makes money will be dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft also squeezes more and more money out of its already captive users. And eventually they cry to the government for relief. 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. Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft. And in fact, there's very little difference. In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public utilities, then? The operating system maker should not be allowed to make applications, whatever you call it. If that were to pose some threat to Microsoft's Windows dominance, I guess that would be competition. lol I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the military? You really need to include more than one level of quoting. 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 agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me. 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? I guess something was lost in the translation. Again, you really need to include more than one level of quoting. Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy. Because I'm using AMD very well. Maybe you should buy a Mac. Again, you really need to quote more than one level. Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many other applications is bad. |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard wrote:
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'. What part don't you understand? 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 All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express an opinion one way or another. My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the facts because you know most of your associates know better. 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, That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on. 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. Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between an operating system and applications? 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. I use them both, but not interchangeably. That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final findings Do you agree or disagree with the vast majority of technically inclined computer users who know that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? 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. How about the court deciding something that was self-evident to most of us long ago (many Libertarians excluded). |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Your lack of quoting helps when playing semantics.
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!news4 .google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gig anews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.gigan ews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:21:58 -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 10:21:57 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: nm0hm1tdkm37k5b5q47kl21b3hu105aeu0 4ax.com References: dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102 sc0fm19vvg3157d2quttib6vd6rnpo9fm6 4ax.com Xns9701AC2901266follydom 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: 93 X-Trace: sv3-k2rUl52vRPVIr6EJ82V3kGMa9EdTswXYCDeU2wpyiTeV6kqFtd Mciz0pxRzilnlDOtt0wDLnPXJz6Zg!uignGJ6y/I35yd3UUiY7eJvezV9KwnWyIThMFuOxLvuEOJmkXq+3sQR1Apg cvZj+7Q== 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:225830 sci.electronics.repair:427530 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448874 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. |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. Nobody is stifling competition. Microsoft has no competition for Windows, mainly because of network effects and a positive feedback loop. You've just contradicted your previous statement above. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
A troll defending another troll.
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr29.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-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net !news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.g iganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:31:39 -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 21:31:39 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: ke8im1d8oep83nl1rkstc8l7rqt7ue7mdt 4ax.com References: 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com Xns970284171FB60follydom 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: 13 X-Trace: sv3-oWuBIE19ospxTSVmRZ1hwDGiuzoGLlLcF5YjnzprE3MYTRN89G oFUOsw9HJp3w/Leq2IeK+ybs8ZVWq!BSwgpGsRkpm63dyE5Yl3hjzV9nnf9O7+o 3AVbIiw/MnyzL3ws909IfcBW6Rq+sG32A== 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:225867 sci.electronics.repair:427591 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448914 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. |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
BillW50 writes:
Linux is hot on Microsoft's Windows butt and is actually competing against Windows. Linux isn't even a blip on the radar for desktop systems. See http://news.com.com/Linux+PCs+Custom...3-5926949.html It's no surprise, given that Linux is technically inferior to Windows and it costs at least as much ... according to the above, $59.95 for Suse, $99.95 for Linspire, and a whopping $348 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES v.3.0 Basic Edition (say that all in one breath!)--and that's at Wal-Mart! With competitors like Linux, Microsoft doesn't have to do anything to kill off the competition--it's already seriously ill on its own. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on the Internet. One also needs to read the detailed history of Netscape. The company doomed itself, with or without any intervention by Microsoft. I still recall some of the absolute garbage they tried to sell; I was amazed that they had the nerve to put their name on the box. The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the operating system maker making applications. The operating system maker doesn't produce any applications, except Office. Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft. Actually I have. But I've read a lot of other things, too, and I don't consider judges to be experts on business and IT. The operating system maker should not be allowed to make applications, whatever you call it. Why not? I agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me. I don't see any point. Microsoft only sells one application that makes any serious cash, and it doesn't have much competition to begin with. Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy. What would be the equivalent of bashing in skulls with Windows? Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many other applications is bad. Is it? One of the requirements of office applications is interoperability. If everyone uses something different, there is none. And there aren't any other applications. Microsoft's only significant end-user application is Office. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Many capitalists
don't like Microsoft at all. Most sports teams don't like there opponents either... So what? McDonalds doesn't like Burger King. Budweiser doesn't like Miller Beer... I don't see what your point is.. Who cares who likes who... Has nothing to do with the economics. That is what capitalism is, not a competition to see who can win more friends You cannot cheer capitalism and then curse when one company achieves ultimate success. You defiantly cannot then call it Communism, That was the point of my post after all. This matter has been decided by the courts. You are free to write a competitive OS. By the way, there are plenty of other Operating systems. Just not very many aps to run on them. Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to servers. So, what is it you want to do? Make the Window OS illegal? Start all over? Force software companies to release programs to run on all operating systems. Break up MS and sell it off in pieces to competitors. geesh, that makes me want my company to be successful. If I achieve success the Govt. can make me sell it off to my enemies... I don't see where any of this is going. It's just a bunch of whining about nothing... The market makes these choices. Make a good product and you'll be successful and a good share of people will bash you and curse you and haul your ass to court and try to get your money. Perhaps even the MOB will threaten you... If all that happens, then you are a successful capitalist.. "John Doe" wrote in message ... Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. In fact, Microsoft holds a monopoly on personal computer operating system software. Capitalists believe in competition. Microsoft has no competition for Windows, mainly because of network effects and a positive feedback loop. The only capitalists who adore Microsoft are mainly those stockholders who have made a killing. Many capitalists don't like Microsoft at all. "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.midco.n et!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:24:06 -0600 From: "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt 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 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:22:15 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net Lines: 182 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108 X-Trace: sv3-wv1vumB7w/E2svQM+Ubb+UgagM/jBz396sDaaNUJ8h7v5mFqYDeeBN+yDD3Mfr/CB755ap0YwfiKHYC!SMJlpwUyeAD/ndG5tTPTL9I8gAH2jaXytNI/S39v5f5Lrlp+p+M8RmG2mjmhfwJubCrvWA== X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net 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:225859 sci.electronics.repair:427583 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448907 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" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102... 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 |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:
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. But that's not how it happened. Your side introduced Bill Gates money. A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, Envy is a common fault. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Your argument is dull. and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft. Just as easy is to suggest that you are pandering, brown nosing, and sucking up to Bill Gates and Microsoft. I would recommend against that, since you aren't likely to get anything except maybe your job outsourced to India. You know Microsoft has spearheaded the drive to outsource jobs to India and dramatically increase the H-1B visa program? Microsoft is the number one lobbyist for outsourcing and the H-1B visa program. You know that outsourcing jobs to India/overseas is Microsoft's Way to increase profits and further dominate small software companies. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Path: newssvr29.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 14:29:58 -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 21:29:51 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com References: 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$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 X-Trace: sv3-a837rSXJYAZbNuAnkt2Nd0oP8fmCYTO/BOOsqtE5iMCHXTuMjeJw3qY2DqjcZGuvgEbMYZqx6GKa58i!/rJ+Z0jSKAMO+HIfq7miyBO7qUBgOhXOOkT11a5bDZt+x7jBzHY CDXFTvU4DCvAQEw== 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:225866 sci.electronics.repair:427590 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448913 |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express an opinion one way or another. Why is anyone required to explain _not_ having a specific opinion? My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the facts because you know most of your associates know better. My guess is that he is not arguing religion, whereas some others here are. That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on. In the world of technology, this is unfortunately all too plausible. Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between an operating system and applications? It's very difficult to draw a clear line between the two. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
A troll ranting about everything under the sun.
"DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr29.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!nntp.midco.n et!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:52 -0600 From: "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt 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 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 207.115.17.102 Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:52:07 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: F8CdnfyjU4j1CvTeRVn-gg midco.net Lines: 294 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108 X-Trace: sv3-hFglvhUpPpl27CHwZIBHzeGdqEo3zglxuwNuqpZnp7AYkFkZkg Huxh0ifm2LxQOH1JW21DBIAn0MJNs!c+s2rFTZ5Gzfzk4S2Tj4 d49pc7cS7KqOOCqYDR4l/KVwrDN57GxoRNRfAQyejpGmp/NLKA== X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net 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:225902 sci.electronics.repair:427642 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448957 Many capitalists don't like Microsoft at all. Most sports teams don't like there opponents either... So what? McDonalds doesn't like Burger King. Budweiser doesn't like Miller Beer... I don't see what your point is.. Who cares who likes who... Has nothing to do with the economics. That is what capitalism is, not a competition to see who can win more friends You cannot cheer capitalism and then curse when one company achieves ultimate success. You defiantly cannot then call it Communism, That was the point of my post after all. This matter has been decided by the courts. You are free to write a competitive OS. By the way, there are plenty of other Operating systems. Just not very many aps to run on them. Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to servers. So, what is it you want to do? Make the Window OS illegal? Start all over? Force software companies to release programs to run on all operating systems. Break up MS and sell it off in pieces to competitors. geesh, that makes me want my company to be successful. If I achieve success the Govt. can make me sell it off to my enemies... I don't see where any of this is going. It's just a bunch of whining about nothing... The market makes these choices. Make a good product and you'll be successful and a good share of people will bash you and curse you and haul your ass to court and try to get your money. Perhaps even the MOB will threaten you... If all that happens, then you are a successful capitalist.. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Huh?
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr29.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 22:41:13 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:41:12 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: 455jm1hnbidf3unjgvck2qto6avfheb3mq 4ax.com References: 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 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 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: 13 X-Trace: sv3-spakI6CTxq9zan2rADe9waX+FnL7Ew3zsXctTq2JByG5fOPd0b GqP8VnNzgeYGEI3LdIgJB02oIdzFb!4ocmle3R0QaR7GlTCWkq T/nk6xbAL46hTZnBze506ywonPBMmaxwfofqVpHEQFkDFQ== 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:225898 sci.electronics.repair:427638 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448952 John Doe writes: Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. Nobody is stifling competition. Microsoft has no competition for Windows, mainly because of network effects and a positive feedback loop. You've just contradicted your previous statement above. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
zz
"John Doe" wrote in message ... Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:19:38 GMT Mxsmanic wrote: 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. Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on the Internet. 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 what I thought. You don't believe what most technically inclined computer users have understood long before our federal courts decided the issue. No what I believe is you trust in liars! And I have make a clear cut case of it. Are you a Libertarian? No! I am nothing! I don't vote at all because I am responsible for my actions. Something that those like you can't claim. Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away. I don't understand this statement. Microsoft has a stranglehold on personal computer software. Not so! That is like saying Linux has a stranglehold on the personal computer software. Both are rivals. Something that you will never understand! 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. The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the operating system maker making applications. It's kind of like being on a farm. Let's say the operating system is your farm machinery, and the applications are your various crops. You wouldn't want the farm machinery favoring one crop or another or you're likely to end up with munched up potatoes. Anybody is free to create their own OS and some have. And Linux is the strongest competitor to MS. A fact that you have been ignoring this whole time. The likely scenario is this. As Microsoft grows old and lazy, it will continue to suck applications into its maelstrom. Microsoft already owns the biggest money makers. The lazier Microsoft gets, the more applications it will have to add to its collection. First it has been the most lucrative applications and applications that Microsoft and its family might need or enjoy. Second it is applications that make the most money. Eventually, any software that makes money will be dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft also squeezes more and more money out of its already captive users. And eventually they cry to the government for relief. Still ignoring Linux and Open Office like a dumbass. Good show John. Ignorance is your best suite! 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. Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft. From known liars? Good show John... good show! And in fact, there's very little difference. In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public utilities, then? The operating system maker should not be allowed to make applications, whatever you call it. If that were to pose some threat to Microsoft's Windows dominance, I guess that would be competition. lol I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the military? You really need to include more than one level of quoting. From a guy who can't even respond from quotes from others at all. Good show John. Drop to the lowest level possible! 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 agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me. Buy a Linux computer then. What is your problem? 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? I guess something was lost in the translation. Again, you really need to include more than one level of quoting. Since you can't address facts in front of you face, your requests are meaningless. Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy. Because I'm using AMD very well. Maybe you should buy a Mac. Again, you really need to quote more than one level. Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many other applications is bad. You are such a dumbass! I said many times now there are Linux and OpenOffice. You on the other hand want to be a total jerk and ignore the facts! That is okay John, we all now know you are just a dumbass. So you have nothing more to prove. __________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000) -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0 |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
Linux isn't even a blip on the radar for desktop systems. See: Message-ID: o75jm1dco0o9c9dp7o1k7oh5lb4eemjov8 4ax.com Have fun |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Still, there's the matter of why would someone be induced to change the vision? If the new guy lacks the vision, he has no choice. Logically, no, but not having one doesn't preclude the fool hardly from trying anyway That's the reverse of my scenario and back to yours:incompetent new management. I'm not arguing there's a 'universal' scenario but that it varies, depending on a host of circumstances. 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?" In the case of Microsoft, it would be because the only way to keep things humming along is through continuous exercise of the same vision--and that vision is now gone. Yes, same point I made below. Steve Ballmer is a businessman, not a visionary, and he belongs much more to the standard MBA school of management. I understand he reads all the latest "how-to" books on management (literally). You seem 'surprised'. Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals? 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. Yes. Customers had source so they could change it if they needed to. It was never going to run on any other platform, anyway, so it didn't matter. We agree. 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. I think it was obvious even then. PCs were clearly a different ball game. Well, I was developing proprietary microcomputers for specific industry applications, not 'general purpose' computers, so I am not sure how 'obvious' it would have been. IBM has always thought about everything in the same way. I remember renting a typewriter from them once, and it was just amazing how they did it, with invoices and purchase orders and service contracts and so on. If something went wrong with the typewriter, I had to schedule a visit from a field engineer--I couldn't just bring the broken part in somewhere and get it replaced. The cost of one visit from a field engineer was greater than six months of rental fees. Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing. IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie, pocket protector army? 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.. And has any company ever succeeded at this? Most do, even if the first thought comes from the internal 'genius'. Success requires being smart, and no process can produce intelligence where it didn't previously exist. You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than expecting one person to be omniscient. And the process itself comes from 'smarts'. 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. I think it's both, and the wave has definitely broken on the beach and is now starting to pull back out to sea. Unless they come up with something entirely new (not just another "upgrade" of the OS or Office), the tide has permanently turned. I don't expect them to come up with anything new. I don't expect it but I don't discount the possibility either. The whole business model of continually forced upgrades isn't going to work forever, either. I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features' but not terribly different to the primary mission. Eventually consumers will get tired of moving to a new OS every year. Even now, there are untold millions of PCs that are never "upgraded" beyond the OS they had when first installed. Each time Microsoft tries an "upgrade" to maintain revenue, it increases the incoherence of the installed base, which has more and more versions of Windows up and running, from Windows 3.1 to XP. It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if it's functionally significant enough. And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit transitions to 64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the long touted 3D Desktop. 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. Yes. I think MS has a comfortable number of years ahead of it, but there will be no major breakthroughs or skyrocketing growth now. MS is becoming the very company with which it fought when it was little. MS is the new IBM. But the wheel will continue to turn. Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models. 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'. The next great idea need not come from another company; in theory it could come from MS just as it has in the past. But the visionary is gone at MS, so it won't come from MS this time. I didn't say it *had* to, I was just pointing out that it could and put you out of business without one needing to make 'too many mistakes'. If a single brilliant CEO could live forever, then companies could be successful forever. This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's transportable to any industry But that's impossible, so virtually all companies end up with bad management at some point and dwindle or disappear. We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot. There are very rare exceptions, such as GE, which is so diversified that it can scarcely avoid making money no matter who is at the helm. Oh, lordy. Now that you've said it they're probably doomed Microsoft has no diversification at all, though, and that's very dangerous. Its attempts at diversification have been largely unsuccessful, too (MSN was a disaster and has only survived through constant infusion of billions to keep it in business). Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea? 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) ... For long-term, large-scale success, diversification is essential. There are few areas of business that are so constant and guaranteed that you can specialize in them over the long term and still make money. I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek interest in some pet project. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
A troll commenting on every post he can...
Pin Head! "John Doe" wrote in message ... A troll ranting about everything under the sun. "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr29.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!nntp.midco.n et!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:52 -0600 From: "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt 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 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 207.115.17.102 Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:52:07 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: F8CdnfyjU4j1CvTeRVn-gg midco.net Lines: 294 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108 X-Trace: sv3-hFglvhUpPpl27CHwZIBHzeGdqEo3zglxuwNuqpZnp7AYkFkZkg Huxh0ifm2LxQOH1JW21DBIAn0MJNs!c+s2rFTZ5Gzfzk4S2Tj4 d49pc7cS7KqOOCqYDR4l/KVwrDN57GxoRNRfAQyejpGmp/NLKA== X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net 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:225902 sci.electronics.repair:427642 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448957 Many capitalists don't like Microsoft at all. Most sports teams don't like there opponents either... So what? McDonalds doesn't like Burger King. Budweiser doesn't like Miller Beer... I don't see what your point is.. Who cares who likes who... Has nothing to do with the economics. That is what capitalism is, not a competition to see who can win more friends You cannot cheer capitalism and then curse when one company achieves ultimate success. You defiantly cannot then call it Communism, That was the point of my post after all. This matter has been decided by the courts. You are free to write a competitive OS. By the way, there are plenty of other Operating systems. Just not very many aps to run on them. Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to servers. So, what is it you want to do? Make the Window OS illegal? Start all over? Force software companies to release programs to run on all operating systems. Break up MS and sell it off in pieces to competitors. geesh, that makes me want my company to be successful. If I achieve success the Govt. can make me sell it off to my enemies... I don't see where any of this is going. It's just a bunch of whining about nothing... The market makes these choices. Make a good product and you'll be successful and a good share of people will bash you and curse you and haul your ass to court and try to get your money. Perhaps even the MOB will threaten you... If all that happens, then you are a successful capitalist.. |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
DBLEXPOSURE writes:
Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to servers. Especially FreeBSD. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard writes:
You seem 'surprised'. Not surprised at all, given what I know of him and the company (and their history). But reading the latest trendy books on management for tips when you're in charge of a multi-billion dollar company is a bit worrisome. CEOs of large and successful companies are supposed to be in a position to write books about their own successful techniques, rather than try to pick them up from others. Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals? Some do, some don't. A lot of trade rags aren't worth reading. Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing. IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie, pocket protector army? It's the stuff of legend. There were good reasons for it; it's just that IBM tried to apply the same philosophy to very different markets, unsuccessfully. It seems self-evident that what works for mainframes would not work for PCs, but apparently this never occurred to IBM, even though it certainly occurred to others. But now others are making similar mistakes. One reason why Microsoft has such a terrible time trying to break into the server market is that it has absolutely no clue on how that market works. To Microsoft, everything is just like a desktop, just as IBM saw everything as a mainframe. A lot of people at Microsoft don't even know what a mainframe is, and yet they are trying to sell into a comparable market. You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than expecting one person to be omniscient. Alas, most companies don't hire on the basis of intelligence. And the larger they get, the more unintelligent deadwood they acquire. I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features' but not terribly different to the primary mission. Even if they are something new and different, most people using computers don't want to continually change to something new and different. They just want a tool that works; and once it works, they're content to leave it untouched forever (and in fact that's what they prefer). Would you be willing to buy a new washing machine every year, each one with a completely different way of operating and a whole new set of instructions? It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if it's functionally significant enough. Yes. But remember that the market was microscopic in those days compared to today. The inertia is much greater now. Additionally, users today are much more likely to have all they need in current operating systems, and so are even less likely to change. And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit transitions to 64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the long touted 3D Desktop. First we need a reason for these things. Most users have no reason to care about any of these developments. Many users can still get by with Windows 3.1 functionality; a far greater number are happy with Windows 95 (tons of people are still running it, and I don't ever expect them to change). Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models. But increasingly similar management mistakes. DEC seemed very different from IBM, too, but it eventually succumbed to the same management errors. This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's transportable to any industry If he's truly brilliant, he'll see the end of buggy whips coming and steer his company into other domains before it happens. But CEOs tend to fall in love with whatever brought them their first big successes, and then they don't want to think about anything else later on. We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot. You can have a smart management team that serves the same purpose as a genius. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as you get the critical mass of intelligence together at the top. Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea? Yes, I believe so. Bill Gates has never been gifted for domains outside of his own, though. Just as Microsoft has no clue when it comes to servers or mainframes, it has no clue when it comes to ISPs. I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek interest in some pet project. Yes. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what develops. I don't have any stock in any of these companies, so I don't care for the most part, but I am concerned for the stability of my operating system and applications and hardware, as I don't like to break things that are working, and I don't like to spend money or time needlessly. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
Your lack of quoting helps when playing semantics. Your personal attacks hurt when you're trying to advance in debate. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:
John Doe writes: Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on the Internet. One also needs to read the detailed history of Netscape. The company doomed itself, with or without any intervention by Microsoft. Read how Microsoft destroyed Netscape Navigator, a significant percentage of Netscape's income. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html You will also read about how IBM's OS/2 was never able to compete with Windows. The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the operating system maker making applications. The operating system maker doesn't produce any applications, except Office. That's just a silly troll. Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft. Actually I have. But I've read a lot of other things, too, and I don't consider judges to be experts on business and IT. But it all makes so much sense having lived through the era being very interested in personal computing. The operating system maker should not be allowed to make applications, whatever you call it. Why not? Because it puts the operating system maker's applications at a significant advantage over the competition. I agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me. I don't see any point. Microsoft only sells one application that makes any serious cash, and it doesn't have much competition to begin with. Are you saying that Microsoft Office is only one application? Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy. What would be the equivalent of bashing in skulls with Windows? Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many other applications is bad. Is it? One of the requirements of office applications is interoperability. If everyone uses something different, there is none. So why wouldn't they be interoperable? And there aren't any other applications. You keep repeating the same silly troll. Microsoft's only significant end-user application is Office. By that standard, your list of independent vendor Windows applications would be nonexistent. https://www.microsoft.com/msft/earni...rel_q1_04.mspx "Information Worker includes revenue from Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, Visio, LiveMeeting, other information worker products, SharePoint Portal Server CALs, and professional product support services. Revenue from Information Worker was $2.29 billion in the first quarter of fiscal 2004, increasing 1% from the prior year's first quarter. Revenue for the quarter excluded $137 million of revenue deferred for technology guarantees provided to customers who purchased Office in first quarter of fiscal 2004. Revenue from OEM licensing of Office products grew 30% from the first quarter of fiscal 2003." That's $2,290,000,000 in one quarter. I bet that's more than all other PC software companies combined. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews .com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:47 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:51:41 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: 8i5jm1hld2e4nki9jkt5kv439ng3f40eib 4ax.com References: 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com Vat9f.39690$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 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 nk7im15tupp0ucr170q4jp3c352439rh7h 4ax.com Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom 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: 54 X-Trace: sv3-c1fqLXtn1EHh/HpOMj5CN49shdwrg/oCCynl9kd2t+csfVo90ixpLPGNmibBCdXoiiBrFzwXyMWu7aP! uGTNS/LNQ7rq/efykJi/S+n+PW7DeLwvcG1D6koOYRyXnwKA1EEthHX+KARCUt6MUw== 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:225901 sci.electronics.repair:427641 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448956 |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
But that's not how it happened. Your side introduced Bill Gates money. When did anyone take sides? Envy is a common fault. Common, but not universal. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Most years, yes. But I don't see what that has to do with Microsoft. Just as easy is to suggest that you are pandering, brown nosing, and sucking up to Bill Gates and Microsoft. Easy to suggest, but extremely difficult to substantiate. You know Microsoft has spearheaded the drive to outsource jobs to India and dramatically increase the H-1B visa program? A lot of companies are falling all over each other in the race to outsource anything and everything. Microsoft didn't invent the idea and they aren't particularly prominent in their use thereof. Microsoft is the number one lobbyist for outsourcing and the H-1B visa program. Outsourcing doesn't require lobbying. I know of lots of companies that are doing it. You know that outsourcing jobs to India/overseas is Microsoft's Way to increase profits and further dominate small software companies. It's an example of Steve Ballmer's move towards bottom-line management, which is always a move in the wrong direction over the long term. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard wrote: John Doe wrote: David Maynard 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'. What part don't you understand? None. 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 All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express an opinion one way or another. Of course it did. My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the facts because you know most of your associates know better. 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, That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on. Only you could refer to the entire contents of that ruling in the singular. 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. Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between an operating system and applications? I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as heck wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're willing to take on P/L responsibility. 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. I use them both, but not interchangeably. You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise identical sentences. That's interchangeably in my book. That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final findings Do you agree or disagree with the vast majority of technically inclined computer users who know that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? 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. How about the court deciding something that was self-evident to most of us long ago (many Libertarians excluded). The court made tons of statements that are anything but self-evident and that you speak of it as a singular thing is an example of why I don't discuss it with you. |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:
John Doe writes: All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express an opinion one way or another. Why is anyone required to explain _not_ having a specific opinion? I would much rather know the opinion. Do you or do you not recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the facts because you know most of your associates know better. My guess is that he is not arguing religion, whereas some others here are. You appear to be arguing politics. Libertarian? That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on. In the world of technology, this is unfortunately all too plausible. Not when practically everybody else in the world of high technology already knew better. Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between an operating system and applications? It's very difficult to draw a clear line between the two. A clear line isn't necessary. Some things are obvious. Just because office applications benefit from interoperability doesn't mean that the monopoly operating system maker has to make them. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!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 22:54:36 -0600 From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:54:35 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: ks5jm15bjarhescbr71jo73qr6tm3v5khe 4ax.com References: 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 11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 11miobbo5ut4362 corp.supernews.com Xns9702E6342B453follydom 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: sv3-7bdM/UuWqtinmskMZhd3uapqLQ8/Y3mHIWZw5uqinrt8ujvW+YhiBn7rw/9stiDqwHEmY54SIV/5qE9!Xp7dM5u8U311aZj5yUdrA4RJRUKVJG21Wv/BXinpGUezxniiXjgK4lomtnGaxhyeeQ== 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:225903 sci.electronics.repair:427643 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448959 |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Ranting troll
"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote: Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!n ewssvr33.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: 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102 7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com Xns97013EF13E444follydom 207.115.17.102 e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102 ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102 nk7im15tupp0ucr170q4jp3c352439rh7h 4ax.com Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom 207.115.17.102 Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Lines: 155 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Message-ID: EPgaf.4569$Y61.2278 newssvr33.news.prodigy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com 1130994020 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:20 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:20 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: OP\MBX_ESZRMBUX[N[O _WH YR_B EXLLBWLOOAFEQR ETUCCNSKQFCY TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC VJM Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:00:20 GMT Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225908 sci.electronics.repair:427649 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448963 zz "John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom 207.115.17.102... Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:19:38 GMT Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: 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. Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on the Internet. 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 what I thought. You don't believe what most technically inclined computer users have understood long before our federal courts decided the issue. No what I believe is you trust in liars! And I have make a clear cut case of it. Are you a Libertarian? No! I am nothing! I don't vote at all because I am responsible for my actions. Something that those like you can't claim. Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away. I don't understand this statement. Microsoft has a stranglehold on personal computer software. Not so! That is like saying Linux has a stranglehold on the personal computer software. Both are rivals. Something that you will never understand! 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. The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the operating system maker making applications. It's kind of like being on a farm. Let's say the operating system is your farm machinery, and the applications are your various crops. You wouldn't want the farm machinery favoring one crop or another or you're likely to end up with munched up potatoes. Anybody is free to create their own OS and some have. And Linux is the strongest competitor to MS. A fact that you have been ignoring this whole time. The likely scenario is this. As Microsoft grows old and lazy, it will continue to suck applications into its maelstrom. Microsoft already owns the biggest money makers. The lazier Microsoft gets, the more applications it will have to add to its collection. First it has been the most lucrative applications and applications that Microsoft and its family might need or enjoy. Second it is applications that make the most money. Eventually, any software that makes money will be dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft also squeezes more and more money out of its already captive users. And eventually they cry to the government for relief. Still ignoring Linux and Open Office like a dumbass. Good show John. Ignorance is your best suite! 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. Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft. From known liars? Good show John... good show! And in fact, there's very little difference. In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public utilities, then? The operating system maker should not be allowed to make applications, whatever you call it. If that were to pose some threat to Microsoft's Windows dominance, I guess that would be competition. lol I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the military? You really need to include more than one level of quoting. From a guy who can't even respond from quotes from others at all. Good show John. Drop to the lowest level possible! 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 agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me. Buy a Linux computer then. What is your problem? 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? I guess something was lost in the translation. Again, you really need to include more than one level of quoting. Since you can't address facts in front of you face, your requests are meaningless. Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy. Because I'm using AMD very well. Maybe you should buy a Mac. Again, you really need to quote more than one level. Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many other applications is bad. You are such a dumbass! I said many times now there are Linux and OpenOffice. You on the other hand want to be a total jerk and ignore the facts! That is okay John, we all now know you are just a dumbass. So you have nothing more to prove. __________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000) -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0 |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
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: 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'. What part don't you understand? 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 All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express an opinion one way or another. My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the facts because you know most of your associates know better. 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, That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on. 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. Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between an operating system and applications? I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as heck wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're willing to take on P/L responsibility. Are you trying to answer that question? Do you know the difference between the operating system and applications? 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. I use them both, but not interchangeably. You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise identical sentences. That's interchangeably in my book. You are full of it. That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final findings Do you agree or disagree with the vast majority of technically inclined computer users who know that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? 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. How about the court deciding something that was self-evident to most of us long ago (many Libertarians excluded). The court made tons of statements that are anything but self-evident and that you speak of it as a singular thing is an example of why I don't discuss it with you. It's a simple question. Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market? Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!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!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: David Maynard nospam private.net Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:37:29 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: 11mj8gprjccted2 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 11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 11miobbo5ut4362 corp.supernews.com Xns9702E6342B453follydom 207.115.17.102 In-Reply-To: Xns9702E6342B453follydom 207.115.17.102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com Lines: 125 Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225918 sci.electronics.repair:427659 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448973 |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
I'm just replying in kind, troll.
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!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 23:33:17 -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: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:33:17 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: a88jm1tmidk5rimr7naibja8gnl0ojooum 4ax.com References: 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 sc0fm19vvg3157d2quttib6vd6rnpo9fm6 4ax.com Xns9701AC2901266follydom 207.115.17.102 nm0hm1tdkm37k5b5q47kl21b3hu105aeu0 4ax.com Xns9702E6A21A38Dfollydom 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: 8 X-Trace: sv3-Bvz+GQmtTiaVbu6uYjihDm3oIg5TRoSwOzzcaQAOP6sIQ6qOrD 4dUX7+kFlkbe7N+LhsCV/kpX2aVGg!ZprNfZOivnvd8Xc169TuKPae13A1Z4ujIExGF3dab CSnBcLe7ogm0tvC9QZJqx+CoQ== 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:225915 sci.electronics.repair:427656 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448970 John Doe writes: Your lack of quoting helps when playing semantics. Your personal attacks hurt when you're trying to advance in debate. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Mostly just trolling
Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote: Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!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 23:36:33 -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: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:36:33 +0100 Organization: Just Mxsmanic Message-ID: g98jm1tgpvg4dr58j99g2pldc0f4r3opk2 4ax.com References: 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com Xns9702E903DF76Efollydom 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: 42 X-Trace: sv3-B1L3XlByFVulv90wzewPAX391jPmpgU38lEHfgjrCW7StyFTYl +nx+1htnnJOnUCOY48dGA/0Usoa67!dFAE6Z3NxahCjsJYsz0PSp3sP+RwcwUcZFHl76NPwf 1mOlHI5x0uGm56sBOaGFb17g== 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:225917 sci.electronics.repair:427658 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448972 John Doe writes: But that's not how it happened. Your side introduced Bill Gates money. When did anyone take sides? Envy is a common fault. Common, but not universal. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Most years, yes. But I don't see what that has to do with Microsoft. Just as easy is to suggest that you are pandering, brown nosing, and sucking up to Bill Gates and Microsoft. Easy to suggest, but extremely difficult to substantiate. You know Microsoft has spearheaded the drive to outsource jobs to India and dramatically increase the H-1B visa program? A lot of companies are falling all over each other in the race to outsource anything and everything. Microsoft didn't invent the idea and they aren't particularly prominent in their use thereof. Microsoft is the number one lobbyist for outsourcing and the H-1B visa program. Outsourcing doesn't require lobbying. I know of lots of companies that are doing it. You know that outsourcing jobs to India/overseas is Microsoft's Way to increase profits and further dominate small software companies. It's an example of Steve Ballmer's move towards bottom-line management, which is always a move in the wrong direction over the long term. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: You seem 'surprised'. Not surprised at all, given what I know of him and the company (and their history). But reading the latest trendy books on management for tips when you're in charge of a multi-billion dollar company is a bit worrisome. CEOs of large and successful companies are supposed to be in a position to write books about their own successful techniques, rather than try to pick them up from others. I don't know a thing about him but even a genius would be foolish to not read up even if for no other reason to see what your competition is doing. Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals? Some do, some don't. I'd sure worry about the one's who don't. A lot of trade rags aren't worth reading. Oh come on. You know that's a straw man. Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing. IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie, pocket protector army? It's the stuff of legend. There were good reasons for it; it's just that IBM tried to apply the same philosophy to very different markets, unsuccessfully. Yep. That's what I mean about transporting 'visions'. It seems self-evident that what works for mainframes would not work for PCs, but apparently this never occurred to IBM, even though it certainly occurred to others. Yeah, I know, but it seems to be a common problem. But then that's also what spawns industry mantras like "don't stray from your core business" and why in risk management anything you haven't done before it automatically flagged a risk no matter how trivial it seems. It ain't 'trivial' because you don't know enough to know whether it's 'trivial' or not. But now others are making similar mistakes. One reason why Microsoft has such a terrible time trying to break into the server market is that it has absolutely no clue on how that market works. To Microsoft, everything is just like a desktop, just as IBM saw everything as a mainframe. A lot of people at Microsoft don't even know what a mainframe is, and yet they are trying to sell into a comparable market. In that case they have the wrong development process because the first thing they should do is acquire the knowledge, one way or the other. You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than expecting one person to be omniscient. Alas, most companies don't hire on the basis of intelligence. And the larger they get, the more unintelligent deadwood they acquire. Well, they *think* they are. Maybe the problem is that deadwood floats I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features' but not terribly different to the primary mission. Even if they are something new and different, most people using computers don't want to continually change to something new and different. They just want a tool that works; and once it works, they're content to leave it untouched forever (and in fact that's what they prefer). Of course, and that's why I said it takes something significant to the primary mission. Would you be willing to buy a new washing machine every year, each one with a completely different way of operating and a whole new set of instructions? No, but if it were 1930 and I had a hand crank unit I might be willing to 'upgrade' to one of them new fangled electric 'automatic' ones even though its still just a washing machine. It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if it's functionally significant enough. Yes. But remember that the market was microscopic in those days compared to today. The inertia is much greater now. Additionally, users today are much more likely to have all they need in current operating systems, and so are even less likely to change. It's true there's more inertia but I've heard the "all you likely need" argument since DOS came out. There are simply things you can do with the 32bit architecture that you can't with the 16. And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit transitions to 64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the long touted 3D Desktop. First we need a reason for these things. Most users have no reason to care about any of these developments. Many users can still get by with Windows 3.1 functionality; a far greater number are happy with Windows 95 (tons of people are still running it, and I don't ever expect them to change). Well, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't Computers are one of, if not the, most synergistic products ever devised with more powerful computers enabling applications previously unheard of and developers dreaming of applications current machines can't handle spurring them on to ever more power. And people who thought a typewriter was perfectly fine now can't live without publisher quality full graphics. You know, I can remember when a telephone was for speaking to someone, not taking pictures, PDA, WAP, and text messaging. You think anyone really 'needed' those 'first'? Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models. But increasingly similar management mistakes. DEC seemed very different from IBM, too, but it eventually succumbed to the same management errors. I just think they're different errors This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's transportable to any industry If he's truly brilliant, he'll see the end of buggy whips coming and steer his company into other domains before it happens. But CEOs tend to fall in love with whatever brought them their first big successes, and then they don't want to think about anything else later on. That's because its where their 'great idea' and experience/insight lives and saying the buggy whip CEO should steer the company to a new domain is easier said than done. It just isn't obvious what else that magic 'crack' his whips make applies to and even if he finds an alternative it's not nearly as likely to be another 'great idea' but more of a settling for 'something'. We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot. You can have a smart management team that serves the same purpose as a genius. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as you get the critical mass of intelligence together at the top. I agree and you're coming close to the 'process' approach. Just needs a tad bit larger 'team', and the process. Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea? Yes, I believe so. Bill Gates has never been gifted for domains outside of his own, though. Just as Microsoft has no clue when it comes to servers or mainframes, it has no clue when it comes to ISPs. Yeah. But that was the thing we were musing about: where the man with the 'great idea' got the next 'great idea' and whether it was as easy as it sounds. And whether the lack of new 'great ideas' was due to him being gone and new management. I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek interest in some pet project. Yes. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what develops. I don't have any stock in any of these companies, so I don't care for the most part, but I am concerned for the stability of my operating system and applications and hardware, as I don't like to break things that are working, and I don't like to spend money or time needlessly. Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe wrote:
snip It should have been enough that I said I didn't intend to discuss it with you but, upon your insistence, I've given enough of the reasons why I don't intend to discuss it with you that even you should be able to grasp that I don't intend to discuss it with you. |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Ed Medlin wrote:
"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 It's nice to see others expressing the same feeling. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
"John Doe" wrote in message ... Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:55:42 GMT Ranting troll ROTFL!!! Still lying I see. Also you claim that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop market. Yet to pull this off, you have to ignore the *fact* there are millions of PCs not running Microsoft software at all. You also somehow believe that Microsoft killed off Netscape. Yet Netscape is still in business today and is now owned by AOL. And the old Netscape management screwed up royally. As Steve Case of AOL really hated Microsoft and really wanted Netscape for its default browser. But Netscape wouldn't give what Steve wanted. They wouldn't integrated it into AOL software. Plus they wanted AOL to pay for every copy of Netscape (I believe it was 10 bucks each). And there were millions of AOL users. That would add up to megabucks! Then Microsoft came along and said we'll integrate it into AOL for you. And you can have IE for free. Well Steve picked IE over Netscape. And this is when Netscape started losing market share. Because Netscape got greedy, they lost out. And that's the truth. __________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000) -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0 |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:45:21 GMT John Doe wrote
in Message id: : Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. In fact, Microsoft holds a monopoly on personal computer operating system software. Capitalists believe in competition. Microsoft has no competition for Windows, mainly because of network effects and a positive feedback loop. The only capitalists who adore Microsoft are mainly those stockholders who have made a killing. Many capitalists don't like Microsoft at all. Trim your posts, you mouth breathing moron. "DBLEXPOSURE" celstuff hotmail.com wrote: [...] 182 lines of top-posted quoted material |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
John Doe writes:
But it all makes so much sense having lived through the era being very interested in personal computing. I don't understand this statement. Because it puts the operating system maker's applications at a significant advantage over the competition. How? Are you saying that Microsoft Office is only one application? Yes. So why wouldn't they be interoperable? Because they would all use different file formats, for example. That's $2,290,000,000 in one quarter. Yes, and almost all of it is Microsoft Office. I bet that's more than all other PC software companies combined. It's not, but it's more than most individual software companies. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
BillW50 writes:
But Netscape wouldn't give what Steve wanted. They wouldn't integrated it into AOL software. Plus they wanted AOL to pay for every copy of Netscape (I believe it was 10 bucks each). And there were millions of AOL users. That would add up to megabucks! Then Microsoft came along and said we'll integrate it into AOL for you. And you can have IE for free. Well Steve picked IE over Netscape. And this is when Netscape started losing market share. Because Netscape got greedy, they lost out. And that's the truth. And then AOL bought Netscape just to put it to sleep, so that MSIE would be less encumbered. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard writes:
In that case they have the wrong development process because the first thing they should do is acquire the knowledge, one way or the other. They haven't done that. They've been able to make a lot of money doing what they know how to do, so they've never developed the habit of learning to do other things. The aforementioned PhotoDraw 2000 was a classic example. It was clearly written by people who were expert in using standard Windows constructs and tools, people who knew the Windows interface inside and out and could produce semi-transparent, glistening, rose-scented context menus blindfolded ... but these people knew nothing whatsoever about image processing, and the piece of junk they produced was an absolute horror. It was quickly and quietly discontinued. No, but if it were 1930 and I had a hand crank unit I might be willing to 'upgrade' to one of them new fangled electric 'automatic' ones even though its still just a washing machine. Someone might be willing to upgrade from an original PC to a brand-new one today, too. But a lot of the intermediate upgrades are unnecessary. And someone using an old PC to get things done doesn't need an upgrade, as long as the old PC does the job. It's true there's more inertia but I've heard the "all you likely need" argument since DOS came out. Some people still run DOS. Each newer version of a PC OS leaves more and more people still running with prior versions. It gets harder and harder to convince anyone to "upgrade," especially outside the geek community. There are simply things you can do with the 32bit architecture that you can't with the 16. But there are also things for which you don't need 32-bit architecture. Well, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't And they still don't have computers. You know, I can remember when a telephone was for speaking to someone, not taking pictures, PDA, WAP, and text messaging. You think anyone really 'needed' those 'first'? No. And I know that hardly anyone is using those extra features. Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day Ray Kroc came into his own in his fifties. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| computer clocks | UK diy | |||
| Are PC surge protectors needed in the UK? | Electronics Repair | |||
Linear Mode
