Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Leonard Caillouet]

I agree Dave, but how many shops actually do a leakage test after the repair
and even test the tuning on all channels with a know signal generator? A
lot of the reputation that repair shops have is deserved. Of the dozen or
so shops in a 30 mile radius of us, I wouldn't trust more than 3 of them
with a repair.

Leonard

<dkuhajda@locl.net> wrote in message
news:1130617690.536413.32500@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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?

In the interest of safety and knowing how to complete the repair safely
and properly, it is highly recommended that you have someone who is
experienced with fixing electronics do the repair.

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:49:23 -0500, "kip" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

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.

Has to be mostly large screens, then, I'd think, John. I don't
remember getting anythin remotely close to that when I was in this
business.

Tom

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

JW, <none@dev.nul>, the stingless, humped garfish, and employee responsible
for removing stones from the fields before planting, pussyfooted:

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?

Boner? Me? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

I have no dick.

--
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying projectiles or
dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions may apply. If
something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on. All conditions
apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been changed to protect the
guilty.

Ntwtntrtctfkeywokyzjjteydtfjekeoyrztpkwkpgketw.Dzyjmythkdzyzk,kptjjtat
Vbdnsaovtvclspftrsbvwnvltnvaohzslvyfatyvltdsn,btlodfa.Mfqpftvjfcatatms

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

I have a very great demand for that.

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

I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are
frustrated with the current technology.

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.

Well that's just not true for text to speech.

The slowness and lack of accuracy of speech systems holds them
back.

Which is something that will be made up for given time and research.

That's why people tend not to use them
unless they have to.

That's true

I'd much rather type than have to speak to my
computer to write things.

Given your frustration with the current technology. Otherwise,
that's just weird.

It would take forever with speech.

Doesn't take me forever with speech. In fact, it's faster and much
easier than typing.

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

Why?

Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future
easier access to everyone.

There's almost no demand for it.

There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are
turned off by the current technology.

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

Both are extremely difficult if you want truly integrated
solutions.

If you have a clear speaking voice and a modern personal computer
with properly configured sound input, it works very well.

If you don't mind wearing a microphone all of the time
I am so enjoying it, I put the headset microphone on even during
extended periods of no use.

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.

Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to
steal market share.

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.

That's the norm. Microsoft could include high-quality speech if it
were truly interested in innovation. But it's not. You can blame it
on the fact that Microsoft must please its shareholders, nonetheless
it's true.

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

Within reason, I believe they should.

But not within personal computing.

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.

I agree with that principle. But Microsoft trumpets the idea that
it's a compassionate, forward-looking high-technology company. Given
the lack of interest in speech, I don't believe it.

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.

For most of us in the homebuilt computer group, it is.

Just as generating sound is the easy part of
speech synthesis.

Generating sound and generating clear speech are two different
things. I totally understand where you're coming from. If you search
hard enough, you might be able to find my expressions of the same
sentiment as you on USENET. Being turned away by speech recognition
is extremely frustrating in my experience. I spent some years
dictating everyday notes into a digital voice recorder. I guess that
helped.

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

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

I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers.

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.

I am intimately familiar with the big antitrust trial. Microsoft
illegally destroyed Netscape's Navigator Internet browser business.
That is a fact and that was 17% of Netscape's revenue.

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.

Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office
applications. That's easy living.

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.

Which is a whole lot more valid than an Internet browser.

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

Whether any company does.

Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate,
forward-looking business.

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

Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system
and that is where speech belongs.

The future is not a charity.

The future will be just like the present.

Hey ya Burt.

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.

"Well, write some applications for operating systems other than
Microsoft, and help the cause."
Message-ID: <ntpcm19s263p625pvldulfnoqogq29pn6i@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <ntpcm19s263p625pvldulfnoqogq29pn6i 4ax.com>

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


Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!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 09:02:05 -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 16:02:04 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <sc0fm19vvg3157d2quttib6vd6rnpo9fm6 4ax.com
References: <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> <9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com> <Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 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: 103
X-Trace: sv3-hi4rAcFOjJ4BSm/sLEEQ+rbBZJ/0zyVu4+ugiWUhxZbrxZWL730kupOfheZONz4z2ABlNTczHXhKw6u!xH25lzWLQimmKD9HLQVunwmt+cGpadY7SKfyxSfHvCmSN4SoDb+5RTOY0mOvFA5F0Q==
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:225725 sci.electronics.repair:427364 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448786

 

[distar97]

A few more words about repair costs. Each shop has its own set of
circumstances that govern how prices are set. Some shops are very rigid
and never vary from their pricing system. I know one guy that charges
according to what kind of car keys he sees in the customers hands. No
joke.

But in the end all shops are subject to a universal, unstoppable
downward force. We all know what it is. It's the "I can get a new one
from Best Buy for less" force. This, alone with the continuing trend of
less manufacturer support (unavailable schematics, high priced parts,
etc.) indicates to me this is a
dying trade. No one tells their kids to consider getting into this
business, unlike the many years after WW2 where the trade was viable
and the manufacturers worked hand in glove with local shops. And
products were actually made near their customer base.

I just came from a repair shop I visited today where the owner is about
to close down from the aforementioned situation. He is extremely
skilled but finds himself unable to stay afloat. His lifetime of skills
are dropping in value everyday.
He has a shop full of repaired working units that customers don't pick
up, even after offering price cuts. Some might argue he needs to do
this or that, but how can he reverse the above trends? Pesimistic,
maybe, but I saw a man near death today, it was heart breaking.

Dennis Harper/distar97@gmail.com Bronxville NY

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

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.

But seriously.

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.

Read the factual story about how Microsoft destroyed Netscape
Navigator. It's free and easy to access in many different places on
the Internet, including right here.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

If you were an active PC user during the time, you might find that
interesting reading, however exhausting.

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.

True, but meaningless.

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

Yes. Microsoft did it, and others did not.

That's because Microsoft owns the required operating system.

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.

The fact that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the desktop
operating system market is a fact that has been well known to most
of us computer savvy users long before it was proven in federal
court.

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

That coming from Steve Ballmer's book?

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.

But seriously.

Even if that were true, the easy explanation would be because they
know nothing else. Most don't and they still complain.

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


Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!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 08:48:08 -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 15:48:08 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <uruem11bko2quvmtf93cimu42h3nt0k86n 4ax.com
References: <dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com> <lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com> <360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <ntpcm19s263p625pvldulfnoqogq29pn6i 4ax.com> <Xns9701304A0F01Efollydom 207.115.17.102> <jijem1hbqmsujpbhvb088vg49olrsmr5rt 4ax.com> <Xns97013D3C8B15Ffollydom 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: 82
X-Trace: sv3-pU0lgioVkuUVd5cs86M6kdZ7Md3m3oFwqDzoI4lJ/skTOSLx4JEJtqk39RscnGWBUzJ4GIrXegetFJl!KqRGN/drvAWCfSoK0p1RB2uUEEbWhcUQC+CXgCo7DEz+R59iZkyWE4X2GQ92rcjXzA==
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:225722 sci.electronics.repair:427361 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448782

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

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.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the original
IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that Microsoft screwed
IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to non-IBM computers.

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.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on every prior
computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because you have
IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and a competing office
suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off the business scene they want
their competitor to give them preferred OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

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.

True, but irrelevant. Without quoted material, you are difficult to
follow sometimes.

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).

Maybe, but the argument was Microsoft's business versus other
software publishers business.

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.

But seriously.

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.

You mean Microsoft bundles it with Windows.

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?

Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that
monopolies can be bad for our economy. Our system thrives on
competition. Monopolies thwart competition. That's why antitrust
laws were developed.

Our competitive system works great except when the company reaches a
point where it can stifle competition. Then its business becomes
contrary to our system and might need correction.

Not the programmers writing for Windows.

That's not what programmers say.

Not the consumers using it.

I've heard different.

Not Microsoft.

Of course not. At least not until they drag everybody down.

Not the
publishers of those other 249,998 Windows applications.

You keep saying that and and then dodging the question about whether
those thousands of other programs are very meaningful profit wise.

Where is the problem, exactly?

In front of your nose.

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?

I guess that stuff depends on your definition of "too successful".
I'm talking about Microsoft Corp., the owner of Windows, the
required monopoly operating system for personal computers.

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


Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!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 08:51:51 -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 15:51:50 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com
References: <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> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102> <7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com> <Xns97013EF13E444follydom 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: 43
X-Trace: sv3-TI0x08Vk7o7WnbYzIVONo6OPTymBgIRwW0ywB4T0s1MkCwe8SvtwsEJFRxGpg7nj8IpOTEgudbuUAus!OW7y1h5ybqE9AJ1Ewzxy+u6NR4H/AdIpDzEDWgLDKVeKwntcAs11sXJ8VQXkQpnxNQ==
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:225723 sci.electronics.repair:427362 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448783

 

[John Doe]

If you don't recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer desktop operating system market,
then your arguments are probably meaningless to most people.

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <Yj29f.33575$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> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com> <Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102> <kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: <FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130852389 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:39:49 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:39:49 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: OP\MBX_ESZRMBUX[N[O _WH YR_B EXLLBWLOOAFQATJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS BP^]C RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW C[AFKBBQS E DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:39:49 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225712 sci.electronics.repair:427347 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448777


"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

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

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,"

There is no easy answer. Here is a short course.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

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


Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm01.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 08:53:34 -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 15:53:31 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <790fm1dpt874j9mp9vnl6ac94jhtsuqe0g 4ax.com
References: <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> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com> <Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102> <kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns970142579A709follydom 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: 19
X-Trace: sv3-9df4FXsIIZDeSLDgFkBOdx6YXDCS9Y1sq8v3i/ofsuo2qlGPwwv19peBMujJFpsFvE6d0Cj2xG8Bhd0!Vfr1epS7WPWOgqshtA58J5rqeva9avDw+N1xLqzV102PVuuyESuojUm6C12OKeodUg==
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:225724 sci.electronics.repair:427363 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448784

 

[BillW50]

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:40:41 GMT

If you don't recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer desktop operating system market,
then your arguments are probably meaningless to most people.

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

Until you realize that Microsoft competitors are mostly controlled
by MBA morons, you will never understand! As to beat a computer
nerd, you need a better computer nerd. Something that Harvard will
never understand. And believe me, Bill Gates as a nerd isn't all
that great. In that respect he was lucky and he knows it. And the
only thing he is really good at is beating MBA types. But most nerds
has no problems in that area since those MBA types are generally are
just morons anyway. Maybe someday you'll learn the truth. Maybe
today or never, who knows?


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

 

[John Doe]

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

"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?

Nope. I am a exceptionally active personal computer user intimately
familiar with the required monopoly operating system.

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.

That's hardly current technology.

Maybe I should say a medium to high end current store-bought
computer. It probably also depends on whether the system is loaded
with many of the common bundled programs like Microsoft office and
Norton Utilities.

These are my specs, all homemade.
.... MSI K7N2 Delta2-LSR mainboard
.... Athlon XP 3000+
.... PC 3200, 1 GB RAM
.... Western Digital Raptor 37 GB 10,000 rpm HDD
.... external Creative Labs USB Live sound box

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.

Hopefully soon. The eventual outcome is clearly logical.

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.

The default voice, the only voice Microsoft currently provides is
called Mary. There are lots of better voices.

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.

With enough experience, you begin to realize that what Microsoft
says is oftentimes mostly hype. That's a good example.

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.

Try using it.

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.

Again, experience suggests otherwise. The handicapped parking spaces
are often very useful to people with disabilities. As an in-line
skater, I definitely appreciate curbs that include ramps.

I pray that the implementation can be bad. Public transportation in
my city is a good example of bad. There are better ways, but they
haven't put enough thought into the design.

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?

Sounds like you aren't willing to try.

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.

I'm using it.

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.

Sounds like frustration. I hear you.

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.

Most computer things are very frustrating as I learned/learn them
for the first time. Attempting speech-recognition and failing was
worse than frustrating. It might even radically alter your opinion
about the subject. With Microsoft's vast resource dollars and
proficient management, Microsoft could help, investor willingness
aside. Bill Gates owns a large percentage of Microsoft anyway.

... 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.

I don't think anyone in the homebuilt PC group would consider that
an obstacle.

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.

Because it's not programmed to do so.

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.

Microsoft has met serious resistance at the server operating system
market. One of the factors is probably that CEOs are typically more
intelligent than an average personal computer user and they don't
want Microsoft limiting their server operating system quality.

They probably would like IBM to fade away and can't.

Microsoft was able to force IBM not to use its own Lotus SmartSuite
office applications on Microsoft's own personal computer line. Then
IBM gave up the business of selling personal computers.

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.

Only if he (or she) wants to live in a closet without being able to
run the vast majority of personal computer software.

At one point, Apple Computer almost went out of business simply
because Microsoft temporarily decided to discontinue making Office
for the Mac.

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?

It's a long story.

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.

Bill Gates Jr. has more money than he or 10 generations could spend
in a lifetime. All of the millions Bill Gates has given to women and
race-based charities hasn't put a dance in his tens of billions in
personal wealth.

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?

Offers a web page with links? That's hardly exciting.

I'm not saying they aren't doing anything about it, I am saying that
they are not very concerned. Microsoft used to publish a systemwide
macro recorder called Macro Recorder. It came with Windows 3.11.
According to Microsoft, one of its uses was to help the disabled.
Unfortunately, Macro Recorder went out the back door. The lack of
built-in scripting and speech are two areas where Microsoft clearly
proves to me that Microsoft is not really interested in enabling
users.

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




Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
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> <9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com> <Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 193
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: <8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130858116 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:15:16 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:15:16 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: T[O]SYWDSRWUSQPYZBCBNWX RJ_XPDLMN GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB X^B_OCJLPZ ET_O[G\XSG E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_] A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:15:16 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225732 sci.electronics.repair:427369 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448789

 

[John Doe]

So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft
holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system
market?

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <Yj29f.33575$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> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com> <Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102> <kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102> <FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: <TyT9f.4495$8W.3325 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130890547 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:15:47 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:15:47 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: T[O]SYWDSRWUSQPYZBCBNWX RJ_XPDLMN GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB X^B_OCJLPZ ET_O[G\XSG E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_] A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:15:47 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225781 sci.electronics.repair:427454 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448842


"John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:40:41 GMT

If you don't recognize/understand that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer desktop operating system market,
then your arguments are probably meaningless to most people.

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

Until you realize that Microsoft competitors are mostly controlled
by MBA morons, you will never understand! As to beat a computer
nerd, you need a better computer nerd. Something that Harvard will
never understand. And believe me, Bill Gates as a nerd isn't all
that great. In that respect he was lucky and he knows it. And the
only thing he is really good at is beating MBA types. But most nerds
has no problems in that area since those MBA types are generally are
just morons anyway. Maybe someday you'll learn the truth. Maybe
today or never, who knows?


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

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

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.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the
original IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that
Microsoft screwed IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to
non-IBM computers.

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.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on every
prior computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because
you have IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and a
competing office suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off the
business scene they want their competitor to give them preferred
OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.

Microsoft refused to allow IBM a license to Windows, unless IBM
dropped its bundling of Lotus SmartSuite on IBM personal computers.

 

[b]

distar97 wrote:
snip)

I just came from a repair shop I visited today where the owner is about
to close down from the aforementioned situation. He is extremely
skilled but finds himself unable to stay afloat. His lifetime of skills
are dropping in value everyday.
He has a shop full of repaired working units that customers don't pick
up, even after offering price cuts. Some might argue he needs to do
this or that, but how can he reverse the above trends? Pesimistic,
maybe, but I saw a man near death today, it was heart breaking.

Dennis Harper/distar97@gmail.com Bronxville NY

sad thing is, if ever there was a need for the repair industry it is
now. With the pressures on earths' finate resources and the drive to
more recycling, there ought to be a national subsidy programme for the
repair industry. The benefits from an ecological point of view are
enormous: two main ones being 1)keeping, where feasible, dangerous
toxic electronic waste out of landill and 2) encouraging responsible
consumption behaviour patterns i.e. repair rather than
throwaway-and-replace. Itb would also of course keep thousands in work
and even create more jobs.
Since this is a threat to the whole capitalist surplus production
system, we won't see this initiative coming from the electronics
multinationals. It's going to have to be a grass-roots movement, with
lobbying for such a programme to be implemented by government in the
interests of the environment and the long-term reduction of pollution.
.........just a few thoughts!
-B

 

[BillW50]

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9701BBB667D77follydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:27:07 GMT

So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft
holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system
market?

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

No you still don't get it! Microsoft is only a so-called monopoly by
default. But that isn't true either. As there are other OS available
for the personal computer as well. But the dumb MBAs think they can
outsmart Bill Gates and they fall like match sticks.

So let's say you or I had a business and all of our competitors were
nothing but morons! And it was nothing for us to outsmart them even
in our sleep. Some would call us a monopoly, now wouldn't they? Of
course they would.

But the truth is our competitors were just too stupid to compete.
This is exactly what Microsoft have found themselves in. And it
isn't their fault that their competitors are just morons. They just
are thanks to the likes of Harvard and the Harvard want to be's.

You just don't get it. A bunch of nerds get together and they start
kicking Microsoft's butt. Somehow someone gets the idea that they
need a MBA. Now Microsoft while before shaking in their boots (GEOS
is a perfect example), comes along and wipes them clean. Why don't
you get it?

I was in the business before Bill Gates' first program. I know
exactly how he thinks and I know how to beat him is just child's
play. But I sit here for all of these years and watch how his
competitors screw up royally every time. Boy if I was greedy, I
would have made a killing long ago. <grin>

Someday I hope you get it. Although unfortunately I believe you are
currently not even close yet. But there is still hope. <grin>


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

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


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.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the
original IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that
Microsoft screwed IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to
non-IBM computers.


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.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on every
prior computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because
you have IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and a
competing office suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off the
business scene they want their competitor to give them preferred
OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.


Microsoft refused to allow IBM a license to Windows, unless IBM
dropped its bundling of Lotus SmartSuite on IBM personal computers.

The 'license' you speak of is an OEM discount agreement and, in particular,
the one IBM wanted was 'like Compaq'. I.E. preferred OEM status while
simultaneously competing with MS in the O.S. and business suite market.

Anyone can buy retail and IBM considered it.

As I said, I'm not sure I'd like the idea either of giving my competitor a
discount on my products so they can make money on my products that they
then use to bolster their own competing products they're trying to put me
out of business with.

But you're repeating yourself.

 

[John Doe]

One year, Microsoft pumped $650 million into our judicial system.
That same system clearly settled that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the desktop operating system market.

From the federal district court of the United States.

"Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems."

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

"... we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

There ain't no doubt about it.

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail
From: "BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <Yj29f.33575$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> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com> <Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102> <kRI9f.4338$8W.1215 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns970142579A709follydom 207.115.17.102> <FeK9f.4352$8W.3524 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns9701B3D7F9290follydom 207.115.17.102> <TyT9f.4495$8W.3325 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns9701BBB667D77follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 46
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: <llU9f.4499$8W.2606 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1130893777 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:09:37 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:09:37 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: TSU[ IONBZUKBUPY]ZHHO\TDFZ\ FXLM TDOCQDJ _ FNXACNVOPCWZBL[\YUWHANGYZEFNHFZPNLOBUNSS^_LGEVWEY\PHO YJSSWBBDT\PFD^ESBTXVCCMTD]JCJLE\_IJMFNRY]SWE[S[D_CNB__ZK^VGVCKHA[S COB^[ ZQSDFQ\BPMS DZVUKQTJL
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:09:37 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225791 sci.electronics.repair:427464 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448849


"John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9701BBB667D77follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:27:07 GMT

So you are trying to say that you really do not understand Microsoft
holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system
market?

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

No you still don't get it! Microsoft is only a so-called monopoly by
default. But that isn't true either. As there are other OS available
for the personal computer as well. But the dumb MBAs think they can
outsmart Bill Gates and they fall like match sticks.

So let's say you or I had a business and all of our competitors were
nothing but morons! And it was nothing for us to outsmart them even
in our sleep. Some would call us a monopoly, now wouldn't they? Of
course they would.

But the truth is our competitors were just too stupid to compete.
This is exactly what Microsoft have found themselves in. And it
isn't their fault that their competitors are just morons. They just
are thanks to the likes of Harvard and the Harvard want to be's.

You just don't get it. A bunch of nerds get together and they start
kicking Microsoft's butt. Somehow someone gets the idea that they
need a MBA. Now Microsoft while before shaking in their boots (GEOS
is a perfect example), comes along and wipes them clean. Why don't
you get it?

I was in the business before Bill Gates' first program. I know
exactly how he thinks and I know how to beat him is just child's
play. But I sit here for all of these years and watch how his
competitors screw up royally every time. Boy if I was greedy, I
would have made a killing long ago. <grin

Someday I hope you get it. Although unfortunately I believe you are
currently not even close yet. But there is still hope. <grin


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

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


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.

No, my 'recollection' is about the subject at hand, namely the
original IBM/Microsoft deal for DOS and the folks claiming that
Microsoft screwed IBM by retaining the rights to sell it to
non-IBM computers.


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.

At least they didn't try to get a reverse royalty payment on
every prior computer made like IBM did with their MCA license.

The one you brought up raising an interesting conundrum because
you have IBM wanting it both ways. They had a competing O.S. and
a competing office suite yet while they're trying to wipe MS off
the business scene they want their competitor to give them
preferred OEM status.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy about that either.


Microsoft refused to allow IBM a license to Windows, unless IBM
dropped its bundling of Lotus SmartSuite on IBM personal
computers.

The 'license' you speak of is an OEM discount agreement and, in
particular, the one IBM wanted was 'like Compaq'. I.E. preferred
OEM status

You mean the license to resell Windows. Of course IBM isn't going to
want to pay $50 more per computer than Compaq.

while
simultaneously competing with MS in the O.S.

There was no competition in the desktop operating system market.

and business suite market.

Microsoft was able to prevent that by threatening no license to
resell Windows.

Anyone can buy retail and IBM considered it.

That may be true but irrelevant.

As I said, I'm not sure I'd like the idea either of giving my
competitor a discount on my products so they can make money on my
products that they then use to bolster their own competing
products they're trying to put me out of business with.

At the time, Windows was the required monopoly operating system.
There was no competition in the desktop operating system market.

But you're repeating yourself.

Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the
Intel-based personal computer operating system market?

Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.net
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 19:18:01 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <Yj29f.33575$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> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com> <Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102> <11mfu9hnkt97qd3 corp.supernews.com> <Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: <Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 63
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225793 sci.electronics.repair:427468 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448852

 

[tempus fugit]

We're talking about a capacitor between the chassis and one side
of the line, right?

I havent reopened the chassis, but it seems to be connected between the
ground of the speaker and the chassis.

something is shorted somehwere else. Oh, and I checked the voltage
between
the record player chassis and the scope chassis - 120VAC

Reversing the plug in the wall socket should change that (but don't
count on it).

Reversing the plug did correct that. Is this a design shortcoming (if so,
there's gotta be a safer way to set that up) or should I be looking for a
fault somewhere?

You really need to be careful with this device. I can't stress that
enough. Death is not to be trifled with.

I am being very careful, not to worry, but I appreciate your concern and
helpful advice (including those on personal safety).

Thanks again

Thanks


"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:43665638.5000307@prodigy.net...

CJT wrote:


tempus fugit wrote:


Tried the turining around the plug trick, but it made no difference. I
also
disconnected the phono plug that connects the tone arm to the amp
unit,
which also made no difference.

Here is something curious though. I accidentally touched my scope
while my
hand was on the record player chassis and got a fairly good shock. The
scope
has a 3 prong AC plug (the record player doesn't). I should've
measured the
voltage difference between the sope chassis and the record player
chassis,
but I didn't think to. I'll have to do that. Perhaps he chassis is
live. I
didn't think this would be the case though, since there is a cap with

the

negative connected to the case, as well as a few other green wires.


That capacitor might be leaking or (worse) shorted. It can be a lethal
failure (I read just this week about a minister in Waco who was
electrocuted during a baptism when he grabbed a microphone that was
"hot."). Be careful.


Here's a cite to that story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/31/national/main995829.shtml


Thanks


"Asimov" <Asimov@-removethis-bbs.juxtaposition.dynip.com> wrote in
message
news:MSGID_1=3a167=2f133.0_43612958@fidonet.org...
"tempus fugit" bravely wrote to "All" (27 Oct 05 11:17:42)
--- on the heady topic of "unit hums loudly regardless of volume"

tf> From: "tempus fugit" <toccata@no.spam.ciaccess.com
tf> Xref: core-easynews sci.electronics.repair:346437

tf> Hey all;

tf> I'm trying to repair an old tube portable record player. When it

is

tf> on, it hums really loud, regardless of the volume.

Have you tried turning the ac plug around?

Which way the plug is inserted matters with these. Let the record
player warm up, then insert the plug one way or the other, and then
paint a mark for which was the quietest way. One way: lots of hum, the
other: quiet hiss.

Those old tube units used to get B+ directly from the powerline (or
sometimes a voltage doubler) and used a large value resistor bypassed
by a 0.01uF to RF ground the tone arm shielding to neutral. The power
for the filaments often came from a secondary winding in the motor
coil. Don't use this type of record player near the bathtub. Lethal!

Another possibility is a broken wire at the cartridge.

A*s*i*m*o*v

... Just a little force field zap.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.