J
John Doe
Guest
I'm just replying in kind, troll.
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
J
John Doe
Guest
Mostly just trolling
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
D
David Maynard
Guest
Mxsmanic wrote:
read up even if for no other reason to see what your competition is doing.
what spawns industry mantras like "don't stray from your core business" and
why in risk management anything you haven't done before it automatically
flagged a risk no matter how trivial it seems. It ain't 'trivial' because
you don't know enough to know whether it's 'trivial' or not.
thing they should do is acquire the knowledge, one way or the other.
Maybe the problem is that deadwood floats
primary mission.
'upgrade' to one of them new fangled electric 'automatic' ones even though
its still just a washing machine.
argument since DOS came out.
There are simply things you can do with the 32bit architecture that you
can't with the 16.
proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful
of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home
computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't
Computers are one of, if not the, most synergistic products ever devised
with more powerful computers enabling applications previously unheard of
and developers dreaming of applications current machines can't handle
spurring them on to ever more power. And people who thought a typewriter
was perfectly fine now can't live without publisher quality full graphics.
You know, I can remember when a telephone was for speaking to someone, not
taking pictures, PDA, WAP, and text messaging. You think anyone really
'needed' those 'first'?
and saying the buggy whip CEO should steer the company to a new domain is
easier said than done. It just isn't obvious what else that magic 'crack'
his whips make applies to and even if he finds an alternative it's not
nearly as likely to be another 'great idea' but more of a settling for
'something'.
bit larger 'team', and the process.
'great idea' got the next 'great idea' and whether it was as easy as it
sounds. And whether the lack of new 'great ideas' was due to him being gone
and new management.
I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day
I don't know a thing about him but even a genius would be foolish to not
read up even if for no other reason to see what your competition is doing.
I'd sure worry about the one's who don't.
Oh come on. You know that's a straw man.
Yep. That's what I mean about transporting 'visions'.
Yeah, I know, but it seems to be a common problem. But then that's also
what spawns industry mantras like "don't stray from your core business" and
why in risk management anything you haven't done before it automatically
flagged a risk no matter how trivial it seems. It ain't 'trivial' because
you don't know enough to know whether it's 'trivial' or not.
In that case they have the wrong development process because the first
thing they should do is acquire the knowledge, one way or the other.
Well, they *think* they are.
Maybe the problem is that deadwood floats
Of course, and that's why I said it takes something significant to the
primary mission.
No, but if it were 1930 and I had a hand crank unit I might be willing to
'upgrade' to one of them new fangled electric 'automatic' ones even though
its still just a washing machine.
It's true there's more inertia but I've heard the "all you likely need"
argument since DOS came out.
There are simply things you can do with the 32bit architecture that you
can't with the 16.
Well, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything
proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful
of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home
computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't
Computers are one of, if not the, most synergistic products ever devised
with more powerful computers enabling applications previously unheard of
and developers dreaming of applications current machines can't handle
spurring them on to ever more power. And people who thought a typewriter
was perfectly fine now can't live without publisher quality full graphics.
You know, I can remember when a telephone was for speaking to someone, not
taking pictures, PDA, WAP, and text messaging. You think anyone really
'needed' those 'first'?
I just think they're different errors
That's because its where their 'great idea' and experience/insight livesThis 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.
and saying the buggy whip CEO should steer the company to a new domain is
easier said than done. It just isn't obvious what else that magic 'crack'
his whips make applies to and even if he finds an alternative it's not
nearly as likely to be another 'great idea' but more of a settling for
'something'.
I agree and you're coming close to the 'process' approach. Just needs a tad
bit larger 'team', and the process.
Yeah. But that was the thing we were musing about: where the man with the
'great idea' got the next 'great idea' and whether it was as easy as it
sounds. And whether the lack of new 'great ideas' was due to him being gone
and new management.
Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe
I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day
D
David Maynard
Guest
John Doe wrote:
<snip>
It should have been enough that I said I didn't intend to discuss it with
you but, upon your insistence, I've given enough of the reasons why I don't
intend to discuss it with you that even you should be able to grasp that I
don't intend to discuss it with you.
<snip>
It should have been enough that I said I didn't intend to discuss it with
you but, upon your insistence, I've given enough of the reasons why I don't
intend to discuss it with you that even you should be able to grasp that I
don't intend to discuss it with you.
D
David Maynard
Guest
Ed Medlin wrote:
It's nice to see others expressing the same feeling."David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11mh2rrdahcnlbe@corp.supernews.com...
Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes:
I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are
frustrated with the current technology.
No, most people aren't interested because they aren't geeks, period.
They have lives outside of computers. They care no more about their
computers than they care about their telephones or toasters. They use
computers to accomplish some specific task, and then they are done.
Their are neither frustrated nor pleased by computers--they are
indifferent.
Given your frustration with the current technology.
I'm not frustrated with current technology. It all seems to work very
well.
Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future
easier access to everyone.
Non-disabled people don't need easier access. Who should pay for
special accommodation of the disabled, and how much should they pay,
and which disabled people should get which proportion of the money?
There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are
turned off by the current technology.
Nobody is clamoring for speech recognition. Most people don't use
computers that much and don't care. They are no more interested in
speech for their PC than they are in speech for their DVD players.
Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to
steal market share.
Which things?
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.
Microsoft already provides more accommodation of the disabled than any
other OS publisher. How much more do you want it to do?
But not within personal computing.
Within personal computing as well. But there are many types of
disabilities, and they all deserve consideration, in proportion to the
number of people afflicted with them. It's a question of balance.
For example, money spent to accommodate wheelchairs exceeds all other
expenditures on most other, more common disabilities combined, which
is a great example of enormous _imbalance_. I don't advocate that for
computers or for anything else.
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.
Uh, Microsoft is more interested in these things than any other major
software publisher.
I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers.
So you are doing it with special hardware, namely, a USB microphone
and speakers.
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.
Netscape crashed and burned all on its own. It did that so quickly
that it's hard to imagine anything that Microsoft could have done that
would have significantly accelerated the crash.
Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office
applications. That's easy living.
Do you think so? Try it.
Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate,
forward-looking business.
I don't believe any company that makes such a claim. Microsoft is no
worse than anyone else, however.
Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system
and that is where speech belongs.
Because you say so?
I'm really enjoying your messages because it's so refreshing to hear
rational sanity on USENET.
Damn right David. I have enjoyed this thread more than any for
awhile.......
Ed
P
Porky
Guest
Hello tempus, are you still with us? Don't forget to pull the plug, eh!
I suggest you search for a brand and model #, then search at
rec.antiques.radio+phono, where there are expert advisors on how these
units can be fixed. The transformer you saw was for the output to the
speaker. You are dealing with a live chassis unit. the "death cap" may
be shorted, and the hum you here is 120vac running thru the chassis.
The filter caps may not be too bad, although they are always leaky at
that age. You can use 50-80 uF for the first 2, then drop to 20-30 for
the other 2. There is no diode tube to worry about. If the diode is a
bunch of square plates with a central bolt, it is selenium. Replace it
with a new silicon diode and a resistor. Cheers.
John Kogel
I suggest you search for a brand and model #, then search at
rec.antiques.radio+phono, where there are expert advisors on how these
units can be fixed. The transformer you saw was for the output to the
speaker. You are dealing with a live chassis unit. the "death cap" may
be shorted, and the hum you here is 120vac running thru the chassis.
The filter caps may not be too bad, although they are always leaky at
that age. You can use 50-80 uF for the first 2, then drop to 20-30 for
the other 2. There is no diode tube to worry about. If the diode is a
bunch of square plates with a central bolt, it is selenium. Replace it
with a new silicon diode and a resistor. Cheers.
John Kogel
B
BillW50
Guest
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9702F36CC6458follydom@207.115.17.102...
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:55:42 GMT
monopoly on the desktop market. Yet to pull this off, you have to
ignore the *fact* there are millions of PCs not running Microsoft
software at all.
You also somehow believe that Microsoft killed off Netscape. Yet
Netscape is still in business today and is now owned by AOL. And the
old Netscape management screwed up royally. As Steve Case of AOL
really hated Microsoft and really wanted Netscape for its default
browser.
But Netscape wouldn't give what Steve wanted. They wouldn't
integrated it into AOL software. Plus they wanted AOL to pay for
every copy of Netscape (I believe it was 10 bucks each). And there
were millions of AOL users. That would add up to megabucks! Then
Microsoft came along and said we'll integrate it into AOL for you.
And you can have IE for free. Well Steve picked IE over Netscape.
And this is when Netscape started losing market share. Because
Netscape got greedy, they lost out. And that's the truth.
__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:55:42 GMT
ROTFL!!! Still lying I see. Also you claim that Microsoft has a
monopoly on the desktop market. Yet to pull this off, you have to
ignore the *fact* there are millions of PCs not running Microsoft
software at all.
You also somehow believe that Microsoft killed off Netscape. Yet
Netscape is still in business today and is now owned by AOL. And the
old Netscape management screwed up royally. As Steve Case of AOL
really hated Microsoft and really wanted Netscape for its default
browser.
But Netscape wouldn't give what Steve wanted. They wouldn't
integrated it into AOL software. Plus they wanted AOL to pay for
every copy of Netscape (I believe it was 10 bucks each). And there
were millions of AOL users. That would add up to megabucks! Then
Microsoft came along and said we'll integrate it into AOL for you.
And you can have IE for free. Well Steve picked IE over Netscape.
And this is when Netscape started losing market share. Because
Netscape got greedy, they lost out. And that's the truth.
__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
T
tempus fugit
Guest
Still alive and kicking John, lol.
Thanks for the tips. The "death cap" I assume is the one that is connected
from the live to the chassis? I'm not sure that there even is one in this
unit, but as I mentioned earlier, I just took a quick peek inside the
chassis and put it back together. I haven't had too much time to mess with
it, but I'll definitely look for that when I do. If everyone would like, I
could take a picture of it and post it on ABSE.
What do youy think?
Thanks again
"Porky" <juan_morre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131024203.706084.207270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the tips. The "death cap" I assume is the one that is connected
from the live to the chassis? I'm not sure that there even is one in this
unit, but as I mentioned earlier, I just took a quick peek inside the
chassis and put it back together. I haven't had too much time to mess with
it, but I'll definitely look for that when I do. If everyone would like, I
could take a picture of it and post it on ABSE.
What do youy think?
Thanks again
"Porky" <juan_morre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131024203.706084.207270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
M
Mikey
Guest
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:45:21 GMT John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
in Message id: <Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom@207.115.17.102>:
in Message id: <Xns9702DD529868Ffollydom@207.115.17.102>:
Trim your posts, you mouth breathing moron.
[...] 182 lines of top-posted quoted material
M
Mxsmanic
Guest
BillW50 writes:
would be less encumbered.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
And then AOL bought Netscape just to put it to sleep, so that MSIE
would be less encumbered.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
M
Mxsmanic
Guest
David Maynard writes:
doing what they know how to do, so they've never developed the habit
of learning to do other things.
The aforementioned PhotoDraw 2000 was a classic example. It was
clearly written by people who were expert in using standard Windows
constructs and tools, people who knew the Windows interface inside and
out and could produce semi-transparent, glistening, rose-scented
context menus blindfolded ... but these people knew nothing whatsoever
about image processing, and the piece of junk they produced was an
absolute horror. It was quickly and quietly discontinued.
one today, too. But a lot of the intermediate upgrades are
unnecessary. And someone using an old PC to get things done doesn't
need an upgrade, as long as the old PC does the job.
and more people still running with prior versions. It gets harder and
harder to convince anyone to "upgrade," especially outside the geek
community.
architecture.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
They haven't done that. They've been able to make a lot of money
doing what they know how to do, so they've never developed the habit
of learning to do other things.
The aforementioned PhotoDraw 2000 was a classic example. It was
clearly written by people who were expert in using standard Windows
constructs and tools, people who knew the Windows interface inside and
out and could produce semi-transparent, glistening, rose-scented
context menus blindfolded ... but these people knew nothing whatsoever
about image processing, and the piece of junk they produced was an
absolute horror. It was quickly and quietly discontinued.
Someone might be willing to upgrade from an original PC to a brand-new
one today, too. But a lot of the intermediate upgrades are
unnecessary. And someone using an old PC to get things done doesn't
need an upgrade, as long as the old PC does the job.
Some people still run DOS. Each newer version of a PC OS leaves more
and more people still running with prior versions. It gets harder and
harder to convince anyone to "upgrade," especially outside the geek
community.
But there are also things for which you don't need 32-bit
architecture.
And they still don't have computers.Well, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything
proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful
of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home
computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't
No. And I know that hardly anyone is using those extra features.
Ray Kroc came into his own in his fifties.Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe
I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
J
John Doe
Guest
troll
Mikey <none all.nul> wrote:
Mikey <none all.nul> wrote:
J
John Doe
Guest
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY04/earn_rel_q1_04.mspx
Since you removed the context, it's no wonder.
That answer is on par with half of your arguments.
Which doesn't mean anything by itself.
Says the same guy who thinks Office is one application?
https://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY04/earn_rel_q1_04.mspx
J
John Doe
Guest
David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:
That's so silly, just like your justification for dodging the
Microsoft Windows monopoly question.
By the way, do you think Microsoft Office is one application?
That's so silly, just like your justification for dodging the
Microsoft Windows monopoly question.
J
John Doe
Guest
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
argument is anybody's guess, but if you're talking about the time
Microsoft Windows succeeded over IBM's OS/2, Microsoft won the
battle by virtue of having all of the APIs from Windows 3.1 to use
with Windows 95, and the huge base of applications to go with it.
<Snipped the rest of Mxsmanic's trolling>
Given your persistent single level quoting only, the context of your
argument is anybody's guess, but if you're talking about the time
Microsoft Windows succeeded over IBM's OS/2, Microsoft won the
battle by virtue of having all of the APIs from Windows 3.1 to use
with Windows 95, and the huge base of applications to go with it.
<Snipped the rest of Mxsmanic's trolling>
J
John Doe
Guest
David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:
....
But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over the
personal computer operating system market long before our courts
finalized the issue. Given our current state of justice, it might be
a moot point, but it's crystal clear to the vast majority of techies
who don't work for Microsoft.
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."
You must be wearing some heavy duty blinders.
....
But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over the
personal computer operating system market long before our courts
finalized the issue. Given our current state of justice, it might be
a moot point, but it's crystal clear to the vast majority of techies
who don't work for Microsoft.
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."
You must be wearing some heavy duty blinders.
D
David Maynard
Guest
John Doe wrote:
Well, I agree it's silly of you to keep hounding me.
D
David Maynard
Guest
John Doe wrote:
the subject regardless of your idiotic attempts to imply otherwise.
Declining to discuss it with you does not suggest any particular opinion on
the subject regardless of your idiotic attempts to imply otherwise.
M
Mxsmanic
Guest
John Doe writes:
sense, and there was no general consensus on such questions before or
after the courts gave their opinions.
Few people dispute that Microsoft has a dominant position in a handful
of key markets, most notably in PC desktop operating systems. Whether
or not this is a monopoly or a harmful monopoly is a much more open
question.
Intel has a comparable market share (currently around 81%, vs. 94% for
Microsoft in the desktop OS arena), and yet it does not appear to
raise so many questions of monopoly. I think in part that is because
the average geek cannot fancy himself building a chip fabrication
facility and competing with Intel, whereas many geeks like to imagine
building a software product that somehow competes with Microsoft. And
many more geeks would like to work for Microsoft, which is more
willing to hire people with no education. Chips don't engender the
same emotions and envy, in any case.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
The courts didn't finalize anything, except in a restricted legal
sense, and there was no general consensus on such questions before or
after the courts gave their opinions.
Few people dispute that Microsoft has a dominant position in a handful
of key markets, most notably in PC desktop operating systems. Whether
or not this is a monopoly or a harmful monopoly is a much more open
question.
Intel has a comparable market share (currently around 81%, vs. 94% for
Microsoft in the desktop OS arena), and yet it does not appear to
raise so many questions of monopoly. I think in part that is because
the average geek cannot fancy himself building a chip fabrication
facility and competing with Intel, whereas many geeks like to imagine
building a software product that somehow competes with Microsoft. And
many more geeks would like to work for Microsoft, which is more
willing to hire people with no education. Chips don't engender the
same emotions and envy, in any case.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
D
David Maynard
Guest
Mxsmanic wrote:
functional improvement.
better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how
one defines 'better'.
"Does the job" is an insufficient description because everyone is managing
to 'do the job' with what they have till something better comes along and,
interestingly enough, it isn't always clear just how much 'better'
something is till it's used.
amplifier. Neither says much about the state of the broader market, or
people in general, as they're fringe/niche situations.
I'm not willing to make that assumption.
doesn't mean no one needs computers.
You're losing track of the issue here, which was whether an O.S. 'upgrade'
can offer a significant enough improvement to warrant the 'upgrade', not
whether every last soul on the planet uses it. And I was pointing out that
the O.S. changes needed to take advantage of 32 bit technology, vs 16 bit
technology, was a significant enough performance increase.
discovered they 'needed' it after it was available.
Yeah. Bad development process.
The point is it depends on whether the 'upgrade' offers significant enough
functional improvement.
Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it
better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how
one defines 'better'.
"Does the job" is an insufficient description because everyone is managing
to 'do the job' with what they have till something better comes along and,
interestingly enough, it isn't always clear just how much 'better'
something is till it's used.
Well, some people still have no computer at all and I'm building a tube
amplifier. Neither says much about the state of the broader market, or
people in general, as they're fringe/niche situations.
That's true of any technological progression.
You're assuming there just isn't anything 'left to do' that can matter and
I'm not willing to make that assumption.
So? There are things for which you don't 'need' a computer at all but that
doesn't mean no one needs computers.
You're losing track of the issue here, which was whether an O.S. 'upgrade'
can offer a significant enough improvement to warrant the 'upgrade', not
whether every last soul on the planet uses it. And I was pointing out that
the O.S. changes needed to take advantage of 32 bit technology, vs 16 bit
technology, was a significant enough performance increase.
I presume the 'they' you speak of is the last group because the othersWell, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything
proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful
of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home
computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't
And they still don't have computers.
discovered they 'needed' it after it was available.
Perhaps, but they're still selling a ton of them.
Yeah, and a very interesting story.Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe
I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day
Ray Kroc came into his own in his fifties.