Free Woodworking Report Available
 

Check this out - good info if you're thinking of starting a business:

http://free.profitfromwood.com/

Enjoy!
Sev

JUNK


"Sev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Check this out - good info if you're thinking of starting a business:

http://free.profitfromwood.com/

Enjoy!
Sev

And revels in the spelling mistakes.

I am very suspicious. I am in the process of starting up a small
woodworking business. I figure I can learn from anyone (even if I have to
disregard 95% or what I am told). So when I went to download, Explorer
started acting real goofy and I never downloaded anything (that I know of).
So I am off to update Norton definitions and run a system scan.
Just beware.
Rob
Through the golden door our children can walk into tomorrow with the
knowledge that no one can be denied the promise that is America.
~Ronald W. Reagan
"Sev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Check this out - good info if you're thinking of starting a business:

http://free.profitfromwood.com/

Enjoy!
Sev

You've got that right. His spelling and grammar are amazing. You'd think
someone that plans on writing a book would at least have a command of the
English language.
--
Jeff P.

A truck carrying copies of Roget's Thesaurus over-turned on the
highway. The local newspaper reported that the onlookers were
"stunned, overwhelmed, astonished, bewildered, and dumfounded."

Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"dzine" wrote in message
oups.com...
And revels in the spelling mistakes.

In article ,
Rob Hall wrote:
I am very suspicious. I am in the process of starting up a small
woodworking business. I figure I can learn from anyone (even if I have to
disregard 95% or what I am told). So when I went to download, Explorer
started acting real goofy and I never downloaded anything (that I know of).
So I am off to update Norton definitions and run a system scan.
Just beware.

The beware *IS*JUSTIFIED*. on several counts.


First, the "free" (a $29.95 value) report is just a come-on for a $497
"one year subscription" that supposedly has a "value" in excess of $2,400.


Second, The page for the 'full outline' is all ENCRYPTED JavaScript.
I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
is _really_ doing.

*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.

Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.

According to the security settings for IE 6.x, you can. Why do you believe
that you can't?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.

According to the security settings for IE 6.x, you can. Why do you believe
that you can't?

Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me, some
time ago. :) This _was_ at least a couple of versions back, but MS
had decided that javascript was _not_ optional anymore, although _Java_
remained optional.

If they've reversed that policy decision, *GREAT*. I'm stunned, shocked,
and amazed, that MS would _allow_ users to turn off a 'feature' that
provides lots of 'flash and sizzle', along with a bunch of security risks.

Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
throat. wry grin

I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
talking about" in that regard.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me,
some
time ago. :)

Well, I figured that you knew something I didn't - not that you don't know
plenty that I don't :) - but if I am not mistaken, you have always been
able to disable the Java VM, at least since it was included in the recent
versions of IE.

Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
throat. wry grin

Can't argue with that ...


I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
talking about" in that regard.

Morale: I've learned to be careful about what someone who "knew what they're
talking about" told be if I didn't know the answer first myself,
particularly from my "networking peers" who "don't do MSFT". ;)

That said ... MSFT "says" that you can disable JavaScript, and I believe
that you actually can in the latest version ... but, like you I don't
believe a damn thing they say and always want to test/verify each iteration
to make sure they aren't just blowing smoke.

swingman ... who is plenty sick and tired of applying seemingly endless MSFT
security patches to upwards of 30 boxes a month, and dreads seeing the
latest "Microsoft Security Bulletin" arrive ... the one last week had SEVEN
"critical" patches that needed to be applied!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article ,
Swingman wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me,
some
time ago. :)

Well, I figured that you knew something I didn't - not that you don't know
plenty that I don't :) - but if I am not mistaken, you have always been
able to disable the Java VM, at least since it was included in the recent
versions of IE.

No argument, you could always disable the Java VM. "Javascript" is something
*completely* different. Paraphrasing Jack Webb, "only the names are similar,
to confuse the innocent."

Does current MSIE provide *two* options -- one for disabling Java, and a
second one for disabling JavaScript?


Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
throat. wry grin

Can't argue with that ...


I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
talking about" in that regard.

Morale: I've learned to be careful about what someone who "knew what they're
talking about" told be if I didn't know the answer first myself,
particularly from my "networking peers" who "don't do MSFT". ;)

Nit: I _think_ you mean "moral", not "morale". grin

I get my info on such matters from peers who *do* do MSFT.

And there is a reason I stated things exactly the way I did. I know what I
"don't know". Thus I identified it as my 'belief', not as 'fact'. :)


That said ... MSFT "says" that you can disable JavaScript, and I believe
that you actually can in the latest version ... but, like you I don't
believe a damn thing they say and always want to test/verify each iteration
to make sure they aren't just blowing smoke.

Again, I have to ask, are we talking about the Java VM, or the -unrelated-
thing called JavaScript? One disable option, or two?

swingman ... who is plenty sick and tired of applying seemingly endless MSFT
security patches to upwards of 30 boxes a month, and dreads seeing the
latest "Microsoft Security Bulletin" arrive ... the one last week had SEVEN
"critical" patches that needed to be applied!!

My sympathies.

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message


Does current MSIE provide *two* options -- one for disabling Java, and a
second one for disabling JavaScript?

Yes ... Security tab/Scripting.

My sympathies.

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that, thanks
to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like I
did in 1979.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...


Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that,
thanks
to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like
I
did in 1979.

--

CPM forever!

Second, The page for the 'full outline' is all ENCRYPTED JavaScript.
I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
is _really_ doing.

*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.

Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.
--------
To disable Javascript in IE6:
1. Click Tools.
2. Select Internet options
3. Click the Security tab.
4. Click the Internet icon.
5. Click the Custom level button.
6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
option.
7. Click OK twice.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...


Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that,
thanks
to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like
I
did in 1979.

You'd could'a gone with WANG... :)

In article ,
Abe wrote:
Second, The page for the 'full outline' is all ENCRYPTED JavaScript.
I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
is _really_ doing.

*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.

Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.
--------
To disable Javascript in IE6:
1. Click Tools.
2. Select Internet options
3. Click the Security tab.
4. Click the Internet icon.
5. Click the Custom level button.
6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
option.
7. Click OK twice.


BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
root name.

To disable Javascript in IE6:
1. Click Tools.
2. Select Internet options
3. Click the Security tab.
4. Click the Internet icon.
5. Click the Custom level button.
6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
option.
7. Click OK twice.

BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
root name.
----------
BZZZZZT! right back. If you look at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;154036
and read the section: Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.01, 5.5, 6:
you'll see the note that says:
NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
disable both types of scripts.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
OS or program.

In article ,
Abe wrote:
To disable Javascript in IE6:
1. Click Tools.
2. Select Internet options
3. Click the Security tab.
4. Click the Internet icon.
5. Click the Custom level button.
6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
option.
7. Click OK twice.

BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
root name.
----------
BZZZZZT! right back. If you look at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;154036
and read the section: Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.01, 5.5, 6:
you'll see the note that says:
NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
disable both types of scripts.


Sorry, Charlie, but you need to learn to read (or write) better. At the
place you cite, the 'b' step says:
"... click Disable under ACTIVE SCRIPTING AND Scripting of Java applets."
====================

*YOUR* directions mention *ONLY* the 'java applets' checkbox.

Following your directions _as_posted_ (disabling java applets *only),
*DOES*NOT* disable Javascript.

The BZZZT! _was_ accurate.

Note: The web-page you cite also _lies_ with regard to (at least some)
older versions of MSIE -- _even_though_ the "disable active scripting"
box was checked, IE *would* run both Javascript and ActiveX scripts
under proper provocation. Known to be fixed as of 5.5, Definite
problem with some installations of 4.x (all revisions), depending on
the patches applied. (both shops I just checked with went directly
from 4.x to 5.5, so no hard data on 5.0 or 5.0.1 available to me.)

In article ,
Bruce Barnett wrote:
"Swingman" writes:

Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that, thanks
to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like I
did in 1979.

Word Perfect was THAT much?
And MicroSoft wrote it?

Word Perfect existed *BEFORE* the IBM PC existed. Several _years_ in fact.

I used version 1.08(!!) on Data General mini-computers in (I think) 1979.
DG "Eclipse" machines was it's "native" environment. It was then "ported" to
the 8088 architecture.

And we won't even mention the _many_ CP/M word-processors -- e.g. Wordstar,
volkswriter, etc. Although, admittedly, most of those _were_ a PITA to use,
due to having _only_ a QWERTY keyboard, and no "function keys" or similar.

In article ,
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
OS or program.

You're not under the mistaken impression that Microsoft wrote the original
DOS (PC-DOS, MS-DOS), are you? Hell, Gates _sold_ it to IBM, and *then* went
out and bought the rights from a company that "didn't know what they had".
(Yup, that's the chronology, he sold IBM something that he did _not_ own
the rights to; admittedly, he did "have reason to believe" he _could_ buy
those rights for a relative pittance. M$ has _always_ been 'marketing
driven', not a 'technology' company. And it _shows_ in their product line.)


Several better ones exist (now, _and_ then). OS/9, and QNX, just to name
a couple. Heck, MP/M 86 had features _years_ before M$ "invented" them.

The _only_ reason that MS "succeeded" was that Gates sold a product (that
he didn't *at*that*time* have the rights to) to IBM. And IBM's entry into
the 'personal computer' market "legitimized" it in the eyes of business
purchasers. The "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" mentality at work.

Alpha-Micro had better hardware, *and* better software. So did Tandy(!!)
Who's machines (like the 'Tandy 2000') were *far* superior to IBM's competing
offerings (and which they got to market _before_ the IBM products) -- industry
joke was that the "AT" in the "IBM PC/AT" stood for "Another Tandy".
Unfortunately, while Tandy's "x86" machines were 'MS-DOS' compatible, the
Tandy machines were not 'hardware compatible' "clones". Software that 'played
on the bare hardware' (rather than using the O/S services, or even BIOS calls),
didn't work on the Tandy machines.

Software writers did that _because_ the O/S services (provided by Microsoft),
and the BIOS code (as done by IBM) were *SO*BAD* that circumventing them was
-necessary- to get decent performance from the hardware. Tandy used _better_,
more capable, hardware in their 'business'-class machines, and with "better"
BIOS code, got _very_acceptable_ performance through those 'portable'
interfaces, w/o programmers having to play on the bare hardware.

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
"Swingman" writes:

Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that,
thanks
to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor
like I
did in 1979.

Word Perfect was THAT much?
And MicroSoft wrote it?

Nope, this was a few years before the IBM PC. The word processor itself was
dedicated and called the "IBM DisplayWriter". It was about the only word
processor, other than the Wang, available for mid-size company level word
processing toward the late 70's, still very much the heyday of the IBM
Selectric typewriter.

Secretaries had to go to school on it, and software updates and _mandatory_
maintenance agreements brought the initial, _upfront_ price to over $18,000
with all the bells and whistles ... I remember vividly because t'was I who
wrote the check.

IBM had a stranglehold on the market that made the MSFT of today look
benign by comparison. Basically, if you're too young to have spent years
banging on a typewriter in college, or as part of your job, you're arguably
missing a big part of the perspective necessary to make the comparison
between the companies, leading to that all too familiar propensity to bash,
mainly from those who got into the game after 1981, when the PC was
introduced.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On 15 Feb 2005 02:30:42 GMT, Bruce Barnett
wrote:

Well, there was CP/M and DR-DOS.

Have you use Concurrent DOS, Multitasking and Multiuser DOS also by DR-DOS in
the eighties?

Windows was layered on top of DS, and many people wanted to replace
DOS with DR-DOS because of it's advanced features.

But Microsoft illegally put hooks in their OS to detect Dr-DOS and
refuse to work if found. So the company went bankrupt. And when
Microsoft started making 90% profit, and abusing their monopolistic
power (they WERE convicted, remember), it was hard for any competitor
to catch up.

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message

I'm not arguing that $18,000 word software packages existed.

snip

Do you know what the word "dedicated" meant in the computer business at that
place and time?

If, as it appear, you are reading what you wanted to hear (or argue about)
into what was actually said, don't bother wasting your time trying to get a
rise when it comes to OS bashing.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Bruce Barnett wrote:

....
I'm not arguing that $18,000 word software packages existed.

They were not "word software packages"--see

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_8.html

But you said that MSFT caused software to be cheap.
Word Perfect was first sold in 1979, and it wasn't a Micro$oft product.

Do you still claim that MSFT was the reason for cheap software?
I believe that prices would have dropped anyway.
$18,000 software on a $3000 computer with millions of potential buyers?
THAT's a business plan destined to die!

Would have been if it had been true...at that time it was far more
expensive to produce the hardware than you're imagining plus there was
the need to amortize development costs over a relatively small market.
There were not millions of potential buyers at the cost even though it
was a significant drop from the dedicated hardware systems that preceded
the DisplayWriter.

I can't recall precisely the trade name(s) for the earlier IBM systems
that preceded the DisplayWriter, but we had two where I worked in the
late 70s as we had a DOE "Q" clearance and they were the only system
qualified by DOE as secure (w/o building a completely enclosed facility
which was totally impractical). They rest of the company was using
VAXen w/ a very expensive word-processing software package. That was
something like $500k for the VAX and I don't recall for the software but
it made $18k look like chump-change. Those IBM systems were far more
expensive than the DisplayWriter, but well worth the price considering
the alternative was an IBM Selectric or equivalent. A search of the IBM
archive site didn't locate one of them although I'm sure a more general
search would uncover some history buff who's got all the data on them.
But the cost reduction from the previous systems plus smaller form
factor made them attractive. But, we couldn't use them as they didn't
pass the DOE "Q" requirements for emanations.

As Swingman says, persepective (or lack thereof) is everything in
evaluating what was/wasn't value...

Sidelight--
Our office was directly across the street from DOE regional headquarters
and one of demonstrations they would provide outside contractor security
officers was a demonstration of eavesdropping. They would bring us in
to a conference room and put a display screen up on the wall and have a
typist in a remote location (on occasion actually our office) type a
letter. The characters would pop up on the screen as she typed w/ about
a 80-90% accuracy rate, plucked out of the ether by their listening
devices as the were displayed on her CRT. Various agents were picked up
over the years outside the DOE facilities w/ foreign versions of similar
equipment (which were not as capable, but certainly capable enough to be
able to get the gist of what was being typed).

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
OS or program.

There was also a PC VMS "work-alike"...multi-user/multi-tasking...

Ahhhhh the good old days... The Displaywriter took over
from the "Mag Card Composer", which was a IBM Selectric
with mag storage and other fancy features... It went
for well over 10K as I recall.


Swingman wrote:


Nope, this was a few years before the IBM PC. The word processor itself was
dedicated and called the "IBM DisplayWriter". It was about the only word
processor, other than the Wang, available for mid-size company level word
processing toward the late 70's, still very much the heyday of the IBM
Selectric typewriter.

Secretaries had to go to school on it, and software updates and _mandatory_
maintenance agreements brought the initial, _upfront_ price to over $18,000
with all the bells and whistles ... I remember vividly because t'was I who
wrote the check.

IBM had a stranglehold on the market that made the MSFT of today look
benign by comparison. Basically, if you're too young to have spent years
banging on a typewriter in college, or as part of your job, you're arguably
missing a big part of the perspective necessary to make the comparison
between the companies, leading to that all too familiar propensity to bash,
mainly from those who got into the game after 1981, when the PC was
introduced.

Pat Barber wrote:

Ahhhhh the good old days... The Displaywriter took over
from the "Mag Card Composer", which was a IBM Selectric
with mag storage and other fancy features... It went
for well over 10K as I recall.

There were a whole series of other standalone systems between there as
well that were processor-based. They went in the $20k range or
thereabouts depending on printer options, etc.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:00:13 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
OS or program.

There's this thing called "open source software" which is exactly that -
better OS and programs than MS makes. It's done by people like me, who
know that it _can_ be done better, and we're doing it.

So, we're not just laughing and complaining, we're doing something about
it. Give firefox a try to get an idea of the sort of products it
produces.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
m:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it
when programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to
make a better OS or program.

Well, since we neither know who the original author was, nor what
your definition of "better" is, that's a hard question to answer.

For some values of "better", tho, Windows doesn't come out looking
too good. Most any programmer will point to any of the Unixy OS's,
especially Linux, and say they're better than Windows, for stability
and freedom from security issues (but they are in general harder to
learn to use, altho newish products like Knoppix are making life on
that side a lot easier). Many other people will suggest the Mac OS
and GUI are much easier to use, as well as being more stylish (tho
the older Mac OS had most of the same stability & security issues
as Windows, in part because Window's design paradigm was "make it
like the Mac).

John

In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...


But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

In article , "George" george@least wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...

But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

Since when has MickeySoft ever cared about standards?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "George" george@least
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...

But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

Since when has MickeySoft ever cared about standards?

When you set 'em, rather than follow 'em, it makes a difference.

I suffered, as all we old farts did, through hardware and software
incompatibilities for a long time. The devil you know....

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Since when has MickeySoft ever cared about standards?

When is the last time you had a problem finding a hardware driver that
actually worked, and who do you think drove the "standards" so that it is no
longer the monumental struggle it once was to get a peripheral to work with
different hardware and OS's?

How soon we forget ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article , George george@least wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...


But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

I'm not so sure about a standard OS, but I am pretty sure we'd have a
standard set of API's and a standard binary format. (Or at least OS's that
tolerated multiple API's and binary formats)

-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com

In article ,
Bruce Barnett wrote:
...
Do you still claim that MSFT was the reason for cheap software?
I believe that prices would have dropped anyway.

They were already dropping without Microsoft's influence. Just as a data
point, an Apple ][ running something like Bank Street Writer or Appleworks
was significantly less than $5K even in the early-mid 80's. Microsoft's
only role in the Apple ][ machines was as a supplier of AppleSoft BASIC.
(When the Apple's license for AppleSoft expired, Microsoft then took the
license renewal fee out of Apple's hide...)

Prior to all this, CP/M machines running things like WordStar were much
less costly than more institutional word processors, even back in the
70's. The big driving force of all of this downward movement in price is
cheaper hardware and consequently larger markets (with less money to spend
individually, I suspect).

-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com

"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message
In article George wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...


But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

I'm not so sure about a standard OS, but I am pretty sure we'd have a
standard set of API's and a standard binary format. (Or at least OS's that
tolerated multiple API's and binary formats)

Rarely is anything all bad or all good. The point is that we inarguably
have, for better or worse, like it or not, what amounts to a "standard" for
which programmers can write and be assured that their code will run on most
of the personal computers in the world, thereby greatly increasing chances
of success; and driver standards that pretty well insure OS, hardware, and
peripheral compatibility for those personal computers.

The latter should be readily obvious to anyone who lived through the times
when that was not the case, but is a fact that seems to be ignored in favor
of the knee-jerk bashing mentality.

I am far from being an apologist for any big corporation, but as I said,
rarely is anything all bad, as most of the knee-jerk, perspective challenged
bashers would have you believe.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message

70's. The big driving force of all of this downward movement in price is
cheaper hardware and consequently larger markets (with less money to spend
individually, I suspect).

You left out "compatible and interchangeable" to describe the hardware, and
a ubiquitous OS, love it or hate it, without which none of it would have
happened when it did.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...


But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?



Unix.

--

-Mike-

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, George george@least wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...

But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

Sure, it's called Unix. Everything except Windows uses it.

Well, hardly everything... :)