Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Mxsmanic]

BillW50 writes:

Linux is hot on Microsoft's Windows butt and is actually
competing against Windows.

Linux isn't even a blip on the radar for desktop systems. See

http://news.com.com/Linux+PCs+Customer+service+or+lip+service/2100-1042_3-5926949.html

It's no surprise, given that Linux is technically inferior to Windows
and it costs at least as much ... according to the above, $59.95 for
Suse, $99.95 for Linspire, and a whopping $348 for Red Hat Enterprise
Linux ES v.3.0 Basic Edition (say that all in one breath!)--and that's
at Wal-Mart!

With competitors like Linux, Microsoft doesn't have to do anything to
kill off the competition--it's already seriously ill on its own.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs
to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on
the Internet.

One also needs to read the detailed history of Netscape. The company
doomed itself, with or without any intervention by Microsoft. I still
recall some of the absolute garbage they tried to sell; I was amazed
that they had the nerve to put their name on the box.

The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider
the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the
operating system maker making applications.

The operating system maker doesn't produce any applications, except
Office.

Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft.

Actually I have. But I've read a lot of other things, too, and I
don't consider judges to be experts on business and IT.

The operating system maker should not be allowed to make
applications, whatever you call it.

Why not?

I agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating
system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me.

I don't see any point. Microsoft only sells one application that
makes any serious cash, and it doesn't have much competition to begin
with.

Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do
anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a
baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy.

What would be the equivalent of bashing in skulls with Windows?

Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having
no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many
other applications is bad.

Is it? One of the requirements of office applications is
interoperability. If everyone uses something different, there is
none.

And there aren't any other applications. Microsoft's only significant
end-user application is Office.

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

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

Many capitalists
don't like Microsoft at all.

Most sports teams don't like there opponents either... So what?
McDonalds doesn't like Burger King. Budweiser doesn't like Miller Beer... I
don't see what your point is.. Who cares who likes who... Has nothing to do
with the economics. That is what capitalism is, not a competition to see
who can win more friends

You cannot cheer capitalism and then curse when one company achieves
ultimate success. You defiantly cannot then call it Communism, That was
the point of my post after all. This matter has been decided by the courts.
You are free to write a competitive OS.

By the way, there are plenty of other Operating systems. Just not very
many aps to run on them. Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to
servers.


So, what is it you want to do? Make the Window OS illegal? Start all
over? Force software companies to release programs to run on all operating
systems. Break up MS and sell it off in pieces to competitors. geesh, that
makes me want my company to be successful. If I achieve success the Govt.
can make me sell it off to my enemies...

I don't see where any of this is going. It's just a bunch of whining about
nothing...

The market makes these choices. Make a good product and you'll be
successful and a good share of people will bash you and curse you and haul
your ass to court and try to get your money. Perhaps even the MOB will
threaten you... If all that happens, then you are a successful capitalist..














"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom@207.115.17.102...

Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. In fact,
Microsoft holds a monopoly on personal computer operating system
software. Capitalists believe in competition. Microsoft has no
competition for Windows, mainly because of network effects and a
positive feedback loop. The only capitalists who adore Microsoft are
mainly those stockholders who have made a killing. Many capitalists
don't like Microsoft at all.

"DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com> wrote:

Path:
newssvr13.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!nntp.midco.net!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:24:06 -0600
From: "DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com
Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <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> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com
Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102
ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom
207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:22:15 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net
Lines: 182
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108
X-Trace:
sv3-wv1vumB7w/E2svQM+Ubb+UgagM/jBz396sDaaNUJ8h7v5mFqYDeeBN+yDD3Mfr/CB755ap0YwfiKHYC!SMJlpwUyeAD/ndG5tTPTL9I8gAH2jaXytNI/S39v5f5Lrlp+p+M8RmG2mjmhfwJubCrvWA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
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:225859
sci.electronics.repair:427583 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448907

Interesting take on why computer clocks can't keep time.

Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies.

What?!!

Microsoft is a capitalist's wet dream.


Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that
monopolies can be bad for our economy.

25 different OS's and nobody being able to share files or communicate
would
be better for the economy?

I wonder what a program like Photoshop would cost if Adobe had to write
15
different version so it could run on every possible OS. I wonder if
Photoshop would even exist in a world with that many different OS's.

Fact is, Microsoft is an example of what can be achieved via Capitalism.
Do
you really think that a company of this magnitude would have ever emerged
out of the Soviet union or any other Communist country..?

You don't have to like Microsoft but calling it Communism is just silly.









"John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102...
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

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

Microsoft does almost all its business in operating systems and its
Office suite. It has very little competition in both domains. It
does not and cannot compete in any of the other thousands of
application domains for PCs in the world, and even if it tried, it
would be up against a lot of well-entrenched competition. The
concerns about monopoly are thus exaggerated and not always well
placed.

That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape Navigator.
http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

Microsoft will eventually self-destruct.

Just like IBM self-destructed. Just like Ford Motor Co. self-destructed.
Just like Standard Oil self-destructed (actually had serious antitrust
problems).

Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the
personal computer software market. Only a few believed personal
computers
are going away could you believe Microsoft is going away.

So those who hate Microsoft need only be patient. A

Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of the other
capable software developers here in the United States.

Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies.

If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of the
facts.

Unless you believe in communism, then you might understand that
monopolies can be bad for our economy.

Not necessarily. A lot of public utilities are run as regulated
monopolies,

And in fact, there's very little difference.

Our system thrives on competition.

Some parts do, some parts don't.

What part of "competition" don't you understand?

We don't have competition for the
military.

lol

Sometimes monopolies serve society better. Usually they have to be
heavily regulated if they are turned over to private concerns in order
to prevent abuse, though.

That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble. Then George Bush Jr.
came along, and his might-makes-right justice system let up on
correcting
Microsoft.

Snipped silliness

I've heard different.

From whom? Not ordinary consumers.

I guess you haven't interacted with consumers.

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

They are extremely meaningful to the companies that produce them.

Without a single dominant platform for applications,

I have plainly stated at least once already that multiple platforms
might
not be a good idea.

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.

Why just Microsoft? Lots of companies are just as successful as
Microsoft. What property do you propose to seize from them?

I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively bludgeons
another person to death. I could not care less whether you legally
acquired and own that baseball bat.

What part of "justice" don't you understand?

Why aren't you complaining about Intel, for example?

Because I'm using AMD very well.




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


Path:
newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:00:50 -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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:00:48 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com
References: <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> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com
Xns9701B2F457861follydom 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: 94
X-Trace:
sv3-CuP+A378gpwxrNhKwrgvEp9PpPJQItqoA7wppK/2pKCqoCK+Fqvrztw+37NRcfMLc1E+dNFyyLSxQa2!4/B/1pCSzanE1HMsrxXBpPyw43dH2uCBkSrvha21OsLL5qxVX+UPN2sZcMOOfQZY8w==
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:225823
sci.electronics.repair:427524 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448868

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

PWY writes:

I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the
subject of Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical
Microsoft bashers always seem to reach that point in their
arguments.

But that's not how it happened. Your side introduced Bill Gates
money.

A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth,

Envy is a common fault. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world.
Your argument is dull.

and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft.

Just as easy is to suggest that you are pandering, brown nosing, and
sucking up to Bill Gates and Microsoft. I would recommend against
that, since you aren't likely to get anything except maybe your job
outsourced to India.

You know Microsoft has spearheaded the drive to outsource jobs to
India and dramatically increase the H-1B visa program? Microsoft is
the number one lobbyist for outsourcing and the H-1B visa program.
You know that outsourcing jobs to India/overseas is Microsoft's Way
to increase profits and further dominate small software companies.

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

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:29:58 -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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:29:51 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com
References: <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> <8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102> <8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com> <0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 22
X-Trace: sv3-a837rSXJYAZbNuAnkt2Nd0oP8fmCYTO/BOOsqtE5iMCHXTuMjeJw3qY2DqjcZGuvgEbMYZqx6GKa58i!/rJ+Z0jSKAMO+HIfq7miyBO7qUBgOhXOOkT11a5bDZt+x7jBzHYCDXFTvU4DCvAQEw==
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:225866 sci.electronics.repair:427590 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448913

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express
an opinion one way or another.

Why is anyone required to explain _not_ having a specific opinion?

My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the
facts because you know most of your associates know better.

My guess is that he is not arguing religion, whereas some others here
are.

That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the
appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on.

In the world of technology, this is unfortunately all too plausible.

Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between
an operating system and applications?

It's very difficult to draw a clear line between the two.

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

 

[John Doe]

A troll ranting about everything under the sun.

"DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com> wrote:

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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!nntp.midco.net!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:52 -0600
From: "DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <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> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com> <Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102> <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102> <bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net> <Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:52:07 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <F8CdnfyjU4j1CvTeRVn-gg midco.net
Lines: 294
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108
X-Trace: sv3-hFglvhUpPpl27CHwZIBHzeGdqEo3zglxuwNuqpZnp7AYkFkZkgHuxh0ifm2LxQOH1JW21DBIAn0MJNs!c+s2rFTZ5Gzfzk4S2Tj4d49pc7cS7KqOOCqYDR4l/KVwrDN57GxoRNRfAQyejpGmp/NLKA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
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:225902 sci.electronics.repair:427642 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448957

Many capitalists
don't like Microsoft at all.

Most sports teams don't like there opponents either... So what?
McDonalds doesn't like Burger King. Budweiser doesn't like Miller Beer... I
don't see what your point is.. Who cares who likes who... Has nothing to do
with the economics. That is what capitalism is, not a competition to see
who can win more friends

You cannot cheer capitalism and then curse when one company achieves
ultimate success. You defiantly cannot then call it Communism, That was
the point of my post after all. This matter has been decided by the courts.
You are free to write a competitive OS.

By the way, there are plenty of other Operating systems. Just not very
many aps to run on them. Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to
servers.


So, what is it you want to do? Make the Window OS illegal? Start all
over? Force software companies to release programs to run on all operating
systems. Break up MS and sell it off in pieces to competitors. geesh, that
makes me want my company to be successful. If I achieve success the Govt.
can make me sell it off to my enemies...

I don't see where any of this is going. It's just a bunch of whining about
nothing...

The market makes these choices. Make a good product and you'll be
successful and a good share of people will bash you and curse you and haul
your ass to court and try to get your money. Perhaps even the MOB will
threaten you... If all that happens, then you are a successful capitalist..

 

[John Doe]

Huh?

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:41:13 -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: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:41:12 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <455jm1hnbidf3unjgvck2qto6avfheb3mq 4ax.com
References: <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102> <7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com> <Xns97013EF13E444follydom 207.115.17.102> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com> <Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102> <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102> <bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net> <Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 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: 13
X-Trace: sv3-spakI6CTxq9zan2rADe9waX+FnL7Ew3zsXctTq2JByG5fOPd0bGqP8VnNzgeYGEI3LdIgJB02oIdzFb!4ocmle3R0QaR7GlTCWkqT/nk6xbAL46hTZnBze506ywonPBMmaxwfofqVpHEQFkDFQ==
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:225898 sci.electronics.repair:427638 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448952

John Doe writes:

Everything is fine until a company stifles competition.

Nobody is stifling competition.

Microsoft has no competition for Windows, mainly because
of network effects and a positive feedback loop.

You've just contradicted your previous statement above.

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

 

[BillW50]

zz
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:19:38 GMT

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape
Navigator. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

As hard as it may be to believe, the declaration of a court is not
any kind of final or universal authority, except in legal terms.

Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs
to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on
the Internet.

Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on
the personal computer software market.

Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems.

That's what I thought. You don't believe what most technically
inclined computer users have understood long before our federal
courts decided the issue.

No what I believe is you trust in liars! And I have make a clear cut
case of it.

Are you a Libertarian?

No! I am nothing! I don't vote at all because I am responsible for
my actions. Something that those like you can't claim.

Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you
believe Microsoft is going away.

I don't understand this statement.

Microsoft has a stranglehold on personal computer software.

Not so! That is like saying Linux has a stranglehold on the personal
computer software. Both are rivals. Something that you will never
understand!

Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of
the other capable software developers here in the United States.

Legal "corrections" are notorious for their ineffectiveness.
Market forces are much more balanced and reliable, even if they
don't move as quickly as some might like.

The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider
the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the
operating system maker making applications. It's kind of like being
on a farm. Let's say the operating system is your farm machinery,
and the applications are your various crops. You wouldn't want the
farm machinery favoring one crop or another or you're likely to end
up with munched up potatoes.

Anybody is free to create their own OS and some have. And Linux is
the strongest competitor to MS. A fact that you have been ignoring
this whole time.

The likely scenario is this. As Microsoft grows old and lazy, it
will continue to suck applications into its maelstrom. Microsoft
already owns the biggest money makers. The lazier Microsoft gets,
the more applications it will have to add to its collection. First
it has been the most lucrative applications and applications that
Microsoft and its family might need or enjoy. Second it is
applications that make the most money. Eventually, any software that
makes money will be dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft also squeezes
more and more money out of its already captive users. And eventually
they cry to the government for relief.

Still ignoring Linux and Open Office like a dumbass. Good show John.
Ignorance is your best suite!

If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of
the facts.

Or I simply disagree with you, which is not the same thing.

Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft.

From known liars? Good show John... good show!

And in fact, there's very little difference.

In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public
utilities, then?

The operating system maker should not be allowed to make
applications, whatever you call it. If that were to pose some threat
to Microsoft's Windows dominance, I guess that would be competition.

lol

I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the
military?

You really need to include more than one level of quoting.

From a guy who can't even respond from quotes from others at all.
Good show John. Drop to the lowest level possible!

That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble.

Microsoft has had a lot of legal trouble because it has made a lot
of well-funded enemies by virtue of its exceptional performance.

I agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating
system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me.

Buy a Linux computer then. What is your problem?

I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively
bludgeons another person to death. I could not care less whether
you legally acquired and own that baseball bat.

You'd prefer to let that mass murderer with the machine gun
continue to shoot at innocent bystanders?

I guess something was lost in the translation. Again, you really
need to include more than one level of quoting.

Since you can't address facts in front of you face, your requests
are meaningless.

Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do
anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a
baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy.

Because I'm using AMD very well.

Maybe you should buy a Mac.

Again, you really need to quote more than one level.

Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having
no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many
other applications is bad.

You are such a dumbass! I said many times now there are Linux and
OpenOffice. You on the other hand want to be a total jerk and ignore
the facts! That is okay John, we all now know you are just a
dumbass. So you have nothing more to prove.


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

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

Linux isn't even a blip on the radar for desktop systems.
See:

Message-ID: <o75jm1dco0o9c9dp7o1k7oh5lb4eemjov8 4ax.com>

Have fun

 

[David Maynard]

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Still, there's the matter of why would someone be induced to change the
vision?


If the new guy lacks the vision, he has no choice.

Logically, no, but not having one doesn't preclude the fool hardly from
trying anyway That's the reverse of my scenario and back to yours:
incompetent new management.

I'm not arguing there's a 'universal' scenario but that it varies,
depending on a host of circumstances.

Stagnation is one possibility and the other is the 'new guy' making
his mark with his own 'vision', but if things are humming merrily along
he'd be foolish to change things too much so we get back to "where do we go
now?"


In the case of Microsoft, it would be because the only way to keep
things humming along is through continuous exercise of the same
vision--and that vision is now gone.

Yes, same point I made below.

Steve Ballmer is a businessman,
not a visionary, and he belongs much more to the standard MBA school
of management. I understand he reads all the latest "how-to" books on
management (literally).

You seem 'surprised'. Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all
the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals?

Sure it was the norm because it only ran on the company's proprietary
hardware so, go to it folks, make more stuff for our proprietary hardware,
which is where the money was to begin with, and you're not releasing into
the market the thing that makes it proprietary, your hardware.


Yes. Customers had source so they could change it if they needed to.
It was never going to run on any other platform, anyway, so it didn't
matter.

We agree.

IBM failed to recognize just how utterly trivial it was, compared to
'mainframes', to duplicate the hardware, not to mention they had simply
purchased a public domain design made from freely available parts, and then
to publish the one and only 'proprietary' piece, BIOS source, *PLUS* haven
given away rights to sell the DOS (same, "who cares about the software?"
notion)... well, woops.

I'm not saying it should have been obvious at the time but it sure is in
hindsight and I'd imagine Microsoft noticed it along with everyone else.


I think it was obvious even then. PCs were clearly a different ball
game.

Well, I was developing proprietary microcomputers for specific industry
applications, not 'general purpose' computers, so I am not sure how
'obvious' it would have been.

IBM has always thought about everything in the same way. I remember
renting a typewriter from them once, and it was just amazing how they
did it, with invoices and purchase orders and service contracts and so
on. If something went wrong with the typewriter, I had to schedule a
visit from a field engineer--I couldn't just bring the broken part in
somewhere and get it replaced. The cost of one visit from a field
engineer was greater than six months of rental fees.

Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing.
IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping
one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them
on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie,
pocket protector army?

That's one reason why companies are always searching for a 'process' that
is, essentially, 'one-time genius' independent. I.E. idea generation from
market feedback, hire/consult 'experts' in the new thing, brain storming
sessions, focus group studies, etc..


And has any company ever succeeded at this?

Most do, even if the first thought comes from the internal 'genius'.

Success requires being
smart, and no process can produce intelligence where it didn't
previously exist.

You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than
expecting one person to be omniscient.

And the process itself comes from 'smarts'.

I wonder if that's because Bill Gates is 'gone' or if it's more the result
of this being about as far as a business suite/'Windows'O.S. combination
can take them, especially in a U.S. market, at least, that is closer to
saturation than it is the wide open early days of growing by leaps and
bounds and where you have to now do upgrades, or 'something', just to stay
even. The wave they were riding ain't there no more.


I think it's both, and the wave has definitely broken on the beach and
is now starting to pull back out to sea. Unless they come up with
something entirely new (not just another "upgrade" of the OS or
Office), the tide has permanently turned. I don't expect them to come
up with anything new.

I don't expect it but I don't discount the possibility either.

The whole business model of continually forced upgrades isn't going to
work forever, either.

I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features'
but not terribly different to the primary mission.

Eventually consumers will get tired of moving
to a new OS every year. Even now, there are untold millions of PCs
that are never "upgraded" beyond the OS they had when first installed.
Each time Microsoft tries an "upgrade" to maintain revenue, it
increases the incoherence of the installed base, which has more and
more versions of Windows up and running, from Windows 3.1 to XP.

It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because
there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at
Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if
it's functionally significant enough.

And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit transitions to
64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the long touted 3D Desktop.

And there isn't another 'IBM' giant poised to dominate a huge future market
that you can sell DOS to and clean up when someone cracks their BIOS code
nor is anyone going to give them 'sell to others' license rights, so those
'great ideas' aren't going to happen again no matter how 'smart' they are.


Yes. I think MS has a comfortable number of years ahead of it, but
there will be no major breakthroughs or skyrocketing growth now.

MS is becoming the very company with which it fought when it was
little. MS is the new IBM. But the wheel will continue to turn.

Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of
old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models.

When you first posed that scenario I thought it made a lot of sense but the
more I think about it the more I question it, at least as a 'universal'. It
can certainly happen that way but you can also be simply obsoleted by the
next 'great idea'. For example, the introduction of calculators put the
slide rule folks out of business, at least in that business, virtually
overnight without them having to make 'too many mistakes'.


The next great idea need not come from another company; in theory it
could come from MS just as it has in the past. But the visionary is
gone at MS, so it won't come from MS this time.

I didn't say it *had* to, I was just pointing out that it could and put you
out of business without one needing to make 'too many mistakes'.

If a single brilliant CEO could live forever, then companies could be
successful forever.

This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even
the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does
his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good
cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's
transportable to any industry

But that's impossible, so virtually all companies
end up with bad management at some point and dwindle or disappear.

We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the
genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill
anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot.

There are very rare exceptions, such as GE, which is so diversified
that it can scarcely avoid making money no matter who is at the helm.

Oh, lordy. Now that you've said it they're probably doomed

Microsoft has no diversification at all, though, and that's very
dangerous. Its attempts at diversification have been largely
unsuccessful, too (MSN was a disaster and has only survived through
constant infusion of billions to keep it in business).

Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea?

Of course, I suppose you can always call it a 'mistake' to not be
diversified enough (that's those bottom-line-style management types you
don't like) ...


For long-term, large-scale success, diversification is essential.
There are few areas of business that are so constant and guaranteed
that you can specialize in them over the long term and still make
money.

I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does
because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That
generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek
interest in some pet project.

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

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

A troll commenting on every post he can...

Pin Head!


"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9702E9DACCB15follydom@207.115.17.102...

A troll ranting about everything under the sun.

"DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com> wrote:

Path:
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.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!nntp.midco.net!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:52 -0600
From: "DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com
Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <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> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com
Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102
ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom
207.115.17.102> <bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net
Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:52:07 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <F8CdnfyjU4j1CvTeRVn-gg midco.net
Lines: 294
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108
X-Trace:
sv3-hFglvhUpPpl27CHwZIBHzeGdqEo3zglxuwNuqpZnp7AYkFkZkgHuxh0ifm2LxQOH1JW21DBIAn0MJNs!c+s2rFTZ5Gzfzk4S2Tj4d49pc7cS7KqOOCqYDR4l/KVwrDN57GxoRNRfAQyejpGmp/NLKA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
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:225902
sci.electronics.repair:427642 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448957

Many capitalists
don't like Microsoft at all.

Most sports teams don't like there opponents either... So what?
McDonalds doesn't like Burger King. Budweiser doesn't like Miller Beer...
I
don't see what your point is.. Who cares who likes who... Has nothing to
do
with the economics. That is what capitalism is, not a competition to see
who can win more friends

You cannot cheer capitalism and then curse when one company achieves
ultimate success. You defiantly cannot then call it Communism, That was
the point of my post after all. This matter has been decided by the
courts.
You are free to write a competitive OS.

By the way, there are plenty of other Operating systems. Just not
very
many aps to run on them. Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes
to
servers.


So, what is it you want to do? Make the Window OS illegal? Start
all
over? Force software companies to release programs to run on all
operating
systems. Break up MS and sell it off in pieces to competitors. geesh,
that
makes me want my company to be successful. If I achieve success the Govt.
can make me sell it off to my enemies...

I don't see where any of this is going. It's just a bunch of whining
about
nothing...

The market makes these choices. Make a good product and you'll be
successful and a good share of people will bash you and curse you and
haul
your ass to court and try to get your money. Perhaps even the MOB will
threaten you... If all that happens, then you are a successful
capitalist..

 

[Mxsmanic]

DBLEXPOSURE writes:

Linux and Free BSD kick MS's ass when it comes to servers.

Especially FreeBSD.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

David Maynard writes:

You seem 'surprised'.

Not surprised at all, given what I know of him and the company (and
their history). But reading the latest trendy books on management for
tips when you're in charge of a multi-billion dollar company is a bit
worrisome. CEOs of large and successful companies are supposed to be
in a position to write books about their own successful techniques,
rather than try to pick them up from others.

Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all
the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals?

Some do, some don't. A lot of trade rags aren't worth reading.

Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing.
IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping
one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them
on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie,
pocket protector army?

It's the stuff of legend. There were good reasons for it; it's just
that IBM tried to apply the same philosophy to very different markets,
unsuccessfully. It seems self-evident that what works for mainframes
would not work for PCs, but apparently this never occurred to IBM,
even though it certainly occurred to others.

But now others are making similar mistakes. One reason why Microsoft
has such a terrible time trying to break into the server market is
that it has absolutely no clue on how that market works. To
Microsoft, everything is just like a desktop, just as IBM saw
everything as a mainframe. A lot of people at Microsoft don't even
know what a mainframe is, and yet they are trying to sell into a
comparable market.

You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than
expecting one person to be omniscient.

Alas, most companies don't hire on the basis of intelligence. And the
larger they get, the more unintelligent deadwood they acquire.

I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features'
but not terribly different to the primary mission.

Even if they are something new and different, most people using
computers don't want to continually change to something new and
different. They just want a tool that works; and once it works,
they're content to leave it untouched forever (and in fact that's what
they prefer).

Would you be willing to buy a new washing machine every year, each one
with a completely different way of operating and a whole new set of
instructions?

It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because
there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at
Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if
it's functionally significant enough.

Yes. But remember that the market was microscopic in those days
compared to today. The inertia is much greater now. Additionally,
users today are much more likely to have all they need in current
operating systems, and so are even less likely to change.

And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit
transitions to 64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the
long touted 3D Desktop.

First we need a reason for these things. Most users have no reason to
care about any of these developments. Many users can still get by
with Windows 3.1 functionality; a far greater number are happy with
Windows 95 (tons of people are still running it, and I don't ever
expect them to change).

Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of
old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models.

But increasingly similar management mistakes. DEC seemed very
different from IBM, too, but it eventually succumbed to the same
management errors.

This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even
the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does
his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good
cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's
transportable to any industry

If he's truly brilliant, he'll see the end of buggy whips coming and
steer his company into other domains before it happens. But CEOs tend
to fall in love with whatever brought them their first big successes,
and then they don't want to think about anything else later on.

We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the
genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill
anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot.

You can have a smart management team that serves the same purpose as a
genius. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as you get
the critical mass of intelligence together at the top.

Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea?

Yes, I believe so. Bill Gates has never been gifted for domains
outside of his own, though. Just as Microsoft has no clue when it
comes to servers or mainframes, it has no clue when it comes to ISPs.

I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does
because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That
generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek
interest in some pet project.

Yes.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what develops. I don't have any
stock in any of these companies, so I don't care for the most part,
but I am concerned for the stability of my operating system and
applications and hardware, as I don't like to break things that are
working, and I don't like to spend money or time needlessly.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Your lack of quoting helps when playing semantics.

Your personal attacks hurt when you're trying to advance in debate.

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

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator
needs to read that document. There are copies of it in various
places on the Internet.

One also needs to read the detailed history of Netscape. The
company doomed itself, with or without any intervention by
Microsoft.

Read how Microsoft destroyed Netscape Navigator, a significant
percentage of Netscape's income. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

You will also read about how IBM's OS/2 was never able to compete
with Windows.

The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to
consider the problem with innovation given no competition. The
problem is the operating system maker making applications.

The operating system maker doesn't produce any applications,
except Office.

That's just a silly troll.

Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft.

Actually I have. But I've read a lot of other things, too, and I
don't consider judges to be experts on business and IT.

But it all makes so much sense having lived through the era being
very interested in personal computing.

The operating system maker should not be allowed to make
applications, whatever you call it.

Why not?

Because it puts the operating system maker's applications at a
significant advantage over the competition.

I agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating
system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to
me.

I don't see any point. Microsoft only sells one application that
makes any serious cash, and it doesn't have much competition to
begin with.

Are you saying that Microsoft Office is only one application?

Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can
do anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful
owner of a baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his
enemy.

What would be the equivalent of bashing in skulls with Windows?

Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad.
Having no choice for office applications and eventually no choice
for many other applications is bad.

Is it? One of the requirements of office applications is
interoperability. If everyone uses something different, there is
none.

So why wouldn't they be interoperable?

And there aren't any other applications.

You keep repeating the same silly troll.

Microsoft's only significant end-user application is Office.

By that standard, your list of independent vendor Windows
applications would be nonexistent.

https://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY04/earn_rel_q1_04.mspx

"Information Worker includes revenue from Microsoft Office,
Microsoft Project, Visio, LiveMeeting, other information worker
products, SharePoint Portal Server CALs, and professional product
support services. Revenue from Information Worker was $2.29 billion
in the first quarter of fiscal 2004, increasing 1% from the prior
year's first quarter. Revenue for the quarter excluded $137 million
of revenue deferred for technology guarantees provided to customers
who purchased Office in first quarter of fiscal 2004. Revenue from
OEM licensing of Office products grew 30% from the first quarter of
fiscal 2003."

That's $2,290,000,000 in one quarter.

I bet that's more than all other PC software companies combined.

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


Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:47 -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: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:51:41 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <8i5jm1hld2e4nki9jkt5kv439ng3f40eib 4ax.com
References: <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102> <7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com> <Xns97013EF13E444follydom 207.115.17.102> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com> <Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102> <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102> <nk7im15tupp0ucr170q4jp3c352439rh7h 4ax.com> <Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom 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: 54
X-Trace: sv3-c1fqLXtn1EHh/HpOMj5CN49shdwrg/oCCynl9kd2t+csfVo90ixpLPGNmibBCdXoiiBrFzwXyMWu7aP!uGTNS/LNQ7rq/efykJi/S+n+PW7DeLwvcG1D6koOYRyXnwKA1EEthHX+KARCUt6MUw==
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:225901 sci.electronics.repair:427641 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448956

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

But that's not how it happened. Your side introduced Bill Gates
money.

When did anyone take sides?

Envy is a common fault.

Common, but not universal.

Bill Gates is the richest man in the world.

Most years, yes. But I don't see what that has to do with Microsoft.

Just as easy is to suggest that you are pandering, brown nosing, and
sucking up to Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Easy to suggest, but extremely difficult to substantiate.

You know Microsoft has spearheaded the drive to outsource jobs to
India and dramatically increase the H-1B visa program?

A lot of companies are falling all over each other in the race to
outsource anything and everything. Microsoft didn't invent the idea
and they aren't particularly prominent in their use thereof.

Microsoft is the number one lobbyist for outsourcing and the
H-1B visa program.

Outsourcing doesn't require lobbying. I know of lots of companies
that are doing it.

You know that outsourcing jobs to India/overseas is Microsoft's Way
to increase profits and further dominate small software companies.

It's an example of Steve Ballmer's move towards bottom-line
management, which is always a move in the wrong direction over the
long term.

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

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:


...


IBM was competing with OS/2. And if they weren't then why the
hell did they keep trying to sell it?


The findings of fact explain what you need to know.

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

It's good reading.

I've already read it, stem to stern, and since you apparently
don't have a single independent thought about it there's nothing
to 'discuss'.


What part don't you understand?

None.

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

That's irrelevant to giving discounts to your competition.


You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is
rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us
knew long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds
monopoly power, you might endanger your business status with
Microsoft. If you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power, then
you lump yourself in with the few remaining zealots who defend
Microsoft. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other?

And what does it matter whether I "say one way or the other?"

But since it seems you're going to hound me for all of eternity
I'll tell you why I've declined in the past; because you are an
irrational ideologue about it who, regardless of the context,
topic, time period, or anything else, does little more than repeat
over and over 'the court said so' and paste links to it as if the
court is omniscient and infallible in every word and jot


All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express
an opinion one way or another.

Of course it did.

My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the
facts because you know most of your associates know better.

Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe that
no guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent person
ever convicted nor any injustice ever done,


That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the
appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on.

Only you could refer to the entire contents of that ruling in the singular.

and that's where the court works best. It's even more absurd to
think the court is infallible in business law suits and just plain
nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what does, or
does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what the features
of an O.S. 'should be', and software/product content in general.
You can't even get a room full of 'experts' to agree on it and the
court ain't no 'expert'. Put simply, they got no clue.


Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between
an operating system and applications?

I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as heck
wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're willing to take on
P/L responsibility.

And then there's the matter that you seem to think "holds monopoly
power" and "is a monopoly" are equivalent, since you use them
interchangeably, and they're not.


I use them both, but not interchangeably.

You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise identical
sentences. That's interchangeably in my book.

That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular
final findings


Do you agree or disagree with the vast majority of technically
inclined computer users who know that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer operating system market?

but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel' of
anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the text
of it.


How about the court deciding something that was self-evident to most
of us long ago (many Libertarians excluded).

The court made tons of statements that are anything but self-evident and
that you speak of it as a singular thing is an example of why I don't
discuss it with you.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't
express an opinion one way or another.

Why is anyone required to explain _not_ having a specific opinion?

I would much rather know the opinion.

Do you or do you not recognize/understand that Microsoft holds
monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market?

My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to
the facts because you know most of your associates know better.

My guess is that he is not arguing religion, whereas some others
here are.

You appear to be arguing politics. Libertarian?

That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the
appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed
on.

In the world of technology, this is unfortunately all too
plausible.

Not when practically everybody else in the world of high technology
already knew better.

Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference
between an operating system and applications?

It's very difficult to draw a clear line between the two.

A clear line isn't necessary. Some things are obvious.

Just because office applications benefit from interoperability
doesn't mean that the monopoly operating system maker has to make
them.

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


Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:54:36 -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: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:54:35 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <ks5jm15bjarhescbr71jo73qr6tm3v5khe 4ax.com
References: <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> <11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com> <Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102> <11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com> <Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102> <11miobbo5ut4362 corp.supernews.com> <Xns9702E6342B453follydom 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: 25
X-Trace: sv3-7bdM/UuWqtinmskMZhd3uapqLQ8/Y3mHIWZw5uqinrt8ujvW+YhiBn7rw/9stiDqwHEmY54SIV/5qE9!Xp7dM5u8U311aZj5yUdrA4RJRUKVJG21Wv/BXinpGUezxniiXjgK4lomtnGaxhyeeQ==
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:225903 sci.electronics.repair:427643 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448959

 

[John Doe]

Ranting troll

"BillW50" <BillW50 aol.kom> wrote:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr33.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: <360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102> <7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com> <Xns97013EF13E444follydom 207.115.17.102> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com> <Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102> <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102> <nk7im15tupp0ucr170q4jp3c352439rh7h 4ax.com> <Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 155
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Message-ID: <EPgaf.4569$Y61.2278 newssvr33.news.prodigy.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.74.67.83
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com 1130994020 ST000 68.74.67.83 (Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:20 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:20 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: OP\MBX_ESZRMBUX[N[O _WH YR_B EXLLBWLOOAFEQR ETUCCNSKQFCY TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC VJM
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:00:20 GMT
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225908 sci.electronics.repair:427649 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448963

zz
"John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9702E322CDFA5follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:19:38 GMT

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape
Navigator. http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

As hard as it may be to believe, the declaration of a court is not
any kind of final or universal authority, except in legal terms.

Anybody who wants to know what happened to Netscape Navigator needs
to read that document. There are copies of it in various places on
the Internet.

Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on
the personal computer software market.

Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems.

That's what I thought. You don't believe what most technically
inclined computer users have understood long before our federal
courts decided the issue.

No what I believe is you trust in liars! And I have make a clear cut
case of it.

Are you a Libertarian?

No! I am nothing! I don't vote at all because I am responsible for
my actions. Something that those like you can't claim.

Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you
believe Microsoft is going away.

I don't understand this statement.

Microsoft has a stranglehold on personal computer software.

Not so! That is like saying Linux has a stranglehold on the personal
computer software. Both are rivals. Something that you will never
understand!

Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of
the other capable software developers here in the United States.

Legal "corrections" are notorious for their ineffectiveness.
Market forces are much more balanced and reliable, even if they
don't move as quickly as some might like.

The problem isn't the operating system, unless you want to consider
the problem with innovation given no competition. The problem is the
operating system maker making applications. It's kind of like being
on a farm. Let's say the operating system is your farm machinery,
and the applications are your various crops. You wouldn't want the
farm machinery favoring one crop or another or you're likely to end
up with munched up potatoes.

Anybody is free to create their own OS and some have. And Linux is
the strongest competitor to MS. A fact that you have been ignoring
this whole time.

The likely scenario is this. As Microsoft grows old and lazy, it
will continue to suck applications into its maelstrom. Microsoft
already owns the biggest money makers. The lazier Microsoft gets,
the more applications it will have to add to its collection. First
it has been the most lucrative applications and applications that
Microsoft and its family might need or enjoy. Second it is
applications that make the most money. Eventually, any software that
makes money will be dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft also squeezes
more and more money out of its already captive users. And eventually
they cry to the government for relief.

Still ignoring Linux and Open Office like a dumbass. Good show John.
Ignorance is your best suite!

If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of
the facts.

Or I simply disagree with you, which is not the same thing.

Or you haven't read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft.

From known liars? Good show John... good show!

And in fact, there's very little difference.

In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public
utilities, then?

The operating system maker should not be allowed to make
applications, whatever you call it. If that were to pose some threat
to Microsoft's Windows dominance, I guess that would be competition.

lol

I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the
military?

You really need to include more than one level of quoting.

From a guy who can't even respond from quotes from others at all.
Good show John. Drop to the lowest level possible!

That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble.

Microsoft has had a lot of legal trouble because it has made a lot
of well-funded enemies by virtue of its exceptional performance.

I agree that's partly true. But the separation of the operating
system maker from the applications makers makes perfect sense to me.

Buy a Linux computer then. What is your problem?

I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively
bludgeons another person to death. I could not care less whether
you legally acquired and own that baseball bat.

You'd prefer to let that mass murderer with the machine gun
continue to shoot at innocent bystanders?

I guess something was lost in the translation. Again, you really
need to include more than one level of quoting.

Since you can't address facts in front of you face, your requests
are meaningless.

Just because Microsoft owns Windows, does not mean Microsoft can do
anything it wants with Windows, no more than the rightful owner of a
baseball bat can aggressively bash in the skull of his enemy.

Because I'm using AMD very well.

Maybe you should buy a Mac.

Again, you really need to quote more than one level.

Having no choice of operating systems is not necessarily bad. Having
no choice for office applications and eventually no choice for many
other applications is bad.

You are such a dumbass! I said many times now there are Linux and
OpenOffice. You on the other hand want to be a total jerk and ignore
the facts! That is okay John, we all now know you are just a
dumbass. So you have nothing more to prove.


__________________________________________________
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:



John Doe wrote:


...


IBM was competing with OS/2. And if they weren't then why the
hell did they keep trying to sell it?


The findings of fact explain what you need to know.

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

It's good reading.

I've already read it, stem to stern, and since you apparently
don't have a single independent thought about it there's nothing
to 'discuss'.


What part don't you understand?

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

That's irrelevant to giving discounts to your competition.


You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is
rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us
knew long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds
monopoly power, you might endanger your business status with
Microsoft. If you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power,
then you lump yourself in with the few remaining zealots who
defend Microsoft. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the
other?

And what does it matter whether I "say one way or the other?"

But since it seems you're going to hound me for all of eternity
I'll tell you why I've declined in the past; because you are an
irrational ideologue about it who, regardless of the context,
topic, time period, or anything else, does little more than
repeat over and over 'the court said so' and paste links to it as
if the court is omniscient and infallible in every word and jot


All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't
express an opinion one way or another.

My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to
the facts because you know most of your associates know better.

Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe
that no guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent
person ever convicted nor any injustice ever done,


That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the
appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed
on.

and that's where the court works best. It's even more absurd to
think the court is infallible in business law suits and just
plain nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what
does, or does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what
the features of an O.S. 'should be', and software/product content
in general. You can't even get a room full of 'experts' to agree
on it and the court ain't no 'expert'. Put simply, they got no
clue.


Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference
between an operating system and applications?

I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as
heck wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're
willing to take on P/L responsibility.

Are you trying to answer that question?

Do you know the difference between the operating system and
applications?

And then there's the matter that you seem to think "holds
monopoly power" and "is a monopoly" are equivalent, since you use
them interchangeably, and they're not.


I use them both, but not interchangeably.

You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise
identical sentences. That's interchangeably in my book.

You are full of it.

That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular
final findings


Do you agree or disagree with the vast majority of technically
inclined computer users who know that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer operating system market?

but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel'
of anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the
text of it.


How about the court deciding something that was self-evident to
most of us long ago (many Libertarians excluded).

The court made tons of statements that are anything but
self-evident and that you speak of it as a singular thing is an
example of why I don't discuss it with you.

It's a simple question.

Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft holds monopoly power over
the personal computer operating system market?

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!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: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:37:29 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11mj8gprjccted2 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> <11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com> <Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102> <11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com> <Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102> <11miobbo5ut4362 corp.supernews.com> <Xns9702E6342B453follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: <Xns9702E6342B453follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 125
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225918 sci.electronics.repair:427659 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448973