Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Mxsmanic]

David Maynard writes:

I doubt they would agree with you on that

That's why they still have barely 5% of the market. They had a huge
head start and they blew it.

True. And IBM did plenty to earn the wrath.

Most dominant market players eventually become partially corrupt,
mainly because people join the company who are greedier, more
ambitious, and less ethical as it grows larger. Eventually the
kind-hearted engineers are overruled by the marketroids and
salespeople, and the revolving door of upper management.

Do you remember their MCA bus licensing plan for clone makers?

All I recall of the MCA bus was that it went nowhere.

You not only
had to pay a license for every machine sold using it (fair enough) but you
were required to retro pay a license fee for every clone you had already
made since the PC came out.

They out licensed themselves because with a plan that ridiculous no one
took it so MCA was shut out instead of the other way around.

They made a mistake that is often one of the first symptoms of a
company in decline: they depended too much on their brand, and not
enough on their products. Major market players eventually get lazy
and greedy and think that just stamping their well-established brand
on garbage or overpriced goods will make them sell. It often works
for a short time, but then people wise up, and the game is over. This
often happens after the best engineers have left or have been pushed
aside by the marketroids and salesmen and MBAs. You can see it
happening right now at Hewlett-Packard. The leading edge of the
phenomenon has started to appear at Microsoft.

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

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

....

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a
handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation',
no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else
in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old
IBM. What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM
into the deal?

Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from. As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's
compliance.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff writes:

... I only wish that there was some form of real competition for
MS and their huge market share to cause some real inovation,
choice and fair pricing.

Well, write some applications for operating systems other than
Microsoft, and help the cause.

Companies don't work that way.

Programmers are locked into Windows because it's the only operating
system that sells. Consumers buy Windows because programmers write
for it. It's called a "positive feedback loop" that keeps Windows
the desktop operating system monopoly.

Remember, Microsoft is really only dominant for operating systems
and its Office suite of products.

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software publishing.

In other domains, someone else is dominant.

Other domains?

Office and operating systems won't keep Microsoft is
business forever.

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software publishing
business forever.

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-10-30, Bob Masta <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote:

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?

you needed a '386 (or better) and atleast 2megs of ram.

then you could run windows in "386 enhanced" mode and when you did that
you could multitask dos apps like FS4 and Telix if you selected the right
options in the Pif files.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[John Doe]

"Jeff" <spam@spam.net> wrote:

This is begining to sound like an arguement based soley on which
company you hate more, IBM or Microsoft. You each seem to be
stating facts and then coloring them to suit your own arguements.
I personally dont care who screwed who in the origins of the OS
world, I only wish that there was some form of real competition
for MS and their huge market share to cause some real inovation,
choice and fair pricing.

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one
software publisher over another probably would level the software
playing field. I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be
a good idea. Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation. How to handle the
operating system maker is a good question.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

....

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.

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech input
and output. Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system. To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of money.
So even though speech will be part of the future personal computer
(or hybrid), we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it. At the same
time, other companies are lazy about software development simply
because Microsoft can put them out of business by developing a lower
quality but Windows-integrated version of the same software.

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Programmers are locked into Windows because it's the only operating
system that sells. Consumers buy Windows because programmers write
for it. It's called a "positive feedback loop" that keeps Windows
the desktop operating system monopoly.

Yes, but that is not Microsoft's doing, nor does Microsoft have to do
anything to maintain it. Indeed, Microsoft can't really change it,
either--the company has little choice but to continue to produce OS
environments that are compatible with the current Windows environment.
Anything else would be a huge and extremely risky gamble, and
Microsoft is now moving into that phase of a company's life when it
becomes very averse to risk.

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software publishing.

Actually, no. Only a small fraction of desktop computer software is
operating systems and office-automation suites. For example, on the
computer I use at home, Microsoft software represents only about 5% of
the total dollar value of all the software on the computer. Which
means that for every dollar Microsoft makes selling software, other
companies are making about $19.

Other domains?

Yes. Computers are used for other things besides text processing and
spreadsheets, and in virtually every other application domain,
Microsoft is either non-existent or a very minor player.

Furthermore, Microsoft lacks the know-how to enter just about all of
these markets; the company writes software very well, but you have to
know more than just how to write software to crack a particular
application market. MS did well with Office because it helped define
the market by being one of the first to address it. It does fairly
well with software development tools because it has to use the tools
itself, and thus has learned how to build good ones. But it doesn't
know how to do anything else.

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software publishing
business forever.

Forever is a long time. It's very difficult to change the status quo
in operating systems, but it has happened before, and sooner or later
it will happen again. My prediction is that eventually Microsoft will
push itself out of the market, by trying to force people into
expensive, bloated upgrades in order to maintain its revenue stream.
At some point they'll be pushed towards alternative operating systems.

If another publisher were to come up with an OS that ran Windows
applications transparently and flawlessly with no significant loss of
performance, the dominance of Microsoft would be severely threatened.
However, that is so difficult and expensive to do technically that I'm
not particularly concerned about it, and I don't think Microsoft is,
either.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one
software publisher over another probably would level the software
playing field.

There's really no legal or ethical basis for such a prohibition, and
it would have no effect on the market, anyway, because Microsoft isn't
writing any significant applications to begin with. And Microsoft
isn't significantly favoring anyone, either.

Microsoft is in the position of having a reliable cash cow in the
Windows operating system, but it's also constrained by that position
because even Microsoft cannot really propose a new operating system,
unless it walks and talks just like the existing Windows OS. It went
out on a limb with Windows NT and that was uncomfortably uncertain for
years--and NT is an operating system that looks and feels just like
preceding versions of Windows to users. Trying something completely
new might not work at all, and with the cost of a new operating system
now in the billions of dollars, it's a dangerous gamble. And these
days Microsoft is becoming increasingly wary of gambling.

I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be
a good idea.

It's not. From a consumer standpoint, standardization on a single
operating system is generally best. The only question is which
operating system would be technically ideal. Windows is nice but it's
probably not ideal. The competition (such as it is) is far worse,
however.

Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation.

There's no legal or ethical basis for this, either.

How to handle the operating system maker is a good question.

The best way to change things--if change is a good idea--is to come up
with a better operating system ... and one that will run everything
that Windows runs, because nobody is going to rewrite 250,000
applications overnight.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from.

No, he's thinking about Microsoft, a very tiny company back in those
days.

As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's
compliance.

During the period under discussion, Microsoft wasn't in a position to
force anyone to do anything.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech input
and output.

There's very little demand for that, and it requires a lot of
horsepower. It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party
drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If someone
writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be substituted
for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it just fine. Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual
information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and
requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating them
than such customers bring in.

So even though speech will be part of the future personal computer
(or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not. I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement. They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and see,
they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such
hardware, nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software development simply
because Microsoft can put them out of business by developing a lower
quality but Windows-integrated version of the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because they
don't see any money in it, and they are not operating as charities.
The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small to
allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

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

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software
publishing.

Actually, no. Only a small fraction of desktop computer software
is operating systems and office-automation suites. For example,
on the computer I use at home, Microsoft software represents only
about 5% of the total dollar value of all the software on the
computer. Which means that for every dollar Microsoft makes
selling software, other companies are making about $19.

You don't represent the vast majority of personal computer users.
Your last assertion does not follow.

Computers are used for other things besides text processing
and spreadsheets,

Like browsing the Internet. If Microsoft hadn't gotten into trouble
for destroying Netscape Navigator, we might be paying for Internet
Explorer too.

and in virtually every other application domain,
Microsoft is either non-existent or a very minor player.

I would just repeat my prior statement about the operating system
and office applications. I don't know where you got the idea those
were a small share of the applications market.

I will be happy to compare resources on the subject.

Furthermore, Microsoft lacks the know-how to enter just about all
of these markets; the company writes software very well, but you
have to know more than just how to write software to crack a
particular application market.

Microsoft can buy any programmers it needs.

MS did well with Office because it helped define
the market by being one of the first to address it.

Windows integration helps. New users are going to use what's there.

It does fairly well with software development tools because it has
to use the tools itself, and thus has learned how to build good
ones. But it doesn't know how to do anything else.

I agree that Microsoft produces decent software for its own use and
sells it to the rest of us. But competition is usually a better way
to innovation.

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software
publishing business forever.

Forever is a long time. It's very difficult to change the status
quo in operating systems, but it has happened before,

Not in the personal computer operating system market.

and sooner or later

it will happen again. My prediction is that eventually Microsoft
will push itself out of the market, by trying to force people into
expensive, bloated upgrades in order to maintain its revenue
stream. At some point they'll be pushed towards alternative
operating systems.

Switching operating systems would be massively expensive and require
lots of coordination between consumers and programmers. Maybe if
everyone were desperate and had powerful political/media help.

If another publisher were to come up with an OS that ran Windows
applications transparently and flawlessly with no significant loss
of performance, the dominance of Microsoft would be severely
threatened. However, that is so difficult and expensive to do
technically that I'm not particularly concerned about it, and I
don't think Microsoft is, either.

 

[BillW50]

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns97012E0521CE5follydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:31:23 GMT

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

...
What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a
handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation',
no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else
in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old
IBM. What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM
into the deal?

Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS
from. As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's
compliance.

So? Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And I
believe this is only fair. Why don't you?


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

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one
software publisher over another probably would level the software
playing field.

There's really no legal or ethical basis for such a prohibition,

In your opinion.

and
it would have no effect on the market, anyway, because Microsoft
isn't writing any significant applications to begin with.

Still wondering where you got that idea.

And Microsoft isn't significantly favoring anyone, either.

Microsoft favors its own applications developers.

Microsoft is in the position of having a reliable cash cow in the
Windows operating system,

And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade
version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its Works
suite.

I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be
a good idea.

It's not. From a consumer standpoint, standardization on a single
operating system is generally best.

Programmers choose the (monopoly) operating system. Consumers choose
applications (except for Office applications). There are other
monopolies, but they are minor in comparison to Windows and Office.

Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code
could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation.

There's no legal or ethical basis for this, either.

The basis would be to spur innovation. Whether it is legal or
ethical is up to the government and its religious leaders I guess.

 

[default]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:22:58 GMT, "Rick Yerger" <nospam@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Thanks all for the replies. Yes, the outlets are in fact ungrounded.
We took the covers off all the outlets and there's no ground wire
in any of them, not even in the bathrooms. The only one we
located is in the box for the 220V oven.

You might want to double check the range/oven. The new standards call
for four wires to ranges - two lines with 240 and a ground and a
neutral. The range lights, clock etc. are connected between one hot
and neutral so they get 120 (and there's sometimes a 120 volt
convenience outlet as well) If the neutral should become loose or
disconnected at the service entrance, or plug if it has one - 120 will
be on the neutral wire.

I wouldn't ground a computer to a three wire range - too much
potential for neutral to become hot. Be especially careful if its
near a sink or grounded plumbing.

The plumbing may provide the ground you want - sweated copper is an
excellent conductor, and even galvanized pipe can be a good conductor.
It depends on the joints and construction . . .

The complex is old but not _that_ old (built in 1962), and the type
of construction is such that there's no access to wall interiors. I
think that's why they've been able to get waivers for current code.
The owners would literally have to tear the buildings down to redo
the electrical wiring. We can't even get a second phone line
installed for the same reason.

Anything built in 1962 should have three wire service. It is strange
that you don't. My grandparents had a large two apartment house that
dated back to gas lighting. Electricity was added in the 30's or
40's. Lath and plaster walls and no easy way to run wire - each room
had an individual (15A plug fuse) down in the basement. In the 30's
they were already using high power consumption appliances - vacuum
toob radios, flat irons, incandescent lighting, later refrigerators,
TV's etc.. IT was two wire service.

Old as it was, it had the wiring inside the walls - not every house in
the area did.

We used the plumbing for grounds - some time after my mother spilled
water into the wash machine motor and got between the machine and sink
.. . .

Regarding the European model . . . those that adapt technology more
slowly - get the better technology. They have higher resolution TV,
probably a more extensive and better cellular system (at least in the
cities).
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Patrick Young]

James Sweet wrote:

Patrick Young wrote:

Did, as the green in Q had three or four pixels out. I'm now left with a
ferpect picture, however the convergence is now out two ways. The part
# is therefore not part of the alignment.

It's not? If changing to a different color panel changed the alignment
then I suspect the panels *are* different.

Sorry, I might not have been very clear there. I swapped a green _as
well_ as the blue to make a comparison. The green was swapped with the
same part # (ALT2) from the other projector, blue got red from the
other one (ALT2 going into the ALT1 slot).

There is more to it than just the part number. I suspect this has a lot
to do with how the panel is cast into it's plastic housing.

The plastic housing is then screwed in a non adjustable way on a
plate that is soldered to the prism assembly at four points. Comparing
panels, the soldering positioning varies (ie: there are larger tags on
the prism than that of the plate the panel screws to), some of these
solder points are on centre and some slightly off centre.

I'm yet to work out the difference between the LCX031ALT1 and LCX031ALT2
though. Of the 4 projectors I have, one ALT1 (blue) was totally burnt
out in that had incinerated the colour filter, another the ALT1 was
totally dead, however had not damaged anything. The remaining two still
work, however are developing a blue smear in the picture. IIRC they are
all much the same age.

After finding the ALT2 panel works in blue possie, I'm left to the
conclusion the ALT1 is the same, however perhaps a superceeded part #
that had "issues". Interestingly, it is the one closer to the lamp,
however would be surprised if it is different because it is warmer there
and there are cooling issues, however that does not make sense to me.

--

--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon

 

[John Doe]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

....

when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

So?

There.

Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And
I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the
politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech
input and output.

There's very little demand for that,

I have a very great demand for that.

and it requires a lot of horsepower.

My system, probably no better than a current store-bought computer,
is running it just fine, input and output.

It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about
text to speech, it's very understandable even though probably not
very good sounding to most people. If you're talking about speech
recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

Then again, some day that will be water under the bridge.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party
drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If
someone writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be
substituted for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it
just fine.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual
information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and
requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of
money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating
them than such customers bring in.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point. I guess
it depends on whether you believe the disabled people should have
equal access. But again, as I stated below, it also has to do with
the future and how easily we get there.

So even though speech will be part of the future personal
computer (or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not.

It certainly will.

I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is way
superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's what I'm
doing, but current technology does require a good speaking voice and
the ability to properly configure sound input.

They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and
see, they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

Sorry, but you're just making excuses for your own inability to use
the current technology.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such
hardware,

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software
development simply because Microsoft can put them out of business
by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated version of
the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because
they don't see any money in it,

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced better
speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a valid part
of the operating system. And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in
it is the question.

and they are not operating as charities.

The future is not a charity.

The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small
to allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating system.
Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any copies. In
this argument, you are very much aware of the fact that costs of
development must be recovered.

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

Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 05:41:04 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:41:01 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com
References: <Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com> <qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com> <fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com> <lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com> <360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com> <Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 52
X-Trace: sv3-dvRGJVUbdpPNNVuTOuwiZ2WTy8l0eoTAHFUBXjMQz9fZZyyVdMQuPaiWLMwgteQpGulmQLm/XGb1A+h!kmahICdUx2Q3irwAi+/zBex8zr0cRdyGsdBwLj4ghBglJBWmWZRKV4TOdV56TWOU+w==
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225701 sci.electronics.repair:427328 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448767

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-10-30, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

Anthony Fremont writes:

That's what they say, but.......

But it's true.

Right, you don't really have much choice but to use the machine as an
admin.

That's not the fault of the OS. There are some applications that will
run without special privileges.

You'd have to go to pretty good lengths to write code that would hang
Linux just because you ran it as root.

No more so than for XP.

Hanging the kernel is primarily
accomplished by device drivers, which are running in kernel space, so
all bets are really off there.

The same is true for XP.

My point is that hanging windows is allot easier.

Except that it's not.

On Linux it's fairly tricky just getting into position to
be able to start slapping the kernel around unless you're a device
driver of course.


If you're running a GUI, it's easy.

how so? in linux the GUI runs in user space, ditto the windowing subsystem,
it's only the video driver that has some priviledges,

I have the same background. XP is stable.

The same goes for security. Even Linux upsets me greatly at
times, especially MythTV and the ivtv driver. But that tends to be the
fault of the third party programmers and not the Linux kernel.

Linux and UNIX are quite insecure, compared to NT.

how so? I heard that Microsoft moved the webservers from NT to unix
(I think solaris or BSD) for security reasons a few years ago. Hmm,
they seem to be running IIS again now.

I can't fault the OS if hardware dies but, depending upon the particular
hardware, the driver might be graceful about it.

The driver is usually written by the hardware vendor. Many drivers
are very poorly written.

That's why linux admins like the hardware that has open source drivers.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Jasen Betts]

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

It rhymes, which is neat, but what definition of "transpose" are you using,
none of the usual ones seem to fit the contect?

--

Bye.
Jasen

 

[BillW50]

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns970142579A709follydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:31:15 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

...
when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus
SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force
IBM's compliance.

So?

There.

Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM
forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But
times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And
I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my
example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the
applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the
politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.

How did Microsoft prevent competition? As the end user had no
problems installing Lotus SmartSuite if they wanted to. So no
problems there. And MS Office is not free anyway, again no problems
there.

And there has been awhile now, Sun's OpenOffice which can be had for
free! Claims to open MS Office files and all. If it were any good,
it would wipe out MS Office off of the map for sure. But the truth
is, it ain't as good. Thus it still isn't a threat to MS.

You somehow believe MS stifles competition. While I believe just the
opposite. As at anytime, anybody can come along and actually do
something better than Microsoft. And often it does happen in niche
areas of Windows and it has made them (not MS) rich. This has been
great for competition. Because when something comes out better, MS
plays catch up to try to match or exceed their competition.

I actually believe Windows is the de facto desktop today because of
competition. As there were other competitors for a GUI on top of DOS
like GEM and GEOS. And they were doing well until Apple sued
Microsoft for the look and feel. And MS quickly improved Windows to
be as good and sometimes better than the competition. In this case,
in all of them (GEM, GEOS, and the Mac).

So don't tell me that Microsoft stifles competition. Because that
just ain't so! Although I would agree that Microsoft has enough
resources to usually come out on top. Maybe that is what you really
have a problem with.


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