After reading much of this thread, and a lot of it has been
quite insightful... I'd like to add 2 more cents.

w_tom wrote:
There are two ways to do as suggested. The first is to make
'Benjamins' part of the technical facts during design....
... the technical reason for high verses low accuracy
timers was provided. Computer motherboards don't have the
trimming capacitor and the oscillator is subject to wider
voltage variations. Why this technical decision was made was
not asked and would only be speculation.

So, two sides of the coin... then, there be the THIRD side of the coin.

Why do you have a clock on your computer? Can't afford a watch
or a desk clock or a wall clock?

The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record
creation/change time on files.

It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000
or 6:00.00 000035

What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
a few minutes a day.

Even if Perry Mason drags you into the witness stand and confronts
you with file dates and times, approximate is probably good enough
to acquit you or convict you. If in the rare case it's not, bring in
your
expert to explain that computer clocks are often not accurate.

Wood

"Woody Brison" bravely wrote to "All" (15 Nov 05 09:51:18)
--- on the heady topic of " Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap
quartz watches?"

WB From: "Woody Brison"
WB Xref: core-easynews sci.electronics.basics:146967
WB sci.electronics.repair:348689 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:352599


WB After reading much of this thread, and a lot of it has been
WB quite insightful... I'd like to add 2 more cents.

WB w_tom wrote:
There are two ways to do as suggested. The first is to make
'Benjamins' part of the technical facts during design....
... the technical reason for high verses low accuracy
timers was provided. Computer motherboards don't have the
trimming capacitor and the oscillator is subject to wider
voltage variations. Why this technical decision was made was
not asked and would only be speculation.

WB So, two sides of the coin... then, there be the THIRD side of the
WB coin.
WB Why do you have a clock on your computer? Can't afford a watch
WB or a desk clock or a wall clock?

WB The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record
WB creation/change time on files.

WB It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000
WB or 6:00.00 000035

WB What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
WB compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
WB has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

WB On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
WB needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
WB a few minutes a day.

WB Even if Perry Mason drags you into the witness stand and confronts
WB you with file dates and times, approximate is probably good enough
WB to acquit you or convict you. If in the rare case it's not, bring in
WB your
WB expert to explain that computer clocks are often not accurate.

WB Wood

Not only that but people sometimes purposely change the date and time
on their system. For example in order to run programs that can't work
past a certain date like 1999 or for some other reason. I still recall
the PC and XT would accept [Enter] to the date and time question so
that files would end up dated 1980... etc.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Old pinballers never die, they just flip out.

Woody Brison wrote:

After reading much of this thread, and a lot of it has been
quite insightful... I'd like to add 2 more cents.

w_tom wrote:

There are two ways to do as suggested. The first is to make
'Benjamins' part of the technical facts during design....
... the technical reason for high verses low accuracy
timers was provided. Computer motherboards don't have the
trimming capacitor and the oscillator is subject to wider
voltage variations. Why this technical decision was made was
not asked and would only be speculation.


So, two sides of the coin... then, there be the THIRD side of the coin.

Why do you have a clock on your computer? Can't afford a watch
or a desk clock or a wall clock?

The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record
creation/change time on files.

It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000
or 6:00.00 000035

What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
a few minutes a day.

Even if Perry Mason drags you into the witness stand and confronts
you with file dates and times, approximate is probably good enough
to acquit you or convict you. If in the rare case it's not, bring in
your
expert to explain that computer clocks are often not accurate.

Wood


Or keep your clock set to 1935 and even Perry Mason won't know when they
were actually made.

Woody Brison writes:

The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record
creation/change time on files.

It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000
or 6:00.00 000035

What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
a few minutes a day.

That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When
multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized.
And if the computers interact with other computers outside local
control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not
only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal
standard, such as UTC.

This is why clock accuracy is important.

In the old days when every PC was completely isolated, time hardly
mattered at all, and often people would use PCs without bothering to
ever set the correct date or time. Nowadays, almost all PCs have to
be at least approximately synchronized to the correct time of day, and
often very precise synchronization is required.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Woody Brison writes:


The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record
creation/change time on files.

It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000
or 6:00.00 000035

What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
a few minutes a day.


That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When
multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized.
And if the computers interact with other computers outside local
control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not
only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal
standard, such as UTC.

This is why clock accuracy is important.

In the old days when every PC was completely isolated, time hardly
mattered at all, and often people would use PCs without bothering to
ever set the correct date or time. Nowadays, almost all PCs have to
be at least approximately synchronized to the correct time of day, and
often very precise synchronization is required.


Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past.

David Maynard writes:

Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past.

What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Woody Brison writes:
What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
a few minutes a day.

That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When
multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized.
And if the computers interact with other computers outside local
control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not
only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal
standard, such as UTC.

OK, thanks, but why is it so important? A message is received
on one computer at a certain time per that computer's clock. It
was sent from another computer at some time, recorded in the
message, per that computer's clock. Are we going to calculate
transit time or something? Check to make sure it didn't arrive
before it was sent?

Woody Brison writes:

OK, thanks, but why is it so important?

Sometimes you have to be able to correlate or synchronize events over
long distances with great accuracy (fractions of a second).

A message is received on one computer at a certain time per that
computer's clock. It was sent from another computer at some time,
recorded in the message, per that computer's clock. Are we going
to calculate transit time or something?

Yes.

Check to make sure it didn't arrive before it was sent?

Yes.

There are many applications for accurate time. In fact, the more
accurate time one can obtain, the more useful applications become
practical and available.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past.


What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?


Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.

In message David Maynard
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past.


What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?


Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.

That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright until you hear them speak...

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Woody Brison writes:

The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record
creation/change time on files.

It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000
or 6:00.00 000035

What matters is if one file was created before another. You're
compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file
has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing.

On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really
needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within
a few minutes a day.

That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When
multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized.
And if the computers interact with other computers outside local
control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not
only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal
standard, such as UTC.

This is why clock accuracy is important.

In the old days when every PC was completely isolated, time hardly
mattered at all, and often people would use PCs without bothering to
ever set the correct date or time. Nowadays, almost all PCs have to
be at least approximately synchronized to the correct time of day, and
often very precise synchronization is required.

In almost any instance where a high degree of precision and
synchronization is needed, the computer will be running a version of NTP
software which can provide precision time from even very poor CPU
timebases.

"Ordinary" computers don't need that degree of precision, and a
once-or-twice a day comparison to an NTP server somewhere on the 'net is
all that's required.

Isaac

DevilsPGD wrote:
In message David Maynard
wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


David Maynard writes:



Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past.


What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?


Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.


That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.


Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken
over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright
enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install
anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their
computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad
times on spam :-).

P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web
page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if
anyone is interested.

Tom Horsley writes:

P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web
page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if
anyone is interested.

Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client.

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

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:41:37 +0100, 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 [?]).

But, if they'd said, "Honeywell Bowl," they'd think you were talking
about a football game.

Or Chinese food. ;-)

--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"Hear about... The fellow who chased his girlfriend up a tree and kissed
her between the limbs?"

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:44:54 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

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

So, did you find out in time?

Thanks,
Rich

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:39:51 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:
In message David Maynard
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:

Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the
past.

What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?

Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.

That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

Well, Y2K, of course. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:44:54 -0600, David Maynard wrote:


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


So, did you find out in time?

Thanks,
Rich


Hehe. As a matter of fact, I did. I waited outside between the two till I
saw a local go in one.

It was one of those things that when you find out you feel doubly stupid.
Well, DUH, of course it's men-white.

Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client.

Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate
with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can
probably find all the rants starting from www.ntp.org :-).
--
== The *Best* political site URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/ ==+
email: icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley Free Software and Politics ==+

Tom Horsley wrote:

That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.


My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken
over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright
enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install
anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their
computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad
times on spam :-).

Highly unlikely, especially after you trace it.

A more likely theory is there are plenty of stupid spammers.


P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web
page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if
anyone is interested.

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:39:51 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message David Maynard

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the
past.

What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?


Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.

That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.


Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.


Well, Y2K, of course. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich



Hehe. Sure.

I did go look at the 1969 header and it had a date of something like 20450,
which apparently wrapped and rolled into 1969 by the time Netscape finished
interpreting it.

The 2001 header was simply 2001.

Thomas A. Horsley writes:

Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate
with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can
probably find all the rants starting from www.ntp.org :-).

It works perfectly on my system.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Until the next one.

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.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.

'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the cynic realizes. For
example, they let you know when the train is coming and to get off the track

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 either in a different world than I or you mean something more
cryptic than I'm able to decipher.

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.

Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know
what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you?

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.

Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the
'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean
there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating
system approach.


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?

I don't know as it isn't my job to develop the next operating system. I'm
busy building the 'next generation' tube amplifier, remember

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).

You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be
'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't
go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and
whistles' worth it.


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

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-11-02, DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Good point!

Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command
and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they
are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to
use a computer?

And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is
****ed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed..


Before anyone gets ****ed, is all in jest :-)


BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will
earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax
evasion....


I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....


Good day...







"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
PWY writes:

I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the subject of
Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical Microsoft bashers
always seem to reach that point in their arguments.

A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this
is what motivates them to bash Microsoft.

Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do
something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that
anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many
people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by
intelligently managing a computer software company, because they
cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves.

Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same
lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply
because Microsoft would not hire them.

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




--

Bye.
Jasen

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:
Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past.

What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?

Most MUAs sort by date ascending. That puts their spam right at the top
of the list.

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

David Maynard writes:

Until the next one.

As technologies mature, breakthroughs come less and less frequently.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.

It depends on what is meant by desktop. Graphic user interfaces
contributed to productivity in some ways, by extending the usefulness
of the computer beyond plain text, and by making multitasking
environments easier to manage.

You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more
cryptic than I'm able to decipher.

You're probably only looking at a handful of developed economies. The
entire world is much further behind. Even in developed countries,
there are large institutional users of computers that are still
struggling with 16-bit Windows. And Windows 9x is still very common.
Where I work, everyone is still on Windows 9x.

Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know
what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you?

I don't have to know. It's a general principle, applicable to
software like anything else. Why risk billions on a new software
product that may or may not succeed, when you can make almost as much
by adding a few "features" to an existing produce with virtually no
risk and very low cost and then charge for upgrades?

Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the
'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean
there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating
system approach.

I suppose there are some people who look forward to things like
aggressive, and intrusive DRM, or filesystems that are designed to be
continually searched and indexed, but I do not, and I don't think the
majority of people care.

You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be
'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't
go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and
whistles' worth it.

Yes, I mean NT 4. Of course, XP looks uncannily like NT, especially
if you peek behind the superficial user interface.

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

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:50:12 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

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'.


Sorta reminds me of the old joke .....

NASA spent millions on designing a ball point pen that would work in zero
gravity (or up side down in gravity).
The Russians use a pencil!

--

Australia isn't "down under", it's "off to one side"!


www.cobracat.com (home of the Australian Cobra Catamaran)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cobra-cat/

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Until the next one.


As technologies mature, breakthroughs come less and less frequently.


I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.


It depends on what is meant by desktop. Graphic user interfaces
contributed to productivity in some ways, by extending the usefulness
of the computer beyond plain text, and by making multitasking
environments easier to manage.

And that was the point, along with the summary of the general principle you
snipped out, that "'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the
cynic realizes."

You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more
cryptic than I'm able to decipher.


You're probably only looking at a handful of developed economies. The
entire world is much further behind.

Which has, for all practical purposes, nothing to do with the matter of
whether companies do 'new things', or just add 'fluff', as people who do
not use the things are not in the market.

Even in developed countries,
there are large institutional users of computers that are still
struggling with 16-bit Windows.

And I can find folks in "large institutions' that don't use computers at
all. You're overstating another fragment.

And Windows 9x is still very common.
Where I work, everyone is still on Windows 9x.

Yes, and I suspected that by "DOS" you meant to include anything even
remotely connected to it. Not exactly cricket as the GUI *was* the (second
half) of the 'big idea' that made Microsoft what it is (and began the gist
of this thread section)


Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know
what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you?


I don't have to know. It's a general principle, applicable to
software like anything else. Why risk billions on a new software
product that may or may not succeed, when you can make almost as much
by adding a few "features" to an existing produce with virtually no
risk and very low cost and then charge for upgrades?

Sounds logical except it isn't a "general principle" and companies
introduce new products all the time. Some succeed, like Apple's IPOD, and
some don't. And it's pretty much the same with startups except you don't
pay no mind to failed startups and they don't have anything else to sustain
them when they do. Not to mention that most startups are the 'new company'
equivalent to your 'modify existing product' approach, making something
akin to what exists with some new 'bells and whistles' added: their 'better
version' of it.

Plus, it's becoming increasingly clear that you don't consider anything
that even remotely resembles the existing product to be anything more than
a 'bell and whistle' upgrade while I have stated that a sufficient
performance improvement is my criteria. E.g. If the topic were cars it
seems that nothing short of magnetic levitation would satisfy your need for
"truly interesting" while I would consider a hybrid significant enough.
Hell, I might even consider "rides like a car but has the payload capacity
of a truck" sufficient enough because it fills a useful functional criteria
regardless of not being "truly interesting."

Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the
'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean
there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating
system approach.


I suppose there are some people who look forward to things like
aggressive, and intrusive DRM, or filesystems that are designed to be
continually searched and indexed, but I do not, and I don't think the
majority of people care.

If that were the entire feature list I might agree with you, but it isn't.
Nor is the 'end user' the entire market.

Compared to NT4, a fully functional PnP alone is reason enough.

You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be
'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't
go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and
whistles' worth it.


Yes, I mean NT 4. Of course, XP looks uncannily like NT, especially
if you peek behind the superficial user interface.

Now, 'peaking behind the superficial user interface' really *is* something
the majority of people don't care about.

On 2005-11-19, David Maynard wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Until the next one.

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.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.

I find it lets me run 4 or 5 command-lines simultaneously.

this morning I resized 1000 jpeg images to approx 1200 and 120000 pixels,
while woring in the web site that will use them. there may be GUI tools capable
of doing that in less than a week, but I haven't seen them.

Bye.
Jasen

Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2005-11-19, David Maynard wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


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.

Until the next one.


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.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.


I find it lets me run 4 or 5 command-lines simultaneously.

this morning I resized 1000 jpeg images to approx 1200 and 120000 pixels,
while woring in the web site that will use them. there may be GUI tools capable
of doing that in less than a week, but I haven't seen them.

There may not be any but I never said a GUI was the ideal solution to
everything.

On the other hand, it would have been a real pain looking at that web site
at the same time on a text command line


Bye.
Jasen

David Maynard wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In message David Maynard
wrote:
snip
Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.



That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.


Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

They were sent through HAL.
"Dave? What are you doing, Dave?"

--
"Damn AOL. Then was the September of our discontent."-
Tim Haynes, c.o.l.s, 11-30-01

Plague Boy wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message David Maynard
wrote:

snip

Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969.




That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.


Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.


They were sent through HAL.
"Dave? What are you doing, Dave?"


Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM?
HAL
IBM

David Maynard writes:

Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM?
HAL
IBM

About 35 years ago.

However, nobody has found a way to transform HAL into Microsoft, so
the conspiracy theories died out with the decline of IBM.

IBM provided a great deal of technical assistance in the making of the
film, though.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:


Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM?
HAL
IBM


About 35 years ago.

hehe. Yeah, me too.


However, nobody has found a way to transform HAL into Microsoft, so
the conspiracy theories died out with the decline of IBM.

So true.

I wonder if anyone tried playing it backwards to hear satanic sounds?


IBM provided a great deal of technical assistance in the making of the
film, though.

No wonder HAL went a bit loopy

David Maynard writes:

No wonder HAL went a bit loopy

IBM was a good company in its time. Like so many computer companies,
it first developed problems with marketing and management, and these
eventually contaminated engineering departments. It's depressing to
think how many major mistakes in managing computer companies have been
driven by marketing and sales decisions. As one of a trillion
examples, just look at Intel's marketing-driven decision to pursue
inferior microprocessor architectures just so that it could run chips
at faster clock speeds (thereby satisfying clueless marketroids with
higher and higher GHz numbers).

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


No wonder HAL went a bit loopy


IBM was a good company in its time. Like so many computer companies,
it first developed problems with marketing and management, and these
eventually contaminated engineering departments. It's depressing to
think how many major mistakes in managing computer companies have been
driven by marketing and sales decisions. As one of a trillion
examples, just look at Intel's marketing-driven decision to pursue
inferior microprocessor architectures just so that it could run chips
at faster clock speeds (thereby satisfying clueless marketroids with
higher and higher GHz numbers).


And it's a shame how many companies have been ruined by letting engineering
make the decisions. But those don't usually get large enough to easily notice.

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-11-25, Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:

Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM?
HAL
IBM

About 35 years ago.

However, nobody has found a way to transform HAL into Microsoft, so
the conspiracy theories died out with the decline of IBM.

The same trick can turn VMS int WNT (Windows NT)....

the way I heard it MS got a bunch of
ex-DEC people who had worked on VMS

Bye.
Jasen

David Maynard writes:

And it's a shame how many companies have been ruined by letting engineering
make the decisions.

Companies like Hewlett-Packard seem to have done well with engineers
at the helm.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:


And it's a shame how many companies have been ruined by letting engineering
make the decisions.


Companies like Hewlett-Packard seem to have done well with engineers
at the helm.


First, I didn't say "all" and secondly, do you really think they have no
marketing department or, since they do, ignore them?

The real point was that single minded reliance on any one perspective is
potentially destructive and that it takes a proper mix of them all.

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

Good point!

Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command
and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they
are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to
use a computer?

And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is
****ed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed..

Before anyone gets ****ed, is all in jest :-)

BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will
earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax
evasion....

I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....

Good day...


So he gives more in dollars, but a LOT less in percentage of income
or total worth.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida