Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

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

Traditionally most PCs have been used in business, not at home, so
most PC users have even more expensive software installed than I do.
It's true that those who are at home may not have as much, especially
when you consider how much they've probably pirated.

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

Microsoft didn't destroy Netscape. Netscape was almost unbelievably
poorly managed. It was self-destructing without Microsoft's help.
Read the story of Netscape; it's amazing.

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.

They are a small percentage of the applications available. I don't
even have Office on my computer; it's too bloated and expensive, and I
haven't found a use for it.

Microsoft can buy any programmers it needs.

Programmers that are both good at programming and experts in a
specific applications field and are superb systems analysts are
scarce, at any price. And you need lots and lots of them to build new
applications. Additionally, you need a complete chain of command that
understands the business, not just programmers and analysts.

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

Yes. Microsoft did it, and others did not.

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.

There _is_ competition, but it's not very good. Borland was another
case of bad management, even when they were beating Microsoft.

In fact, in many cases, it's not that Microsoft made the right
decisions so much as the competition consistently made the wrong
decisions.

There have been resounding Microsoft failures, such as the oft-cited
Microsoft Bob, but also things like Photo Draw 2000, which was a joke
(Image Composer, which MS had bought earlier, was much better, but MS
still abandoned it, thinking it could rewrite something superior from
scratch--MS was wrong).

Microsoft still has a hard time with database servers, since it knows
nothing about database production environments. The same handicap
keeps it behind the curve in the server market as well.

What Microsoft does, it does well. But it really has a hard time
learning new things.

Not in the personal computer operating system market.

From the Mac to Windows. From MS-DOS to Windows. From CP/M to
MS-DOS. And so on.

Granted, the greater the inertia, the slower the change.

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.

Well, right now, everyone is happy with Microsoft Windows, except for
a handful of whining geeks who want to change things. The average
business or home user, though, gets everything he needs from Windows,
and has no reason whatsoever to change. In fact, a sudden change
would be bad for consumers, not good, no matter how much it might
please the geeks.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

In your opinion.

Deliberately crippling a company that is successful is never a good
idea, and historically has had either no effect or a negative effect.

Still wondering where you got that idea.

As I've explained, Microsoft builds operating systems, and a suite of
office-automation applications. And that's essentially it. Almost
all its revenue comes from these two product areas (especially the
latter).

Microsoft favors its own applications developers.

No doubt, but that's what companies are supposed to do. However, the
only applications it develops are Office applications.

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.

Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office. Works is not worth
buying, and indeed MS gives it away sometimes.

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.

So what? Who is losing here? Not the programmers writing for
Windows. Not the consumers using it. Not Microsoft. Not the
publishers of those other 249,998 Windows applications. Where is the
problem, exactly?

The basis would be to spur innovation.

How much innovation do you expect when companies know that their
intellectual property will be seized and placed in the public domain
if they become too successful?

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

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.

Exactly how does Microsoft use Windows to "prevent competition with
Microsoft's applications," and why does it even matter, given that
Microsoft only really sells one application?

I really couldn't care less about the politics. I don't care
which team you are rooting for.

People who root for teams are in for disappointment. It's all just
business.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

I have a very great demand for that.

As you pointed out to me, you may not be representative.

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

If it's fast enough, it should.

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.

I'm talking about both. The slowness and lack of accuracy of speech
systems holds them back. That's why people tend not to use them
unless they have to. I'd much rather type than have to speak to my
computer to write things. It would take forever with speech.

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

Why? There's almost no demand for it.

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

Both are extremely difficult if you want truly integrated solutions.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point.

It's not pure guesswork. Virtually without exception, putting in
features for a tiny minority of users is a net loss. Companies only
do it for PR, out of corporate conscience, or when the law requires
it. They certainly don't do it to make money.

I guess it depends on whether you believe the disabled people
should have equal access.

Within reason, I believe they should. But I do not believe that vast
resources should be spent on accommodating them when the same
resources could do more good for a larger number of people if spent in
a different way.

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.

That's the easy part. Just as generating sound is the easy part of
speech synthesis. The hard part is compressing information into an
audio channel, and making sense of input or reformatting output to fit
it.

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

Which technology am I unable to use?

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

If you want to do it right, you need hardware solutions.

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

No, it can't. There are a lot of clever and/or well-funded
competitors out there. Not every company is as stupid as Netscape.

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.

Microsoft builds what sells. That's business.

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.

Speech is no more a "valid" part of the operating system than text.

And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in it is the question.

Whether any company does. For extreme niche markets, small companies
are usually better at turning a profit than large companies.

The future is not a charity.

The future will be just like the present.

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.

In that prior post, I was making it obvious why people _don't_ write
applications for obscure operating systems.

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

 

[JW]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:21:57 +0545 "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@fuck-off-and-die.com> wrote in Message id:
<f1495c35d1d84cae961c776b0dedef1a@rec.arts.hairy.pie>:

DBLEXPOSURE, <celstuff@hotmail.com>, the panic-stricken, frumpish geezer,
and keeper of the pantry, ejected:
Nice cross post .


Troll...

Noooooo? Where? Run away!!!!!

Nice k0ok-out, replying to the same post twice with different ideas.

I'm curious; how is it you can type a full sentence with that boner
tipping up Mom's keyboard?

 

[BillW50]

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns970147786A91Bfollydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:01:30 GMT

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.

Are you visually impaired?

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.

I'm using a Celeron 400MHZ with 192MB of RAM under Windows 2000. And
it hits really hard here.

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.

Hopefully.

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.

Huh? Windows has text to speech built right into it.

Narrator is intended to help people with low vision to setup
their own computers, or use other people's computers. Narrator
may not perform well with some applications. Most users with
visual impairments will need a utility with higher
functionality for daily use.

For a list of Windows-based screen reader utilities, see
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

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.

Screen reading is right there in at least Windows 2000/XP.

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.

You know some people can push this disabled stuff too far. So where
do you draw the line? For example, real disabled people still can't
get good parking. Yet zillions of dollars were forced from people's
pockets to build them. And one of the lawyers who did the forcing
and made probably zillions of dollars, didn't even have handicap
parking at his own office (this was on like 20/20 or something). Go
figure! It always comes down to it's about the money and who is
going to pay for it, now isn't it?

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

It may, or it may not.

It certainly will.

I'm not betting on that. As humans have a clear advantage over
computers when it comes to speech recognition. And I haven't even
heard of a workable theory in how computers could ever surpass
humans in this area.

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.

Huh? The current technology in this area is very frustrating.

... 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.

You need a microphone and speakers for one. And I don't know how
anybody can reroute the keyboard to a mic and the screen output to
speakers without added drivers? So you're saying that Windows has
this ability built in? Gee and here I thought you were saying it
does not.

nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

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

Not so. They would like to make Linux disappear and can't for
starters. They probably would like IBM to fade away and can't. And I
bet they wished they didn't have to improve their products when
someone comes out with something better. And lastly, Microsoft has
no power over the end user! As the end user can choose what they
want to do with their money.

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.

Can you elaborate?

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.

Well Bill Gates has given millions of dollars to charity all of the
time. And while the future is not a charity, the future also isn't
here yet as well.

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.

Are you aware that Microsoft does have disability features built
into Windows itself right now? And offers a web page for other
solutions between Windows for the disabled? How can you imply they
are not doing anything about it?


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

 

[Mike Berger]

Cardbus-compliant pcmcia buses might be readable, but they're
usually bridged from any real cpu bus and don't carry diagnostic
information. That would exclude most earlier and recent laptops
from consideration, since early ones weren't cardbus compliant
and few newer ones have pcmcia at all!

James Sweet wrote:

Isn't PCMCIA essentially an ISA bus? I suppose a diagnostic card could
be made, but laptops are not particularly modular, I've always found it
easier to just remove any accessories, swap the RAM out, if it's still
acting up then the problem is likely the motherboard in which case
there's not much that can be done.

 

[Jim S]

marsupialman wrote:

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

Hi Marsupialman. Sorry to hear about your amp trouble! The advice
John gives (above) is exactly what I would recommend: Send a
known-good signal to the effects return. This will bypass all of the
input/preamp electronics and present the signal straight to the output
stage. If you still have no output using this test, I would expect to
find a bad power IC or other failed component somewhere in the output
stage.

If you are in need of an authorized repair center, just drop me a line
or give me a call using my contact information below. I'll get you in
touch with the nearest one and get you an estimate. We have over 40
service centers in the US. If you are not in the USA, we have service
centers all over the world and I can assist you in choosing the best
one for your needs.

One last thought: if the unit was purchased in the 12 months, you
should have some remaining warranty coverage from the eBay seller.

Best Regards,


Jim Savery
Global Customer Service & Support Manager
BEHRINGER Group
Tel: +01-425-672-0816 x 111
Direct Dial: +01-425-939-3216
Fax: +01-425-673-7647
IP Phone Ext: 5024
mailto:custservusa@behringer.com
http://www.behringer.com

 

[Bennett Price]

James Sweet wrote:

Jumpster Jiver wrote:

Rick Yerger wrote:

Our old apartment complex has ungrounded outlets. All 3-prong
appliances are connected with 3-to-2 adapters. Will this affect our
ability to use a PC power supply with Active PFC?

Sorry if this is a dumb question!



Assuming you are in the USA - 120V

If the outlet box is made of metal, test if the box is grouded. You
can do this by buying one of those testers with three neon lamps at a
hardware store. Use a 3 to 2 adapter with the ground wire of the
adapter connected to the outlet-plate screw. If the tester shows that
the outlet box IS properly grounded, then all you need to do is use a
3-2 adapter and make sure the wire or tab from the adapter is securely
connected to the grounded screw of the wall box.
Also, if the box is properly grounded you can install a 3 prong outlet
in the box and connect the outlet ground to the box.

If there is truly no ground, you should have a serious talk with
building management about hiring an electrician to update the
building's electrical system. Otherwise there is a serious danger of
electric shock or electrocution if an appliance malfunctions. The
ground is there to protect you if an appliance's HOT wire shorts to
the outer cabinet or a contol knob or any other part you would
normally touch. While it is rare it DOES happen and that's why a
ground is necessary.

MS



I have yet to ever see a case where the box was grounded but had only a
2 prong receptacle in it. If the house was built before about the mid
1960's, chances are the entire electrical system is not grounded.
Depending on how the house is built, it can be anywhere from fairly easy
to very difficult to add a ground, either way it probably only makes
sense to add it to the outlets that either really need grounding or are
easily accessible.

Some prewar apartment houses in NYC used metal studs and lath which
ended up grounding the junction boxes, which had 2 prong receptacles in
them.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, James Sweet wrote:

Virtually every owner of a '93-'00 Chrysler product who pays any
attention at all to headlamp performance pines for the "performance" of
the $9 sealed beams on his '60s-'80s cars. And as a concept,
sealed-beam construction in standardized form factors makes a great
deal of sense for automotive headlamps. The _implementation_ we were
stuck with for so many years was poor, but there's nothing about
sealed-beam construction, per se, that locks one into poor headlamp
performance.

There's nothing wrong with the sealed beam construction itself, but the
classic DOT headlamps *suck*.

Yep, many of them do. I have a few interesting E-code sealed beams that
produce very well-focued beam patterns. They're little more than
historical/technical curiosities by dint of being an uncommon design;
sealed-beam headlamp construction really never caught on enduringly
outside North America. That said, European regulations are now being
written for the optional installation of sealed-beam *fog* lamps, for some
strange reason.

Installing quality OEM E-code headlamps on my European car was the best
thing I ever did to it. People who ride with me often comment at how
good the headlights are and they're usually shocked when I flip on the
high beams. The original sealed beams were downright dangerous, I was
overdriving my headlights going 5 under the speed limit on a dark
highway, yet they still produced more glare to oncoming traffic than
what I have now.

Got a well-stocked public library near you? Go find Car & Driver, March
1979. Start reading on page 93, and don't quit til page 111. It is sad how
much of it's still completely true.

DS

 

[distar97]

Sometimes mechanical considerations with this type repair become a
nuisance. A different line of attack to consider is to forget the
direct original connection type repair and simply remount a spare
connector elsewhere on the back of the set or even run a short piece of
coax outside the set. This makes the solder work in the tuner much
easier and having a short length of coax (with a strain relief) outside
the set is a real convenience. And while your at it, give the customer
a push-on coax connector to avoid future damage. I've never had a
return after this type repair.

Dennis Harper/ distar97@gmail.com Bronxville NY

 

[Chuck]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 04:25:52 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Jumpster Jiver wrote:
Rick Yerger wrote:

Our old apartment complex has ungrounded outlets. All 3-prong
appliances are connected with 3-to-2 adapters. Will this affect our
ability to use a PC power supply with Active PFC?

Sorry if this is a dumb question!



Assuming you are in the USA - 120V

If the outlet box is made of metal, test if the box is grouded. You can
do this by buying one of those testers with three neon lamps at a
hardware store. Use a 3 to 2 adapter with the ground wire of the
adapter connected to the outlet-plate screw. If the tester shows that
the outlet box IS properly grounded, then all you need to do is use a
3-2 adapter and make sure the wire or tab from the adapter is securely
connected to the grounded screw of the wall box.
Also, if the box is properly grounded you can install a 3 prong outlet
in the box and connect the outlet ground to the box.

If there is truly no ground, you should have a serious talk with
building management about hiring an electrician to update the building's
electrical system. Otherwise there is a serious danger of electric
shock or electrocution if an appliance malfunctions. The ground is
there to protect you if an appliance's HOT wire shorts to the outer
cabinet or a contol knob or any other part you would normally touch.
While it is rare it DOES happen and that's why a ground is necessary.

MS


I have yet to ever see a case where the box was grounded but had only a
2 prong receptacle in it. If the house was built before about the mid
1960's, chances are the entire electrical system is not grounded.
Depending on how the house is built, it can be anywhere from fairly easy
to very difficult to add a ground, either way it probably only makes
sense to add it to the outlets that either really need grounding or are
easily accessible.

I had a house in Minneaolis that was wired in the early 1920s with
cloth insulated wires that were run in grounded metal conduit. The
outlets were two prong but the boxes were grounded. Chuck

 

[clifto]

David Maynard wrote:

Microsoft had the vision of running the same software on anyone's 'PC
clone' and while it may seem obvious today it was anything but obvious in
1980 as the 'home computer' world was a hodge podge of individual hardware
types each running their own O.S. (of a sorts) just like the mainframe
world was. Commodore stuff didn't run on an Apple and Apple stuff didn't
run on an Atari, and Atari stuff didn't run on a CPM machine (CPM being the
closest to a 'multiple hardware supplier' O.S.).

You're attributing to Microsoft what rightfully belongs to Digital Research
and CP/M. Kildall had the vision of running the same software on anyone's
PC, with a uniform set of utility programs and system calls. Paterson
copied it and Gates bought the copy.

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

 

[clifto]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than
about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of
course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In
those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and
root for Microsoft.

I was stuck using Microsoft crap in 1980 and beyond, and I had no love
for Microsoft or their products. I considered getting out of the business
when I was told PC-DOS was by Microsoft, until I found out they bought it
rather than wrote it.

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

 

[clifto]

BillW50 wrote:

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.

Maybe it's just me, but the only thing I can find wrong with it is that
it has trouble writing some Microsoft output formats. OpenOffice can do
something that most versions of Office can't do, that is to open Word 6
documents.

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

 

[clifto]

John Doe wrote:

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

The industry would be set back two years while the laughter died down
enough for IT people to resume working.

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

 

[clifto]

Mxsmanic wrote:

ATMs don't run Windows 95. They started switching from OS/2 to
Windows NT Workstation ages ago, and I don't know what they are
running most often today, but it's not Windows 95.

I don't know what BP gas pumps run, but what I saw a little while back
was unmistakably a BSOD.

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

 

[fybar]

"kip" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:newscache$6ub8pi$opo$1@newsfeed.niagara.com:

I do 2 a month on average in the home and it costs
about 95.00cdn and nobody has complained yet.
RCA being the most common broken one,s
kip.

Been in this buisness for 38 yrs
and have NEVER given an estimate
over the phone NEVER.

Get a Life

You are a god to me.

fybar

 

[BillW50]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o@4ax.com...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:51:50 +0100

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.

Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office. Works is not worth
buying, and indeed MS gives it away sometimes.

I meant to say something about this since I was a big Works fan
until I got Office 97. As I used MS Works v2, 3, 4, 5, and I never
installed v6 (but it is sitting right here). And MS Works as far
back as I can remember was dirt cheap. Like $29.95 or something. And
the $100 version was called Works Suite I think and it included
Word. Which was a good deal if you only wanted Word from the MS
Office.

MS always in the past (I don't know about now), always kept macro
ability out of Works. And if it ever did, I probably wouldn't have
ever bothered with Office at all. As Works v4 and 5 were really
quite good IMHO. Almost as good as other software that called
themselves as Suite. Although no macro ability made it suck! And I
believe this was on purpose so not to cut into the Office sales.

I'm saying this in regards as MS Works did everything and I bet many
others needed for simple tasks. On the other hand, I bet virtually
nobody uses over 90% of Office features. There are just too many of
them. Heck, I've been using Office for about 8 years now and I still
don't know everything that it can do yet. <grin>


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

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

I tell people up front over the phone that if the tuner can be repaired by
replacing the connector it is $68.50 ($60 labor, $4 standard materials
charge, $4.50 for the connector). If the tuner is damaged or the set has an
isolation block instead of the connector on the tuner directly it is going
to be more, likely about $50 more for a rebuilt tuner. We get these all the
time when students are moving. When you have limited likely costs and flat
rate for specific repairs by category like we do, why not tell people up
front what to expect? We charge $30 for an estimate and tell them up front
that any guestimate we give before evaluating the unit is just a gues.
Never had a problem because people know what to expect. We are clear with
people that an estimate is not a promise to repair something and that many
problems may be found only after repairing what we can see is bad. When you
let people know what to expect you avoid misunderstandings.

Leonard

"kip" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$6ub8pi$opo$1@newsfeed.niagara.com...

I do 2 a month on average in the home and it costs
about 95.00cdn and nobody has complained yet.
RCA being the most common broken one,s
kip.

Been in this buisness for 38 yrs
and have NEVER given an estimate
over the phone NEVER.

Get a Life


"Ian Malcolm" <abuse@freeserveNOSPAM.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ma2dnRATwc5HQ_jeRVnyrA@pipex.net...
fybar wrote:
$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?