troll

Mikey none all.nul wrote:

Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news.glorb.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!auth.brown.octanews.com.POSTED!no t-for-mail
From: Mikey none all.nul
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 10:12:06 -0500
Organization: none
Message-ID: u2akm11kmaoap3qs638q416lagu29rv7ce 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 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Date: 03 Nov 2005 09:11:55 CST
X-Complaints-To: abuse octanews.net
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225935 sci.electronics.repair:427686 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448994

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:45:21 GMT John Doe jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote
in Message id: Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 207.115.17.102:

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

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

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.

Since you removed the context, it's no wonder.

Because it puts the operating system maker's applications at a
significant advantage over the competition.

Are you saying that Microsoft Office is only one application?

Yes.

That answer is on par with half of your arguments.

So why wouldn't they be interoperable?

Because they would all use different file formats, for example.

Which doesn't mean anything by itself.

That's $2,290,000,000 in one quarter.
I bet that's more than all other PC software companies combined.

It's not,

Says the same guy who thinks Office is one application?

https://www.microsoft.com/msft/earni...rel_q1_04.mspx






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


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganew s.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:22:57 -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 19:22:53 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: 18lkm19r3q4nfhv6rbs50qg3s4vpakbn8h 4ax.com
References: 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 8i5jm1hld2e4nki9jkt5kv439ng3f40eib 4ax.com Xns9702EFB1ADB24follydom 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: 30
X-Trace: sv3-Z9dLPmh9+AxvTwPs2LnwnfcYwk05K4lnHRjHGPVjMs6bewApJn 2Co0WsNaBHdwRt0by5UDW1zMsZVo0!fWQ3U7u3y1jY5NHe+rWS LMJ8gv7w8h5k94Hs9in9lcgPVeKfT5Vk7eomdQZurPpt8g==
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:225944 sci.electronics.repair:427698 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:449000

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

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.

By the way, do you think Microsoft Office is one application?

That's so silly, just like your justification for dodging the
Microsoft Windows monopoly question.








Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamm a.RU!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:10:05 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11mjduenv5c4h42 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 11mj8gprjccted2 corp.supernews.com Xns9703CCBDFF2follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns9703CCBDFF2follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 9
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225928 sci.electronics.repair:427670 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448984

Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:

vanagonvw gmail.com writes:

The war is over, but M$ didn't win with superior technology.

Microsoft won by being smarter than IBM. They certainly didn't do it
with money or influence or power, since they had none of these back
then.

Given your persistent single level quoting only, the context of your
argument is anybody's guess, but if you're talking about the time
Microsoft Windows succeeded over IBM's OS/2, Microsoft won the
battle by virtue of having all of the APIs from Windows 3.1 to use
with Windows 95, and the huge base of applications to go with it.



Snipped the rest of Mxsmanic's trolling


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

Path: newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsco n06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca. giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:28:48 -0600
From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 04:28:47 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: qqndm1pf0n0u2mrjb83on7uifdgc5aaur1 4ax.com
References: 43617926$0$41143$14726298 news.sunsite.dk 43618add$1$woehfu$mr2ice news.aros.net 11m33ar4dperr89 corp.supernews.com %Ig8f.32451$gF4.27376 trnddc07 o1a3m1p5kp00j5lpfbs03kqklpum9mukrj 4ax.com 43625539$1$woehfu$mr2ice news.aros.net i3s4m1hrkf574e5p79inehev45bvon2uvt 4ax.com 1130531700.900539.275640 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com Z629f.442$p37.438 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com 1130791164.265737.187630 g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 79
X-Trace: sv3-3KJ4+0DEoQnSU+dP3A4ito8rJZnTiVc8Pqs7mcPBGYBs93OQoW 3anLYhgkM0ZQU4onuQgtTTSLvDAhV!RD/7Xm/Ra8KYGgFD+k8XdQ+AH3GGJIk67K0HmTmElSRBDoW+TqcDaE1og Wt0dmYpSw==
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:225622 sci.electronics.repair:427222 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448718

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

....

But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over the
personal computer operating system market long before our courts
finalized the issue. Given our current state of justice, it might be
a moot point, but it's crystal clear to the vast majority of techies
who don't work for Microsoft.

From the federal district court of the United States.

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

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

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

You must be wearing some heavy duty blinders.






Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!tethys.csu.net!nntp.csu fresno.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-08!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:10:38 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11miosfrti53nca 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: 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 558im1dvkk1a2f45tlplql8vsge5milc20 4ax.com
In-Reply-To: 558im1dvkk1a2f45tlplql8vsge5milc20 4ax.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 25
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225883 sci.electronics.repair:427620 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448936

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


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.


By the way, do you think Microsoft Office is one application?

That's so silly, just like your justification for dodging the
Microsoft Windows monopoly question.

Well, I agree it's silly of you to keep hounding me.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

...

But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over the
personal computer operating system market long before our courts
finalized the issue. Given our current state of justice, it might be
a moot point, but it's crystal clear to the vast majority of techies
who don't work for Microsoft.

From the federal district court of the United States.

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

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

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

You must be wearing some heavy duty blinders.

Declining to discuss it with you does not suggest any particular opinion on
the subject regardless of your idiotic attempts to imply otherwise.

John Doe writes:

But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over the
personal computer operating system market long before our courts
finalized the issue.

The courts didn't finalize anything, except in a restricted legal
sense, and there was no general consensus on such questions before or
after the courts gave their opinions.

Few people dispute that Microsoft has a dominant position in a handful
of key markets, most notably in PC desktop operating systems. Whether
or not this is a monopoly or a harmful monopoly is a much more open
question.

Intel has a comparable market share (currently around 81%, vs. 94% for
Microsoft in the desktop OS arena), and yet it does not appear to
raise so many questions of monopoly. I think in part that is because
the average geek cannot fancy himself building a chip fabrication
facility and competing with Intel, whereas many geeks like to imagine
building a software product that somehow competes with Microsoft. And
many more geeks would like to work for Microsoft, which is more
willing to hire people with no education. Chips don't engender the
same emotions and envy, in any case.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Yeah. Bad development process.

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.

The point is it depends on whether the 'upgrade' offers significant enough
functional improvement.

And someone using an old PC to get things done doesn't
need an upgrade, as long as the old PC does the job.

Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it
better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how
one defines 'better'.

"Does the job" is an insufficient description because everyone is managing
to 'do the job' with what they have till something better comes along and,
interestingly enough, it isn't always clear just how much 'better'
something is till it's used.

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.

Well, some people still have no computer at all and I'm building a tube
amplifier. Neither says much about the state of the broader market, or
people in general, as they're fringe/niche situations.

Each newer version of a PC OS leaves more
and more people still running with prior versions.

That's true of any technological progression.

It gets harder and
harder to convince anyone to "upgrade," especially outside the geek
community.

You're assuming there just isn't anything 'left to do' that can matter and
I'm not willing to make that assumption.


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.

So? There are things for which you don't 'need' a computer at all but that
doesn't mean no one needs computers.

You're losing track of the issue here, which was whether an O.S. 'upgrade'
can offer a significant enough improvement to warrant the 'upgrade', not
whether every last soul on the planet uses it. And I was pointing out that
the O.S. changes needed to take advantage of 32 bit technology, vs 16 bit
technology, was a significant enough performance increase.

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.

I presume the 'they' you speak of is the last group because the others
discovered they 'needed' it after it was available.

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.

Perhaps, but they're still selling a ton of them.

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.

Yeah, and a very interesting story.


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

John Doe writes:

Given your persistent single level quoting only, the context of your
argument is anybody's guess, but if you're talking about the time
Microsoft Windows succeeded over IBM's OS/2, Microsoft won the
battle by virtue of having all of the APIs from Windows 3.1 to use
with Windows 95, and the huge base of applications to go with it.

OS/2 could have supported Windows applications, but it didn't (at
least not completely and well).

In those days Microsoft was the underdog, and the angry young males
were rooting for it instead of IBM. It's amusing to see how history
is now being revised so that the currently dominant player can be
portrayed as the bad guy even back then. We're not at war with
Eastasia, we're at war with Eurasia.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:


But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over the
personal computer operating system market long before our courts
finalized the issue.


The courts didn't finalize anything, except in a restricted legal
sense, and there was no general consensus on such questions before or
after the courts gave their opinions.

Few people dispute that Microsoft has a dominant position in a handful
of key markets, most notably in PC desktop operating systems. Whether
or not this is a monopoly or a harmful monopoly is a much more open
question.

You need to be careful about the word 'monopoly' because the court's ruling
is routinely misstated. The court did not find that Microsoft was "a
monopoly" but that they "held monopoly power." They're not the same thing
and neither, in and of themselves alone, mean anything devious or illegal
took place.

Most people have a decent enough grasp of what a "monopoly" is but "holds
monopoly power" is a legal term of art that, in colloquial terms, is akin
to your comment that Microsoft has a dominate market position.

Technically, 'monopoly power' is the ability to control price and/or
exclude competition but you need not even do it, simply being 'able' to is
enough, and the courts often interpret 'control' to an easier
'significantly influence' and 'exclude' to 'significantly inhibit'.

"Monopoly Power" is not tied to market share although the courts often use
it as an 'indicator' anyway.

To make matters even more confusing, 'harsh' business practices, even by
someone holding monopoly power, is not necessarily an anti-trust violation
as the appeals court ruling in Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corp., 195
F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) stated: "the Sherman Act does not convert all
harsh commercial actions into antitrust violations. Unilateral conduct that
may adversely affect another’s business situation, but is not intended to
monopolize that business, does not violate the Sherman Act."

The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving their
browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began charging for it,
which would seem to be an exercise in monopolistic power... but maybe no
one sued. Then, when Microsoft gives away their browser, Netscape brings
suit against Microsoft for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84%
market share.

Amusing, eh?

Intel has a comparable market share (currently around 81%, vs. 94% for
Microsoft in the desktop OS arena), and yet it does not appear to
raise so many questions of monopoly. I think in part that is because
the average geek cannot fancy himself building a chip fabrication
facility and competing with Intel, whereas many geeks like to imagine
building a software product that somehow competes with Microsoft. And
many more geeks would like to work for Microsoft, which is more
willing to hire people with no education. Chips don't engender the
same emotions and envy, in any case.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:


Given your persistent single level quoting only, the context of your
argument is anybody's guess, but if you're talking about the time
Microsoft Windows succeeded over IBM's OS/2, Microsoft won the
battle by virtue of having all of the APIs from Windows 3.1 to use
with Windows 95, and the huge base of applications to go with it.


OS/2 could have supported Windows applications, but it didn't (at
least not completely and well).

Well, they did, in fact, eventually tout that OS/2 would 'run Windows
software' which, in market terms, is tantamount to declaring Windows 'the
standard'. And then one asks, why not just get 'the real thing'?

IBM completely misjudged the market and what 'the competition' was. It
wasn't 'windows', it was MS Office. People didn't give a rat's behind what
the O.S. was, they wanted Office to work and it ran on Windows so, you get
Windows.

Which is why OS/2 fans can scream all they want about how OS/2 was
'technically superior' because the only 'technical' thing that really
mattered to the market was how well MS Office ran.

Now, if IBM had teamed up with Wordperfect, back when Wordperfect was still
the defacto PC word processing standard, and developed a GUI version along
with OS/2 they might have been able to successfully compete in that arena.

In those days Microsoft was the underdog, and the angry young males
were rooting for it instead of IBM. It's amusing to see how history
is now being revised so that the currently dominant player can be
portrayed as the bad guy even back then. We're not at war with
Eastasia, we're at war with Eurasia.

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

David Maynard writes:

Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it
better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how
one defines 'better'.

Yes, but those major leaps in functionality are mostly history now.
These days, the improvements usually involve multicolored transparent
menus, or larger and fancier 3-D icons, or other bells and whistles
that consume hardware and software resources but contribute nothing to
the basic purpose of the computer, for the average user.

Well, some people still have no computer at all and I'm building a tube
amplifier. Neither says much about the state of the broader market, or
people in general, as they're fringe/niche situations.

The broader market (and especially the worldwide market) is only
slightly beyond DOS today.

You're assuming there just isn't anything 'left to do' that can matter and
I'm not willing to make that assumption.

There may be plenty left to do; the problem is that nobody is doing
it. Software companies tend to content themselves with adding useless
bells and whistles--software bloat--to their products with each
upgrade, because adding truly new features and functionality requires
a lot of expensive development and involves taking serious risks. The
idea is to milk existing business for all the money one can, so
companies are unwilling to take risks with novelty. The bigger the
company, the more true this becomes.

You're losing track of the issue here, which was whether an O.S. 'upgrade'
can offer a significant enough improvement to warrant the 'upgrade', not
whether every last soul on the planet uses it. And I was pointing out that
the O.S. changes needed to take advantage of 32 bit technology, vs 16 bit
technology, was a significant enough performance increase.

Maybe. So what next? To justify an upgrade, I need something truly
interesting, and I just don't see that happening. The last upgrade I
found _interesting_ was from Windows 3.x to Windows NT (I never
bothered with Windows 95 and its ilk).

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

David Maynard writes:

The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving their
browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began charging for it,
which would seem to be an exercise in monopolistic power... but maybe no
one sued. Then, when Microsoft gives away their browser, Netscape brings
suit against Microsoft for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84%
market share.

Amusing, eh?

Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The difference
between subjective perception and reality is sometimes enormous.

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

David Maynard writes:

Well, they did, in fact, eventually tout that OS/2 would 'run Windows
software' which, in market terms, is tantamount to declaring Windows 'the
standard'. And then one asks, why not just get 'the real thing'?

Yup. I tell Linux users the same thing. And a lot of the older Linux
users were OS/2 fanatics before Linux came along. They can't _both_
be "the best operating system ever written."

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Well, they did, in fact, eventually tout that OS/2 would 'run Windows
software' which, in market terms, is tantamount to declaring Windows 'the
standard'. And then one asks, why not just get 'the real thing'?


Yup. I tell Linux users the same thing. And a lot of the older Linux
users were OS/2 fanatics before Linux came along. They can't _both_
be "the best operating system ever written."

Hehe. Well, one could argue that OS/2 was "the best operating system ever
written" as of 1995 and Linux is "the best operating system ever written"
as of 2005

But the thing that confounds the 'technically superior' crowd is that
'ignorant users' don't give a whit about 'technical superiority', they just
want, as you put it, to get the job done (with the least pain, misery, and
cost). Now, if the 'technically superior' crowd could explain why the
nuances of intertask messaging and 'a real multitasking O.S.' (sic) will
make the spell checker more brilliant then they might have a recognizable
argument but, otherwise, it's just meaningless techno babble to the average
user.

What can it do? It can run your Windows software too. Yeah? Well, so can
Windows.

Its hard to sell that.


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

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving their
browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began charging for it,
which would seem to be an exercise in monopolistic power... but maybe no
one sued. Then, when Microsoft gives away their browser, Netscape brings
suit against Microsoft for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84%
market share.

Amusing, eh?


Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The difference
between subjective perception and reality is sometimes enormous.

You betcha. So much for 'blind' justice

It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'ICON on the desktop'
issue. One could always install Netscape on a Windows machine, and sell it
that way, but what Netscape wanted was for OEMs, with, one imagines, a bit
of prodding from Netscape, the holder of monopoly power in the browser
market, to be able to *remove* I.E. from Microsoft's own product, not
simply coexist, and sell it with Netscape *only*.

One way of looking at it might be to say that Netscape was complaining
about Microsoft 'infringing' on their 'free use of monopoly power'

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

I didn't have to wait for the system to tell me that Microsoft
owns personal computer software.

Me neither. Yes Microsoft does develop personal computer software.
But so does thousands of other companies as well. So this rules out
Microsoft as a monopoly.

Your life must be constant bliss.




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




Path: newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postma ster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr33.news.prodigy.com.P OSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com 11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102 kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102 FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102 TyT9f.4495$8W.3325 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701BBB667D77follydom 207.115.17.102 llU9f.4499$8W.2606 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701C504D5F55follydom 207.115.17.102 keW9f.4522$8W.3043 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9702802F98EB1follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 105
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: jV8af.4494$Y61.3339 newssvr33.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com 1130961615 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:00:15 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:00:15 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: TSU[ I_A\S ]SQXXHRJB^QL AJT QDDMEPWXODMMHXMTWA]EPMVOPCWZBL[\YUWHANGYZEFNHFZPNLOBUNSS^_LGEVWEY\PHO YJSSWBBDT\PFD^ESBTXVCCMTD]JCJLE\_IJMFNRY]SWE[S[D_CNB__ZK^VGVCKHA[S COB^[ ZQSDFQ\BPMS DZVUKQTJL
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:00:15 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225861 sci.electronics.repair:427584 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448909

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


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.


By the way, do you think Microsoft Office is one application?

That's so silly, just like your justification for dodging the
Microsoft Windows monopoly question.

Well, I agree it's silly of you to keep hounding me.

I'm hounding you? For an opinion? On USENET?

That's funny too.

Do you think Microsoft Office is one application? I'm impressed that
anybody (who is supposed to be high technology oriented) can muster
the courage to say something like that in public. And I'm looking
forward to you all plainly stating your (comedic) belief that
Microsoft does not hold monopoly power. I don't mean BillW50, he is
way past comedy.

That baseball bat analogy (in a prior post) was posed by one of the
appeals court judges when Microsoft plainly argued that because
because it is the rightful owner of Windows, it has the right to do
anything with Windows.

Some Microsoft defender arguments are pretty funny, even arguments
put forth by extremely well-paid attorneys in federal court.

Microsoft is in court every day forcing its will upon smaller
software publishers. One year, Microsoft poured $650 million into
our justice system. Microsoft constantly employs our government to
physically force smaller software companies into compliance. If it
weren't for our intellectual property law and our government to
physically enforce that law at the point of a gun, Microsoft would
fall apart like a playing card house.







Path: newssvr11.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!postnews.google.com!news4.google.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: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:53:46 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11mlqar206uplc2 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$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$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 11mj8gprjccted2 corp.supernews.com Xns9703CCBDFF2follydom 207.115.17.102 11mjduenv5c4h42 corp.supernews.com Xns9703DB6DE5A37follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns9703DB6DE5A37follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 22
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225976 sci.electronics.repair:427746 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:449038

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



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.


By the way, do you think Microsoft Office is one application?

That's so silly, just like your justification for dodging the
Microsoft Windows monopoly question.

Well, I agree it's silly of you to keep hounding me.


I'm hounding you? For an opinion? On USENET?


That's probably the closest thing to an accurate summary I've ever seen
come out of you and this may come as a real shock but I am under no
'obligation' whatsoever to provide you with an opinion on ANYthing.

snip

John Doe writes:

Microsoft is in court every day forcing its will upon smaller
software publishers. One year, Microsoft poured $650 million into
our justice system. Microsoft constantly employs our government to
physically force smaller software companies into compliance.

It's the other way around. Thousands of smaller software companies
try to use the courts to compensate for their own inability to
compete, by accusing Microsoft of various misdeeds on a regular basis.

If it weren't for our intellectual property law and our government to
physically enforce that law at the point of a gun, Microsoft would
fall apart like a playing card house.

So would every other software company.

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

wrote:
Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?

The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.

I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.


Maybe 'cos if you really care about accuracy on a PC you can just set it
to update from an NTP server.

David Maynard wrote:

I'm hounding you? For an opinion? On USENET?


That's probably the closest thing to an accurate summary I've ever
seen come out of you and this may come as a real shock but I am
under no 'obligation' whatsoever to provide you with an opinion on
ANYthing.

You are too full of yourself to get my drift.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

I'm hounding you? For an opinion? On USENET?


That's probably the closest thing to an accurate summary I've ever
seen come out of you and this may come as a real shock but I am
under no 'obligation' whatsoever to provide you with an opinion on
ANYthing.


You are too full of yourself to get my drift.

I got your drift just fine. Now lets see if you got mine.

BillW50 wrote:


Well I don't know if I would say that about pot head Kildall?


he's friend with Tommy Chong?

or do you mean his head is literally shaped that way?

mk5000.

"no that's every single day. I didn't realize it at the time, but
after the movie, I was like , uh oh I am Ed WOod yikes"--tim burton

BarryNL wrote:

Maybe 'cos if you really care about accuracy on a PC you can just set it
to update from an NTP server.

Do you honestly believe I'd be interested in accurate oscillators if I
could simply get the time from a network? Much of the equipment is
placed so even WWV isn't available.

BarryNL wrote:

Maybe 'cos if you really care about accuracy on a PC you can just set it
to update from an NTP server.

Do you honestly believe I'd be interested in accurate oscillators if I
could simply get the time from a network? Much of the equipment is
placed so even WWV isn't available.

On 6 Nov 2005 17:55:04 -0800, wrote:

BarryNL wrote:

Maybe 'cos if you really care about accuracy on a PC you can just set it
to update from an NTP server.

Do you honestly believe I'd be interested in accurate oscillators if I
could simply get the time from a network? Much of the equipment is
placed so even WWV isn't available.


OK, so we eliminated the obvious. The typical PC crystal costs $.25 and is
accurate to 20ppm, or 1.7 sec/day, at room temp. It gets worse at other
temps. You can buy a pci clock card with a tempurature compensated crystal
that is accurate to plus or minus 2ppm for $60, and make it your time
server for you network, or if stand alone systems, in each one if it is
that important. Here is one: http://www.beaglesoft.com/clcaspecs.htm

BH

Brad Houser wrote:

OK, so we eliminated the obvious. The typical PC crystal costs
$.25 and is accurate to 20ppm, or 1.7 sec/day, at room temp. It
gets worse at other temps.

Is there a simple relationship like slower-cooler and faster-hotter
(or the reverse) involved here, or is the relationship not that
simple?


--
Blinky
Killing all Google Groups posts.
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

The crystal time function also gets worse when voltage to
that oscillator varies. And that voltage variation is part of
the CMOS date time clock design. Oscillator accuracy, which
addressed the OP's original question, was answered at the very
beginning of this thread. Variation of oscillator crystal is
why watches have a trimmer capacitor. But this too was
answered up top, at the beginning, maybe about 100 replies
ago. Worse still, something like 3 out of 4 responses still
post about external time sources - WWV, internet time,
Operating System response to a interrupts from a completely
different clock, etc. All those were obviously and totally
irrelevant to the question originally asked by do_not_spam_me.

His question was answered early on in the very first
responses. Following posts should deal with these - two
factors of oscillator variation - no trimmer capacitor and
voltage variations to that oscillator. So many reponses that
never once even considered these factors that cause CMOS RTC
timing variations.

BTW, John Popelish also provides good information on how
crystal cuts and other factors contribute to these
variations. Another post that answers the OP's original
question and a comment about many posts that don't.

Brad Houser wrote:
OK, so we eliminated the obvious. The typical PC crystal costs $.25
and is accurate to 20ppm, or 1.7 sec/day, at room temp. It gets worse
at other temps. You can buy a pci clock card with a tempurature
compensated crystal that is accurate to plus or minus 2ppm for $60,
and make it your time server for you network, or if stand alone
systems, in each one if it is that important. Here is one:
http://www.beaglesoft.com/clcaspecs.htm

Anthony Fremont wrote:

IBM completely killed off Honeywell and Burroughs with good marketing
skills, not better hardware. The competition lay in salesmanship and
brainwashing, not making better stuff or even trying to be cost
competitive.


IBM killed off Burroughs? What are you talking about? Burroughs
merged with Sperry in 1986 and still operate under their new name,
Unisys.

http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/history/


--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael A. Terrell writes:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

IBM completely killed off Honeywell and Burroughs with good marketing
skills, not better hardware. The competition lay in salesmanship and
brainwashing, not making better stuff or even trying to be cost
competitive.


IBM killed off Burroughs? What are you talking about? Burroughs
merged with Sperry in 1986 and still operate under their new name,
Unisys.

IBM didn't kill off Honeywell, either. Honeywell bought GE's computer
division, then Bull SA (the French computer company) bought Honewell's
computer division. Today it survives as Bull SA (the unfortunate name
of the company comes from Fredrik Bull, the Norwegian founder of a
company that ultimately evolved to Bull SA today).

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell writes:


Anthony Fremont wrote:

IBM completely killed off Honeywell and Burroughs with good marketing
skills, not better hardware. The competition lay in salesmanship and
brainwashing, not making better stuff or even trying to be cost
competitive.


IBM killed off Burroughs? What are you talking about? Burroughs
merged with Sperry in 1986 and still operate under their new name,
Unisys.


IBM didn't kill off Honeywell, either. Honeywell bought GE's computer
division, then Bull SA (the French computer company) bought Honewell's
computer division. Today it survives as Bull SA (the unfortunate name
of the company comes from Fredrik Bull, the Norwegian founder of a
company that ultimately evolved to Bull SA today).


Well, that's a lot of Bull

David Maynard wrote:
Well, that's a lot of Bull

But they did swallow Honey Well.

David Maynard writes:

Well, that's a lot of Bull

The company has tried to make the best of its name in English ads,
often with slogans along the lines of what you give above, but it
hasn't been very successful. Bull doesn't mean anything in French, so
it's not a problem in France, but it's a problem in English-speaking
countries. It was just bad luck that one of the original founders had
a Norwegian name that by some weird coincidence happened to look just
like an English word (Bull doesn't look very Norwegian to me, but
maybe it is [?]).

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:


Well, that's a lot of Bull


The company has tried to make the best of its name in English ads,
often with slogans along the lines of what you give above, but it
hasn't been very successful. Bull doesn't mean anything in French, so
it's not a problem in France, but it's a problem in English-speaking
countries. It was just bad luck that one of the original founders had
a Norwegian name that by some weird coincidence happened to look just
like an English word (Bull doesn't look very Norwegian to me, but
maybe it is [?]).


Interesting. Frankly, I wouldn't have though it a all *that* much of a
problem because 'Bull' can be more/different than the implication we've
been using. It's certainly not as bad as some of the other name/language
foopaa's I've heard about, like the Ford Pinto. Turned out Pinto meant
something akin to 'small male genitalia' in Brazil. I mean, that's not even
a seller for females. Not to be outdone, Chevrolet introduced the "Nova" to
South America only to discover it translated to "it won't go." Just what
the world needs, a car that won't go.

This one is one of my special favorites. One drug company decided to avoid
all possible language mistakes in marketing to the United Arab Emirates by
using just pictures. First one shows a person ill. Next one taking the
medication. Next one all well and cured.

Unfortunately, Arab world people read left to right.

Gerber solved the 'which way' problem, just in case, when marketing to
Africa by using only one pictu the famous Gerber Baby on the label.
Except, in Africa companies generally put a picture of what's inside
because most people there can't read. Give's "baby food" a whole new
meaning, don't it?

Gawd, it's going to take me hours to stop laughing.

David Maynard writes:

Gerber solved the 'which way' problem, just in case, when marketing to
Africa by using only one pictu the famous Gerber Baby on the label.
Except, in Africa companies generally put a picture of what's inside
because most people there can't read. Give's "baby food" a whole new
meaning, don't it?

Are Africans so dense that they can't figure out that the picture
represents something _for_ a baby, rather than baby flesh? What
picture would they understand?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:


Gerber solved the 'which way' problem, just in case, when marketing to
Africa by using only one pictu the famous Gerber Baby on the label.
Except, in Africa companies generally put a picture of what's inside
because most people there can't read. Give's "baby food" a whole new
meaning, don't it?


Are Africans so dense that they can't figure out that the picture
represents something _for_ a baby, rather than baby flesh?

Saying they're 'dense' is a bit harsh and you're basing it on the culture
you're used to. I mean, if everything you saw was a picture of what's
inside then you'd probably expect the picture to be a picture of what's
inside too.

My *guess* would be it was just confusing. That perhaps they assumed it
couldn't possibly be 'baby' inside but... what could it be then? Salve?

On the other hand, who knows what they think of barbarian anglos?

Things that seem 'obvious' in one culture can be anything but to someone
not familiar with it. I learned that one in the middle east when I went for
a public toilet and found myself looking at two identically shaped figures
labeling which was for males and females. The only difference was one was
white and the other was black but to a westerner used to the skirt/pants
distinction it was a bit of a mystery, especially when not thinking real
clear due to the urgency

What
picture would they understand?

Don't know for sure as I'm not used to that particular culture but maybe an
apple for mashed apple? On the other hand, I don't know if apples are
visually common there. Or whether that's what was inside since it only had
a picture of a baby on it

David Maynard writes:

Saying they're 'dense' is a bit harsh and you're basing it on the culture
you're used to. I mean, if everything you saw was a picture of what's
inside then you'd probably expect the picture to be a picture of what's
inside too.

But I would still realize that a picture of, say, a mountain on the
label would not mean that a mountain was contained inside the jar.
While I can understand that they might be accustomed to having a
picture on the jar that shows what's inside, I also credit them with
enough reasoning ability to realize that an actual baby isn't going to
be crammed into the jar just because a picture of one is on the label.

It reminds me, though, of the famous story of the illiterate woman (in
the U.S.) who bought a gallon can of Crisco because she thought it had
a roast chicken inside (there was a picture of a roast chicken on the
label).

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Saying they're 'dense' is a bit harsh and you're basing it on the culture
you're used to. I mean, if everything you saw was a picture of what's
inside then you'd probably expect the picture to be a picture of what's
inside too.


But I would still realize that a picture of, say, a mountain on the
label would not mean that a mountain was contained inside the jar.

Maybe mountain dirt. You hear people say "he could sell snowballs to an
eskimo" so I guess someone could sell mountain dirt too

While I can understand that they might be accustomed to having a
picture on the jar that shows what's inside, I also credit them with
enough reasoning ability to realize that an actual baby isn't going to
be crammed into the jar just because a picture of one is on the label.

I don't know why. We got lunatics in this supposedly 'educated' country
claming we rammed planes into our own trade towers, or blew them up.

It reminds me, though, of the famous story of the illiterate woman (in
the U.S.) who bought a gallon can of Crisco because she thought it had
a roast chicken inside (there was a picture of a roast chicken on the
label).

Seems you just disproved your own point

Actually, the point isn't whether everyone thought it had a baby inside but
that any confusion at all isn't conducive to selling the product and
neither is dismissing it as them being dense. Even if you're right it don't
get the jars sold