Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Mxsmanic]

DevilsPGD writes:

I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus
Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs
of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

Just like Intel--their first microprocessor was developed for a
calculator, but the calculator company (Busicom) decided to drop it
and signed over all rights to Intel. And if these things had not
happened, we might not have microprocessors or PC operating systems or
even PCs today. So be glad.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

David Maynard writes:

On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software
that ran on any clone.

A wise decision. Build an essential component, then encourage the
market to do the rest. If Apple had adopted the same philosophy,
there might be 50% Macs and 50% PCs today, instead of 4% Macs and 96%
PCs.

In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run
Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that is
not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.', because
you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word (and
the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that
sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.

Yes. A simple difference but one that earns billions.

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

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:22:26 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Ken G. wrote:
Here we go again ... This is not a big deal you dont need to replace the
tuner . Any honest tv shop could replace the jack and charge 25to 35$ .
I have replaced many of these even if the edge of the board was chipped
off .



But didn't he say a few of the coils were ruined?

No, he said that they were visible, and then someone else made the
implication that they were damaged.

Tom

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:30:06 +0100, marsupialman
<marsupialman.1xonos@news.homeimprovementbanter.com> wrote:

Hi all - I just joined your mighty forum.

I bought a new Vintager GM110 via eBay about a year ago. When the amp
is switched on and my guitar plugged in, there is no output noise
either through the speaker or the headphone socket, though the On
button glows red as usual. When I switch the amp off, there is about
one second of amplified noise (such as a chosen guitar chord), then
silence.

So as the power internally reduces, the amplifier works? I'd suspect
an over-voltage problem, which could be verified by applying reduced
AC to the (assumedly) linear power supply in the amplifier (or does it
have an external supply?). You'll likely require a technician to sort
this one for you, unless it has a documented history/magic bullet for
this problem.

Looks like a dandy little amp...

Tom

Has a component, such as the off/on switch, failed?

Is there an easy way for me to fix this problem?

Thanks very much!

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:qF59f.482$p37.367@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:41:44 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:v429f.441$p37.342@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3s4m1hrkf574e5p79inehev45bvon2uvt@4ax.com...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:42:43 +0200

mark349@lycos.com writes:

OS/2 is dead and gone, and although it was superior in design to
the old versions of Windows, it was not superior to NT.

Supposedly better in design, but OS/2 sucked in real life for many
of us! As only one OS/2 Win session had sound while the others was
soundless. And a good number of Windows applications would
routinely crashed under OS/2, but stable as a rock under Windows
3.1. Then the OS/2 GUI was unstable for at least a couple of years
and crashed the whole system. Then the FixPaks often caused more
problems than they fixed. IBM programmers are morons!

Am I the only guy that was working with this crap back then?

Nope!

IBM contracted with M$ to write OS/2 for them in like 1987.

It might have been in '86 actually. And MS had been working on Windows
since about '84. Although MS couldn't give the development time it
deserved because those MS programmers were mostly working on OS/2. MS
lost 3 years in Windows development because of OS/2.

I suppose that's one way to look at the time that M$ spent sucking money
from IBM and using it for their own gains.

M$ drug their feet on the release, while spending IBM's money, so
that they could get Win 3.0 out before OS/2, by saying that OS/2
just wasn't stable enough for release yet. Yeah, no conflict of
interest their.

IBM only paid MS for the lines of code MS produced. IBM didn't care if
MS spent more time to make the code lean, mean and faster. As IBM
would

I think IBM had visions of stability that M$ will never attain, ever.

pay you less if you did so. IBM was cutting their own throats. IBM is
full of a much of morons. Impossible to work with and to get paid
fairly
for. Hell I would work slowly and drag my feet as well for those
morons.

Yeah, morons. They only own the mainframe market even though Honeywell
made better hardware. IBM's only moronic move was to allow M$ to screw
them for a second time. The first time being with MSDOS/IBMDOS games.

Finally IBM got fed up and took the project away from M$.

Yeah, IBM got fed up alright! As Microsoft didn't want to be a slave
to
IBM (who always makes slaves or crushes anybody that gets in their way

Too bad that isn't true since they would have done the world a great
favor by crushing M$.

up to this point in time). And IBM wanted MS to create OS/2 which
would
be made to run on only true IBM PCs after they have the world hooked
on
OS/2.

Yeah that is a great plan for us, NOT! Bill Gates had taken the
biggest
risk in his career. As nobody ever bucked IBM and had survived.
Although
he did it! And thank goodness he did! As we all would be using real
IBM
machines and OS/2 by now.

Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be using
something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad Xerox
didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the best product
for the office in 1980. Apple didn't have anything that could come
close for around 10 years. It took M$ almost another 5 years on top of
that to catch up.

Sure IBM was ticked that Bill Gates wasn't going to play along. So
they
parted ways. And IBM wouldn't sell any IBM computer with Windows
installed for a short time. Until IBM realized that they couldn't sell
IBM computers with either crappy PC-DOS or OS/2 on them. As
people wanted Windows instead, plain and simple.

The only reason being that M$ delayed OS/2 was so that Win 3.0 could get
the jump on it. If OS/2 would have shipped on time, it would have
possibly eliminated windows.

There are very many suspicious similarities in "bugs" within the
graphics system calls of Win 3.0 and OS/2.

The same MS programmers wrote both OS/2 and Windows 3.0. So why should
this be a surprise?

It's not a surprise to me. I think it just goes to show that M$ had no
qualms about directly lifting the code that they originally wrote for
IBM using IBM's money and, AFAICT, IBM's design goals. I'm not saying
that was illegal back then, but it certainly wouldn't happen in today's
IP obsessed world without bringing about major court battles.

Here was a true visionary: http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm

You obviously really like M$ so there probably isn't much point in
continuing this until it becomes a real pissing contest. I run windos
on some machines because I basically have to. When I need something
that really works, I use Linux.

 

[BillW50]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:wg59f.33589$Bf7.19174@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:02:52 GMT

"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4364cb40.3983536@news.itd.umich.edu...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:53:25 GMT, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

All DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1 preemptively.

I hadn't heard of this before. Can you explain how it worked?
I had the impression that the DOS application took over and
Windows apps didn't get any time at all. If there were time
slices for Windows apps, do you recall how they did this?

It was basically a form of cooperative multitasking.

A form of cooperative tasking my eye! Each VDM session uses the Intel
v86 (Virtual-8086) mode. Windows 3.1 and later as well as OS/2 uses v86
mode to preemptive task DOS and other VDM sessions.

When the DOS app called INT21 functions or made BIOS calls, Windos
could then regain control of the machine. Hardly what I'd call
preemptive multitasking.

Doesn't sound right to me. As Windows uses (since W3.1) the CPUs v86
mode (Task State Segments) to support multitasking to preemptive task
all VDM sessions through Windows Virtual Machine Manager (VMM). Every
manual I have ever read (and I just searched the Internet as well) calls
this preemptive tasking. Looks like you're alone to me.

It is my opinion that even XP doesn't qualify as a proper OS. Any
OS that allows an errant application to hang things up is not
right.

Under any x86 machine, any buggy ring 0 code can take out any OS, bar
none! It's not just a Windows limitation, but effects *all* OS. Yes, any
clever programmer who wants to take out an x86 machine running any OS
can indeed do so (with administrator privileges of course).

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:iz79f.509$p37.325@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:wg59f.33589$Bf7.19174@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:02:52 GMT

"Bob Masta" <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4364cb40.3983536@news.itd.umich.edu...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:53:25 GMT, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom
wrote:

All DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1 preemptively.

I hadn't heard of this before. Can you explain how it worked?
I had the impression that the DOS application took over and
Windows apps didn't get any time at all. If there were time
slices for Windows apps, do you recall how they did this?

It was basically a form of cooperative multitasking.

A form of cooperative tasking my eye! Each VDM session uses the Intel
v86 (Virtual-8086) mode. Windows 3.1 and later as well as OS/2 uses
v86
mode to preemptive task DOS and other VDM sessions.

When the DOS app called INT21 functions or made BIOS calls, Windos
could then regain control of the machine. Hardly what I'd call
preemptive multitasking.

Doesn't sound right to me. As Windows uses (since W3.1) the CPUs v86
mode (Task State Segments) to support multitasking to preemptive task

Well sure it has a TSS, otherwise you couldn't switch tasks very easily.
The TSS holds all the context information (registers, pc, ldt etc...)
required to put the task back into execution without it freaking out.
It's just a mechanism to make it easy, but it doesn't magically
interrupt a running task.

Windows could use the timer tick ints to accomplish task switching or it
could even set up another spare timer to generate interrupts for task
switching. Those would then safestore the TSS values for the running
task when the interrupt occurs and then transfer control thru the
interrupt vector to the dispatcher (or whatever M$ calls it). Using a
timer of some sort could make it preemptive since they could then
conceivably interrupt between any two instructions. AFAIK though, they
just depended upon the system calls to resume control.

all VDM sessions through Windows Virtual Machine Manager (VMM). Every
manual I have ever read (and I just searched the Internet as well)
calls
this preemptive tasking. Looks like you're alone to me.

It is my opinion that even XP doesn't qualify as a proper OS. Any
OS that allows an errant application to hang things up is not
right.

Under any x86 machine, any buggy ring 0 code can take out any OS, bar
none! It's not just a Windows limitation, but effects *all* OS. Yes,
any
clever programmer who wants to take out an x86 machine running any OS
can indeed do so (with administrator privileges of course).

That's why there is 4 ring levels supported in hardware. Too bad M$
doesn't utilize it properly, Linux wins hands down here and only uses 2
of the 4 levels.

 

[James Sweet]

Patrick Young wrote:

I have a number of broken Sony VPL-S900 LCD projectors.
It appears on these the blue LCD panel is crap and
literally burns out.

Despite the part number being LCX031ALT2 on green
and red and LCX031ALT1 on blue, I've moved an ALT2 panel
into place from another unit.

This is all good and well, works perfectly. The only
problem is convergence.

There is no adjustment in the screw holes and the mounting
plates appear soldered to the prism assembly so I assume
the convergence was done by aligning and soldering at
the factory. Or is there another way? The alignment is
out by around 4.5 pixels at the bottom and around 3
at the top.

Conspiricy theory: Sony knew the ALT1 was crap and also
knew it would survive the warranty period and folk would
come in for repairs later ....

The alignment may well be in the way the panels are made, hence the
different part numbers. If you'd like to verify, try installing a
different green panel and a red panel instead and see which one makes
the convergence change. If the panels are indeed identical then the
convergence is adjusted in software, if there's no service menu then
you'd need a custom alignment rig. Given the cost of a new blue panel is
probably prohibitive you haven't got much to loose, you may be able to
file the holes a bit larger and adjust the panel that way to make it
acceptable.

 

[Andy Cuffe]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:51:09 -0500, fybar
<fybar27@googlemail.com.figureitout> wrote:

James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in
..


So, I can just glue another connector on there? Is there no physical
connection? How does the signal get transferred from the connector into
the tuner? If there is a web page that describes this, that would be fine.

Thanks!

fybar

I see this all the time. It's easy to fix using another connector, or
the original connector if you still have it. It's not hard, but you
need to be skilled at soldering. You WILL ruin the tuner if you're
using a $10 radio shack soldering iron and radio shack solder. It
takes a powerful temperature controlled soldering iron and good
quality solder to solder the outside of the connector to the tuner
case. If this connection is poor, the connector will be ripped off
again by even the slightest tug. The center pin is easier, but if the
iron is too hot you can easily damage the board inside the tuner. Any
clumsy soldering can damage the many surface mount components inside
the tuner.
Andy Cuffe

baltimora@psu.edu <-- Use this address until 12/31/2005

acuffe@gmail.com <-- Use this address after 12/31/2005

 

[James Sweet]

So, I can just glue another connector on there? Is there no physical
connection? How does the signal get transferred from the connector into
the tuner? If there is a web page that describes this, that would be fine.

Thanks!

fybar



I see this all the time. It's easy to fix using another connector, or
the original connector if you still have it. It's not hard, but you
need to be skilled at soldering. You WILL ruin the tuner if you're
using a $10 radio shack soldering iron and radio shack solder. It
takes a powerful temperature controlled soldering iron and good
quality solder to solder the outside of the connector to the tuner
case. If this connection is poor, the connector will be ripped off
again by even the slightest tug. The center pin is easier, but if the
iron is too hot you can easily damage the board inside the tuner. Any
clumsy soldering can damage the many surface mount components inside
the tuner.
Andy Cuffe

I've had success using a Weller 140W soldering gun for the outside of
the connector, but if it fits tightly you can jam it in there and then
epoxy around the inside to hold it. Any iron will work for soldering the
center conductor. I've also used panel mount connectors with a threaded
nut that holds them in place.

 

[Jamie]

BillW50 wrote:

"DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:avSdnUyUPqwLiPzeRVn-2g@midco.net...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:58:06 -0500

... look for a program called D4. It is a free download and will
keep your clock synced to universal time. Also, Widows XP can sync
to the same time servers that D4 uses. Both work great!


Nobody I've seen yet thanked you for recommending this fine program.
Well I for one am very grateful! Although I usually set my computers
clocks about 5 to 10 times per year because they were off about a
minute. But now this is one task I don't have to worry about anymore.
grin

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000


Hmm, D4 is an acronym for the once famous

"Delphi 4", now since never versions exist they
are in the order of D5,D6,D7 and now in the
D2005 and soon D2006.
maybe changing the name of the utility mite
help.


--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[marsupialman]

Thanks to both of you for your helpful posts! John's right: there are no
tubes in this amp; it's designed to replicate various tube amp sounds.
Which it does remarkably well for the money.

So... yikes... sounds like it's gonna cost me a lot to get it sorted...


But I'll follow John's advice and see what happens. What a great forum!
Thanks again guys.

Porky Wrote:

marsupialman.1xo...@news.homeimprovementbanter.com -

I bought a new Vintager GM110 via eBay about a year ago. When the amp
is switched on and my guitar plugged in, there is no output noise

Hi, I'm no regular here butt... I can tell you there are no tubes in
this amp. It appears to have blown a major component which will
involve
pulling the chassis, searching a mass of tiny components and
soldering.
You can use the FX loop to test your output transistors. Plug another
amp or even a CD player or radio, turned down way low, into the return
jack. Report the result here.

John Kogel

--
marsupialman

 

[Ian Malcolm]

So, I can just glue another connector on there? Is there no physical
connection? How does the signal get transferred from the connector
into the tuner? If there is a web page that describes this, that
would be fine.

Thanks!

fybar

I see this all the time. It's easy to fix using another connector, or
the original connector if you still have it. It's not hard, but you
need to be skilled at soldering. You WILL ruin the tuner if you're
using a $10 radio shack soldering iron and radio shack solder. It
takes a powerful temperature controlled soldering iron and good
quality solder to solder the outside of the connector to the tuner
case. If this connection is poor, the connector will be ripped off
again by even the slightest tug. The center pin is easier, but if the
iron is too hot you can easily damage the board inside the tuner. Any
clumsy soldering can damage the many surface mount components inside
the tuner. Andy Cuffe

James Sweet wrote:

I've had success using a Weller 140W soldering gun for the outside of
the connector, but if it fits tightly you can jam it in there and then
epoxy around the inside to hold it. Any iron will work for soldering the
center conductor. I've also used panel mount connectors with a threaded
nut that holds them in place.

The outside needs to be a good connection so if you glue it, you will
need to also solder it at a minimum of three equally spaced places round
the circumference. Epoxy cannot take soldering temperatures so this may
be more difficult than just sweating it back in place with a soldering
iron.

I get good results with a Weller 50W iron with a fat 800 deg F bit in
for the outside. It is ESSENTIAL to work with both covers off the tuner
and the connector you are replacing uppermost if you want a nice uniform
fillet that doesn't have any blobs to foul on the case with no solder
dropped inside. Getting the covers off can be a royal PITA if they are
soldered in place and you dont have a desolder station. This usually
involves taking the tuner off the main board for access. Ones I've
tried to do in situ are invariably a worse PITA than taking the tuner out.

If I haven't got a decent 50W or higher iron handy, I've had good
results tinning the edge of the broken off connector, blobbing enough
extra solder round it to allow for a fillet to form then reheating it
with a pencil flame micro butane torch.

The centre pin will probably need a short length of tinned wire to
reconstruct its connection to the board and a delicate touch with a
small iron.

I haven't seen any modern tuner I can fit a panel mount connector to
without crowding the coils etc. inside it. Panel mount connectors only
get used for isolated chassis sets that have an internal cable from the
original connector to the tuner. Thankfully, the need for multiple AV
connectors nearly removed live chassis sets from the market more than a
decade ago so I no longer have to stock isolated sockets.

We usually charge around Ł40 for this job, but if there is good accesss,
you haven't lost the connector or bust it too badly and the TV is small
enough to put face down on a cloth to work on, we have been known to go
as low as Ł30. If you hand me a loose tuner, with 'pop-off' covers, with
the connector and you haven't made a mess of it, you can usually talk me
into doing it for Ł15.
--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk [at]=@, [dash]=- &
[dot]=.
*Warning* SPAM TRAP set in header, Use email address in sig. if you must.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:fa99f.528$p37.148@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:45:02 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:qF59f.482$p37.367@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:41:44 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:v429f.441$p37.342@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3s4m1hrkf574e5p79inehev45bvon2uvt@4ax.com...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:42:43 +0200

mark349@lycos.com writes:

OS/2 is dead and gone, and although it was superior in
design
to the old versions of Windows, it was not superior to NT.

Supposedly better in design, but OS/2 sucked in real life for
many of us! As only one OS/2 Win session had sound while the
others was soundless. And a good number of Windows
applications
would routinely crashed under OS/2, but stable as a rock under
Windows 3.1. Then the OS/2 GUI was unstable for at least a
couple of years and crashed the whole system. Then the FixPaks
often caused more problems than they fixed. IBM programmers
are
morons!

Am I the only guy that was working with this crap back then?

Nope!

IBM contracted with M$ to write OS/2 for them in like 1987.

It might have been in '86 actually. And MS had been working on
Windows since about '84. Although MS couldn't give the development
time it deserved because those MS programmers were mostly working
on
OS/2. MS lost 3 years in Windows development because of OS/2.

I suppose that's one way to look at the time that M$ spent sucking
money from IBM and using it for their own gains.

IBM paid Microsoft by the K-line. Which means by the lines of code
they
produced. IBM got the lines and MS got paid. Anytime MS didn't produce
code for OS/2, MS didn't get paid. So how could MS get paid for their
own gains by IBM? That's impossible.

No, it's not impossible. M$ got paid by IBM to write code for IBM.
They also were able to use much of the same exact code in Windows.

M$ drug their feet on the release, while spending IBM's money,
so
that they could get Win 3.0 out before OS/2, by saying that OS/2
just wasn't stable enough for release yet. Yeah, no conflict of
interest their.

IBM only paid MS for the lines of code MS produced. IBM didn't
care
if MS spent more time to make the code lean, mean and faster. As
IBM would

I think IBM had visions of stability that M$ will never attain,
ever.

pay you less if you did so. IBM was cutting their own throats. IBM
is full of a much of morons. Impossible to work with and to get
paid fairly for. Hell I would work slowly and drag my feet as well
for those morons.

Yeah, morons. They only own the mainframe market even though
Honeywell made better hardware. IBM's only moronic move was to
allow M$ to screw them for a second time. The first time being with
MSDOS/IBMDOS games.

Who screwed whom again? IBM only paid MS $80,000 for everything
(including DOS, Basic, etc.). And IBM paid no royalties to Microsoft
no
matter how many copies IBM sold.

As far as I can remember, I've never heard that before so I need to see
a link to back that statement up. M$ had to pay $50,000 to Seattle
Computers just to buy the thing that they turned into DOS 1.0. How
could they have possibly done the whole job for $80,000 with no royalty
income? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that without some kind of proof.

Finally IBM got fed up and took the project away from M$.

Yeah, IBM got fed up alright! As Microsoft didn't want to be a
slave to IBM (who always makes slaves or crushes anybody that gets
in their way

Too bad that isn't true since they would have done the world a great
favor by crushing M$.

Actually Bill Gates did the world a favor by saving all of us from
IBM.
As nobody else was willing to do it. Including Gary Kildall.

IMO Kildall was 100 times the human being that B.G. could ever hope to
be. That's taking into consideration B.G.'s charity work.

up to this point in time). And IBM wanted MS to create OS/2 which
would be made to run on only true IBM PCs after they have the
world
hooked on OS/2.

Yeah that is a great plan for us, NOT! Bill Gates had taken the
biggest risk in his career. As nobody ever bucked IBM and had
survived. Although he did it! And thank goodness he did! As we all
would be using real IBM machines and OS/2 by now.

Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be
using something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad
Xerox didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the
best product for the office in 1980. Apple didn't have anything
that could come close for around 10 years. It took M$ almost
another 5 years on top of that to catch up.

Gates being greedy? Since IBM only paid Gates $80,000 for millions of
copies of DOS, Basic, Fortran, etc. So IBM *only* spent about a nickel
for all of the MS software per computer. So if anybody got ripped off,
it was Gates.

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got plenty
for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

And since you mentioned Xerox, those foolish Xerox executives gave
Steve
Jobs all of Xerox's GUI secrets for nothing! That is right, NOTHING!
Then Apple has the balls to turn around a sue Microsoft for stealing
Apple's GUI, when Apple had stolen it from Xerox in the first place.
Yup, Xerox could have had it all and they (bozos in management) didn't
even know it.

They certainly had the right to intervene on the Apple vs. M$ battle for
"look and feel".

Sure IBM was ticked that Bill Gates wasn't going to play along. So
they parted ways. And IBM wouldn't sell any IBM computer with
Windows installed for a short time. Until IBM realized that they
couldn't sell IBM computers with either crappy PC-DOS or OS/2 on
them. As people wanted Windows instead, plain and simple.

The only reason being that M$ delayed OS/2 was so that Win 3.0
could get the jump on it. If OS/2 would have shipped on time, it
would have possibly eliminated windows.

Yes probably this is true. Although MS still would have gotten third
parties to write applications for Windows instead of OS/2. Which did

Right, nothing like ludicrous binding legal agreements to crush free
trade and capitalism.

happen anyway. And IBM had the balls to threaten third parties to
write applications for OS/2, but wasn't willing to pay them to do so.
Well I wouldn't listen to big bully IBM either.

Who's the greedy bully now?

There are very many suspicious similarities in "bugs" within the
graphics system calls of Win 3.0 and OS/2.

The same MS programmers wrote both OS/2 and Windows 3.0. So why
should this be a surprise?

It's not a surprise to me. I think it just goes to show that M$ had
no qualms about directly lifting the code that they originally
wrote for IBM using IBM's money and, AFAICT, IBM's design goals.
I'm not saying that was illegal back then, but it certainly
wouldn't happen in today's IP obsessed world without bringing about
major court battles.

Here was a true visionary: http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm

Yes I know all about Gary Kildall! I was a big supporter of his until
he
killed off CP/M without any warning! Then Gary had become a big creep
to

And I thought DOS killed it with the "here have DOS free with your PC,
or send us money and we will send you CPM". Well that, 8" diskette
drive issue and the fact that CPM was limited to using 64K of RAM. I
could be wrong though.

me and other developers. Later I learned he often screwed his other
customers left and right as well. SCP was one company that he burned
badly. Luckily it burned him in his ass, now didn't it?

Given that you feel that way about the insignificant "damage" that
Kildall did, how can you be so bubbly when talking about M$ and their
"success"?

And talk about being greedy, Gary almost invented the word. As you had
to pay him big bucks to make him do anything. And it wouldn't be to
your

So what? He was good and he knew it. Are you saying that his efforts
weren't worth big bucks?

liking, but his. And while Gary Kildall and Bill Gates were playing
around with DEC computers. I was working on the VTAS computer which
got
the US to the moon. So as far as I was concern, both were playing
around
with kids' stuff at the time.

I didn't start getting paid for tinkering with computers until 1980.
Before then it was me and my COSMAC ELF and whatever else I could get my
hands on. When the PC came along, I was already into mainframes so I
really didn't pay the PC any mind until pretty much the end of the 80's.
Once I had a mainframe to control, I could hardly treat any micro
seriously.

BTW, I searched Google for VTAS computer and it seems that you are the
only person in the USENET archive that ever mentioned it. I also can't
find any links on the web either.

Now having said the above, I do admit that Gary was nothing less than
one great programmer without a doubt. Although everything had to be
done
his way, or forget it. And that is why Gary did well without any
competitors, but failed once someone else was in the OS game.

That's the problem with genius, it usually doesn't come with greed and
"good business sense" attached.

Funny IBM also does well without competition, but also fails once
competition arrives. And oddly enough, Microsoft only gets better when

They seemed to do ok against Burroughs, Honeywell and the rest.

there are competitors. Otherwise they basically just sit on their butt
doing nothing.

You obviously really like M$ so there probably isn't much point in
continuing this until it becomes a real pissing contest. I run
windos
on some machines because I basically have to. When I need something
that really works, I use Linux.

I actually use Windows because it does work. Linux has way too many
lacks and wants to keep me happy. And did you know that Linus Torvalds
also uses Windows? Yup he said so right in his own book.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news2iam1to5m37k921910t19j8351rmngjgj@4ax.com...

In message <dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070@tornado.texas.rr.com> "Anthony
Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got
plenty
for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

For each copy of MS-DOS, yes. They didn't get royalties for each copy
of IBM-DOS that IBM distributed.

Notice the different letters, "MS-DOS" and "IBM-DOS", that indicates
they're separate products, with separate licensing terms.

The sarcasm is unnecessary as I think I can tell the difference. IIRC
it was called PC-DOS and not IBM-DOS. At any rate, I don't care whether
they got royalties or not, I just want to see some proof that IBM only
paid them $80,000 for the whole shebang.

 

[w_tom]

Anthony Fremont wrote:

...
Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be using
something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad Xerox
didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the best product
for the office in 1980. ...

Xerox had superb computer products in the 1970s. Yes -
they even had the precursor to Apple's MAC workings and
marketable in the 1970s. I worked with some 1970s products
that were even multiple workstations connected to a small box
- the disk server. When did you start using PCs with
servers? The problem, again, must be broken down to citing
top management. Hack Crowley, a Xerox vice president noted
the problem:

Xerox was spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on
research, development, and engineering. Yet there was no one,
literally, in top management who had ever run a product
development program, who could say to the engineers that such
and such should cost less or should be doable faster, and who
would know from their personal experience, that they were right.
If Xerox had one single management weakness, it was that none of
the power players from Peter [the president] on down, and that
includes me, had a technical background or the technical support
to permit them to challenge hard the judgements of the
engineering group.

Why was Microsoft constantly riding the bull? IBM
management were so business school trained - to
anti-innovative - at to even have only IBM XTs with CGA
monitors - 1984 technology - on early 1990 desks. How, pray
tell, how could MS ever promote innovation when IBM was that
anti-innovative. By definition, IBM was that anti-American.
This is why IBM kept pushing OS/2 - and even wrote it in
assembly language. How to made an OS and simply complex as
OS/2 unreliable? Do it all in assembly language. But then
IBM had no way of knowing how anti-innovative its top
management was. These people did not even come from where the
work gets done. They got promoted using business school
concepts - which routinely result in disasters even as serious
as 3 Mile Island, the Challenger, and just recently the
NorthEast blackout.

This is what Ballmer (of Microsoft) meant when he talks
about riding the bull. If it was innovative, then late 1980s
and early 1990s IBM would fight it all the way until it was
dead. OS/2 is a trophy of business school management in IBM.
Xerox also lost the computer and copier business for same
business school reasons. "A good manager can manage any
business". Only in myths and communism.

 

[BillW50]

"Jamie" <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote in message
newsm69f.32663$E17.173@fe03.lga...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:27:01 -0800

BillW50 wrote:

"DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:avSdnUyUPqwLiPzeRVn-2g@midco.net...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:58:06 -0500

... look for a program called D4. It is a free download and will
keep your clock synced to universal time. Also, Widows XP can sync
to the same time servers that D4 uses. Both work great!


Nobody I've seen yet thanked you for recommending this fine program.
Well I for one am very grateful! Although I usually set my computers
clocks about 5 to 10 times per year because they were off about a
minute. But now this is one task I don't have to worry about
anymore. <grin

Hmm, D4 is an acronym for the once famous
"Delphi 4", now since never versions exist they
are in the order of D5,D6,D7 and now in the
D2005 and soon D2006.
maybe changing the name of the utility mite
help.

Hmm... you mean Delphi as in visual programming? Gee I thought
DBLEXPOSURE was referring to D4 as in Dimension 4 by Rob Chambers
(www.thinkingman.com). Was I mistaken?

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[w_tom]

Appreciate why the IBM PC had a successful marketing plan
AND why IBM corporate philosphy repeatedly attacked and
undermined that game plan. The Estridge plan was superb. For
example, Estridge would have sold IBM PCs with a solution to
the kludge "Real / Protected mode" problem found in Intel's
80286s. It would have kept the clones in a game of catchup.
He adocated innovation to stay ahead of any competition. But
when the corporate MBAs discovered a kludge solution around
that "Real / Protected mode" problem using the keyboard's
single chip computer (yes, the keyboard was a complete and
separate computer), then IBM again lost oppurtunity to
dominate the PC market. Those with basic computer hardware
knowledge understand this completely.

Estridge's game plan also included clones. A successful and
dominant player in any industry wants clone competitors.
Clones are essential to a productive #1 in any industry. But
bean counters in IBM corporate management promoted Cannavino
to run the PC Entry Division. Cannavino did everything to
stifle clones - and therefore also stifled all innovation in
IBM's personal computer division.

As BillW50 accurately notes, IBM created the obsolete
technology OS/2 using Cannavino's MBA school philosophy of
"what is good for IBM is good for all computer users". This
is not even debateable because it is so obvious and so well
documented in history - including a PBS report.

What so many never learned is why IBM's personal computer
business model changed. Someone with dirt under his finger
nails was replaced by someone who ran business as taught in
the business schools. A devil is named Cannavino - who was as
satanic as his boss John Akers.

The Estridge business model became a precursor to how free
market, innovative, and therefore patriotic American
industries operate today. But when top management does not
even know how to use a comptuer and is trained in business
school philosophies, then we have a classic example of the man
most responsible for IBM's loss in the personal computer
industry. Jim Cannavino - a man who routinely stifled
innovation promoted a mythical belief that profits were more
important.

Let's not lose sight of why this discussion has gotten
here. Someone without sufficient knowledge declared that
application software and a weak OS structure could cause a
CMOS date time clock to lose time. Obviously not. Someone
has represented 1990 IBM as a decent, respectable, and
innnovative company. Obviously not. OS/2 is a symptom of how
bad IBM had become.

BillW50 wrote:

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4362B37B.F5917856@hotmail.com...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:25:47 -0400
Microsoft did not blackmail IBM into killing off OS/2...

Actually it was the other way around. As IBM black mailed into writing
OS/2. And IBM's master plan was to get everyone off of MS-DOS and on to
OS/2. Then IBM would have OS/2 changed to run on only true IBM PCs. Thus
killing off the clone market and MS as well. This was all documented and
shown on PBS.

 

[fybar]

$85 US for putting a connector on a tuner?!?

Tom

Yes, the other shops are charging $50 to just look at it, and that $50 will
be applied to the repair. So, if I go that route I might only pay $50, but
I am betting once they get the $50 they will charge me another $50. Nobody
will quote me a price just to solder a connector on. I have to bring it in
and then they will quote me a price. I wonder why TV repair shops have
such a shady reputation?

fyb

 

[Jason D.]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:43:23 -0500, fybar
<fybar27@googlemail.com.figureitout> wrote:

So, I can just glue another connector on there? Is there no physical
connection? How does the signal get transferred from the connector
into the tuner? If there is a web page that describes this, that
would be fine.

Thanks!

fybar

Have to take the TV's back cover off and get tuner covers off and find
another junk tuner that have similar connector. Solder the connector
on and then solder the center pin. Check chassis for solder cracks &
resolder if needed. Done.

Shop around with model number of this tv and get 3 to 4 estimates. 80
is too high for this easy jobs.

Cheers, Wizard