Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[JAD]

"Gary H" <g.h@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:QZgnf.481$El.105846@news20.bellglobal.com...

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.


Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head
virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil.
There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil. The problem is that with the increased
demand, nobody is building extra refining capacity. Especially
those who *control* the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell,
and so on. It's gotten to the point where these bastards are
driving the crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this)
they're expecting a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the
continent.

POOF! your Bill Gates....whats the first thing your going to do?
You haven't a clue do you? please don't start with the first thing is to
give your money away and give away windows..... Your kidding yourself. Oh
whats that?, dont make assumptions about what your motives would be.........
shoe sux when its on the other foot?

Greed, power and control.

Same with Microsoft. Control (virtually all PCs run Windows of
one flavor or other)
Greed (absolutely no sane
reason to charge the prices they do for the garbage they sell)
Power (as someone said earlier, they can get away with
*just* about anything within the
legal system).

That's what my bitching is about. Its not thinly veiled envy,
jealousy or any other petty begrudging. It's being just
totally pissed with a system where some people will starve to
death or freeze this winter and others will take comfort in the
fact that they have "looted everyone else so effectively" that
it is impossible to spend the wealth in several lifetimes.

Do I have the answers like some of you *think* you do?? No.
However, that doesn't mean I can't vent about it if I desire.

Contrary to your belief, It is my business if I say or think it
is. Don't you realize that, as a citizen, you have no say in
*anything* anymore? Not even at election time. (Look at Florida)

When you wear out the blinders you're currently wearing, gimme a
call. I got another pair I can sell you.

 

[John Doe]

"old jon" <jonbrookes@nospamntlworld.com> wrote:

"Gary H" <g.h@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:QZgnf.481$El.105846@news20.bellglobal.com...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories. In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny
helpless Microsoft, not the other way around. Microsoft didn't
(and couldn't) twist IBM's arm.


Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head
virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

Like Republicans here in the United States. Some people wonder why
Republicans are becoming the porkbarrel spending party. Well DUH,
it's because Republicans control how the money is spent. Democrats
have turned into deficit hawks because now taxpayer money goes to
Republican interests and constituents. The party in power spends and
the minority party complains about it.

The great American, and British public, accept that power and
control. Between us all we could bankrupt any corporation we
wanted to. All we have to do is band together and boycott them and
their goods, and down they go.

That is a lot easier said than done. Many people think Microsoft
stifling personal computer growth is okay and would drive another
company out of business while they were working very hard to switch
operating systems. Living in a country that enforces
intellectual-property law, you would need consensus plus a whole lot
of effort and money. The rest of the world just pirates the
software.

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

I'm hounding you? For an opinion? On USENET?


That's probably the closest thing to an accurate summary I've
ever seen come out of you and this may come as a real shock but I
am under no 'obligation' whatsoever to provide you with an
opinion on ANYthing.


You are too full of yourself to get my drift.

I got your drift just fine. Now lets see if you got mine.

I did, it's enough to knock a buzzard off a shit wagon at 50 yards.

 

[JAD]

your a well rounded bigot aren't you?


"Gary H" <g.h@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:NIZmf.474$PQ3.49846@news20.bellglobal.com...

JAD wrote:
"Gary H" <g.h@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:WEYmf.92$El.19427@news20.bellglobal.com...

JAD wrote:


don't feel left out, maybe some bum will give you a card. Rich G are
you
listening?
Your 'opinion spouts as envy. Why do you think its bowing , worshiping

when

someone takes the opposite side and defends someone who isn't around to
defend himself? Your opinion is based on 'innuendo and is not thought

out

very well. And bashing someone without the facts straight is ....well

its

nonsense.

Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Yeah, self made man, always by the book, never stiffed anyone.

Typical US mentality. Money first then trickle down to all the
other mundane stuff kicking and screaming all the way. Gimme a
break.


Ahhhh I C now where its coming from...... and here I thought it
actually
had something to do with money and Bill Gates........

If the shoe fits?????

Willey was lucky (and smart). He grabbed CP/M before the market
conditions were what they are today. had he pulled something
like that in recent times, he'd have been in a courtroom so fast
he woulda been sucked out of his socks.

 

[John Doe]

top posting troll

"JAD" <kapasitor earthcharter.net> wrote:

Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!68.1.17.232.MISMATCH!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!hw-filter.lga!fe02.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "JAD" <kapasitor earthcharter.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com> <u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com> <ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net> <4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net> <ajuhp1t8tteh81n9jke52ldstpd9bpojgs 4ax.com> <dtmjp1p7vuo5l07pj7bb9bcbprftqua2m5 4ax.com> <d4lmf.11503$tQ7.8070 fe04.lga> <439A09AE.C187A86 earthlink.net> <mmlkp1po49fb15vc309ov7n5f03t4tni2b 4ax.com> <439A6E3A.F857771A earthlink.net> <pan.2005.12.11.00.32.21.914028 doubleclick.net> <439BA98E.E354C897 earthlink.net> <04vnp15gka4d7ffi3gp9ehofgfr9jpj31i 4ax.com> <439C67B4.FF564383 earthlink.net> <mUZmf.4530$ES.4450 fe05.lga> <439C9417.12D570A8 earthlink.net> <yB0nf.553$PQ3.98759 news20.bellglobal.com
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <fdinf.15$It6.5 fe02.lga
X-Trace: ejlmlnpfppkfdeplcococmamcpkdblimohpafefhbdgdodhnfnanfbchojoigioekocbaabgcpdeoapbfcmomhcboglkbommgihfeigpnhjjhfdpedbflkbegmdnjclmbcfagklmibllijll
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:13:47 MST
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:13:40 -0800
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229789 sci.electronics.repair:432874 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452515

I find it amazing two people with not a single post referencing hardware,
however when they are given an off topic subject they know nothing about,
you can't shut them up.

Some people bitch, and do nothing. If anything, your the two with all the
answers. re-read your posts...then STFU once again. Maybe you and the expert
on one handed typing could get together and have a circle jerk.


"Gary H" <g.h sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:yB0nf.553$PQ3.98759 news20.bellglobal.com...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?


That's the way it is chief. There are loads of people out there
who can fix all the world's problems from their armchairs but
when it comes down to the crunch, haven't got a practical
thought to bless themselves with.

Tons of armchair environmentalists out there as well, most of
whom have never planted a tree in their friggin' lives much less
saved one. They got the answers though. just ask 'em.

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

It could mean that they are showing off, or maybe they don't
understand that writing is to communicate with other people.

The better the vocabulary, the more precise and efficient the
communication.

It's impossible to know another person's vocabulary level unless he
indicates his level in some way. People with large vocabularies have
a natural tendency to use those vocabularies to the fullest and do not
necessarily realize it when and if they exceed the recognition
vocabularies of their interlocutors.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

It wasn't all that Herculean. Apparently IBM didn't try very hard.
Microsoft did a good job of gaining a stranglehold on the personal
computer software market and never letting go, and that's where we
are today.

A stranglehold? Perhaps you meant a struggle, which far better
characterizes Microsoft's activities back in those days.

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

That is a lot easier said than done. Many people think Microsoft
stifling personal computer growth is okay and would drive another
company out of business while they were working very hard to switch
operating systems.

In the world of computer software, the advantages of standardization
are so enormous that they sometimes take priority over almost
everything else, particularly from the standpoint of ordinary computer
users (as opposed to specialists).

Thus, although Microsoft Windows is by far the dominant desktop
operating system, the advantages of it being so outweigh the
disadvantages in many respects for the average end user, which is why
it tends to remain the dominant operating system.

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

 

[Peter]

In article <Xns972A1585DB375follydom@207.115.17.102>,
jdoe@usenet.love.invalid says...

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:


Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even grasp
the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better, assuming
there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to 'opinions' on
what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components and
how it 'should' be structured.

I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers. And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.

But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining
whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't
Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not
work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case
dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was
NOT a necessary component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and
still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s
claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that
and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more
complicated than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

 

[JAD]

"Peter" <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d@news3.fast24.net...

In article <Xns972A1585DB375follydom@207.115.17.102>,
jdoe@usenet.love.invalid says...
David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:


Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even grasp
the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better, assuming
there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to 'opinions' on
what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components and
how it 'should' be structured.

I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers. And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.


But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining
whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't
Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not
work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case
dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was
NOT a necessary component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and
still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s
claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that
and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more
complicated than that at the time.

Actually they succeeded in laming the browser from working, but could not
remove all the files associated and still have the OS work as advertised.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

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:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined
32 million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission,
guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice
works. Judges are good at judging and rely on expert
witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even
grasp the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better,
assuming there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to
'opinions' on what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's
components and how it 'should' be structured.


I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in
ordinary contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You
even question the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

No, what they have a problem with is being clueless about
software.


You would have to be silly (as usual) to imagine that judges have
to know everything about every subject they judge.

I didn't say a thing about needing to "know everything." Or can't
you grasp the vast gulf between clueless and omniscience?


As easily as you can grasp the the difference between "clueless" and
"knowing something".

Your previous post proves otherwise.

But in fact some of
them are very insightful about the software business.

LOL

Well, if there are they're doing bang up job of hiding it.


Not if you pay close attention.

If you don't know any more about software than the judge does then it might
appear that way.

An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers.

What I want to 'promote' is a good product,


The way we do that in a civilized market based economy is to
foster competition.

Courts and Judges dictating product content isn't a free market.


It happens all the time in a free market.

Non sequitur. It is, by definition, not a free market when courts and
judges dictate product content. The seller is not able to offer the product
he otherwise would and the buyer has that choice removed from
consideration. Rather than 'free' the market is contorted to conform to the
court's opinion of what it 'should be'.

not some anti-business crusade.


You sound like a Libertarian zealot.

Only to anti-business fanatics.


To someone who believes in a rule-based society.

Hitler also believed in "a rule-based society."

The question is, and always has been, who should make the rules and what
should the rules be? But to say rules are right simply because they exist
is a fool's argument.

Clearly you believe that businesses should not have to play by rules
or the rules should not be enforced by the government because the
government can't do anything right.

You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.

Since it's an invention of your own making it'll sound like whatever you want.

And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating
system and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray
area but it's not that difficult to generally separate an
operating system from applications.

Which demonstrates you're almost as clueless as the judges are.


Maybe more so (in your head). Having been a big fan of the big
antitrust trial, for years I paid close attention and was
impressed by the judges' ability to understand and weigh the
facts.

I'm sure you were, when things came out the way you wanted. And
you then hated it when things didn't. That's not a 'guess' on my
part, it's taken straight from your assessment.


It's a wild guess. I think the final outcome to date was wrong. The
idea that I hated it exists only in your imagination. The appellate
court judges had plenty of insight and not all of the district
court's judgment was correct (in my opinion).

You just proved it wasn't a 'wild guess', as I had already explained.

They don't
have to know how to write programs, their main concern is the
software publishing business.

Since a significant part of the decision process was evaluating
what should, or should not, be a part of the O.S., among other
things, your claim is pure nonsense.


Speaking of nonsense. That was part of the proposed remedy, not part
of the trial, and that was done by the prosecution.

There's 'justice' for you: a remedy that springeth forth from no "part of
the trial" and the court's opinion "done by the prosecution."

Your opening was right on; you're speaking nonsense.

I smell a libertarian who believes everything the government
does is wrong (unless it agrees with his opinion).

Wrong, as usual.


Silly, as usual.

Yes, you were, but I decided to keep it simple with just plain
wrong.


So you're not willing to admit that you are a Libertarian who
thinks that everything government does is wrong (unless it agrees
with your opinion).

I'm never going to respond to any of your contrived nonsense.


You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.

Declining to discuss the case with you is not a defense of anyone.

But in fact if it weren't for our government every day
deciding in Microsoft's favor and using our police with guns
to physically inforce Microsoft's will, Microsoft would fall
apart like a playing card house. Put that in your Microsoft
defending libertarian fantasy land.

Nice piece of schizoid logic you got there


You are a Microsoft defender troll wearing very big blinders.

No, I'm a defender of facts and rational thought.


When are you going to defend the fact that Microsoft Windows is a
monopoly?



I've already explained why I am not going to discuss it with you.


Some silly notion about software being too complicated for anyone to
tell the difference between an operating system and applications.

Not even remotely close and I'm not going to go through it again.

 

[Gary H]

Mxsmanic wrote:

In the world of computer software, the advantages of standardization
are so enormous that they sometimes take priority over almost
everything else, particularly from the standpoint of ordinary computer
users (as opposed to specialists).

Yeah, and as of next year you'll only be able to buy Ladas.
What a bunch of horse petunias.

Thus, although Microsoft Windows is by far the dominant desktop
operating system, the advantages of it being so outweigh the
disadvantages in many respects for the average end user, which is why
it tends to remain the dominant operating system.

That's one way of looking at it I suppose. Not very insightful,
but a way.

 

[Gary H]

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

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:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

Gary H wrote:



Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined
32 million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission,
guilty)


Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.



And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice
works. Judges are good at judging and rely on expert
witnesses.


I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even
grasp the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better,
assuming there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to
'opinions' on what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's
components and how it 'should' be structured.



I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in
ordinary contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You
even question the meaning of words in your own usage.


Judges don't have that problem.


No, what they have a problem with is being clueless about
software.



You would have to be silly (as usual) to imagine that judges have
to know everything about every subject they judge.


I didn't say a thing about needing to "know everything." Or can't
you grasp the vast gulf between clueless and omniscience?



As easily as you can grasp the the difference between "clueless" and
"knowing something".


Your previous post proves otherwise.

But in fact some of
them are very insightful about the software business.


LOL

Well, if there are they're doing bang up job of hiding it.



Not if you pay close attention.


If you don't know any more about software than the judge does then it
might appear that way.

An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers.


What I want to 'promote' is a good product,



The way we do that in a civilized market based economy is to
foster competition.


Courts and Judges dictating product content isn't a free market.



It happens all the time in a free market.


Non sequitur. It is, by definition, not a free market when courts and
judges dictate product content. The seller is not able to offer the
product he otherwise would and the buyer has that choice removed from
consideration. Rather than 'free' the market is contorted to conform to
the court's opinion of what it 'should be'.

not some anti-business crusade.



You sound like a Libertarian zealot.


Only to anti-business fanatics.



To someone who believes in a rule-based society.


Hitler also believed in "a rule-based society."

The question is, and always has been, who should make the rules and what
should the rules be? But to say rules are right simply because they
exist is a fool's argument.

Clearly you believe that businesses should not have to play by rules
or the rules should not be enforced by the government because the
government can't do anything right.


You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.


Since it's an invention of your own making it'll sound like whatever you
want.

And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating
system and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray
area but it's not that difficult to generally separate an
operating system from applications.


Which demonstrates you're almost as clueless as the judges are.



Maybe more so (in your head). Having been a big fan of the big
antitrust trial, for years I paid close attention and was
impressed by the judges' ability to understand and weigh the
facts.


I'm sure you were, when things came out the way you wanted. And
you then hated it when things didn't. That's not a 'guess' on my
part, it's taken straight from your assessment.



It's a wild guess. I think the final outcome to date was wrong. The
idea that I hated it exists only in your imagination. The appellate
court judges had plenty of insight and not all of the district
court's judgment was correct (in my opinion).


You just proved it wasn't a 'wild guess', as I had already explained.

They don't
have to know how to write programs, their main concern is the
software publishing business.


Since a significant part of the decision process was evaluating
what should, or should not, be a part of the O.S., among other
things, your claim is pure nonsense.



Speaking of nonsense. That was part of the proposed remedy, not part
of the trial, and that was done by the prosecution.


There's 'justice' for you: a remedy that springeth forth from no "part
of the trial" and the court's opinion "done by the prosecution."

Your opening was right on; you're speaking nonsense.

I smell a libertarian who believes everything the government
does is wrong (unless it agrees with his opinion).


Wrong, as usual.



Silly, as usual.


Yes, you were, but I decided to keep it simple with just plain
wrong.



So you're not willing to admit that you are a Libertarian who
thinks that everything government does is wrong (unless it agrees
with your opinion).


I'm never going to respond to any of your contrived nonsense.



You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.


Declining to discuss the case with you is not a defense of anyone.

But in fact if it weren't for our government every day
deciding in Microsoft's favor and using our police with guns
to physically inforce Microsoft's will, Microsoft would fall
apart like a playing card house. Put that in your Microsoft
defending libertarian fantasy land.


Nice piece of schizoid logic you got there



You are a Microsoft defender troll wearing very big blinders.


No, I'm a defender of facts and rational thought.



When are you going to defend the fact that Microsoft Windows is a
monopoly?


I've already explained why I am not going to discuss it with you.



Some silly notion about software being too complicated for anyone to
tell the difference between an operating system and applications.


Not even remotely close and I'm not going to go through it again.

Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-12-12, David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

Gary H wrote:

JAD wrote:

don't feel left out, maybe some bum will give you a card. Rich G are you
listening?
Your 'opinion spouts as envy. Why do you think its bowing , worshiping
when
someone takes the opposite side and defends someone who isn't around to
defend himself? Your opinion is based on 'innuendo and is not thought out
very well. And bashing someone without the facts straight is ....well its
nonsense.


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I suppose) by
"experts". He's ended up in court in the US (antitrust, guilty) and in
Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32 million by South Korea's FTC (Fair
Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software world and to
call them 'experts' is absurd.

Yeah, self made man, always by the book, never stiffed anyone.

Typical US mentality. Money first then trickle down to all the other
mundane stuff kicking and screaming all the way. Gimme a break.

By your standards it must be 'typical non US mentality' to be class
prejudiced and irrationally vindictive then.

Willey was lucky (and smart). He grabbed CP/M

Utter B.S. He didn't 'grab CPM'. He made an O.S. that did similar
functions, just like any O.S. would have to do and just as CPM copied the
functionality of Dec RT-11, in their case right down to calling pip pip.

much of version 1 of dos was purchased from someone else, not developed at
microsoft. while not binary compatible with 8080-based CP/M it did have a
similar functional structure. and was probably atleast partially compatible
with CP/M-86 an 8086 version of CP/M that never really took off.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Michael Kennedy]

What? I think this guy posted to the newsgroup instead of sending e-mail..

 

[jakdedert]

Michael Kennedy wrote:

What? I think this guy posted to the newsgroup instead of sending e-mail..


It happens.....

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

It could mean that they are showing off, or maybe they don't
understand that writing is to communicate with other people.

The better the vocabulary, the more precise and efficient the
communication.

You speak with words your audience can understand, if you have the
mental capacity to do so.

It's impossible to know another person's vocabulary level

You must have thought you knew, since you were talking about it.

unless he indicates his level in some way.

I thought that's how you knew.

People with large vocabularies have a natural tendency to use
those vocabularies to the fullest and do not necessarily realize
it when and if they exceed the recognition vocabularies of their
interlocutors.

A good writer knows his audience and speaks appropriately. He should
know how to step down his vocabulary and maybe use more words in the
process, as needed.

Sort of like a big/strong man doesn't physically handle everyone the
same in every situation.

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


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.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: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:32:09 -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: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:32:09 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <qdgrp1ta36mr1prs6lgmqfmc12pmf0g94a 4ax.com
References: <ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net> <4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net> <YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com> <c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com> <FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pofogljj3u3f2 corp.supernews.com> <%EXmf.400$PQ3.28531 news20.bellglobal.com> <jvnop1hrgmehjkin684rcrl7lr99eor362 4ax.com> <Xns972A10479A25Cfollydom 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: 16
X-Trace: sv3-Luey5wfuBJ76wTOK6Uzb2ylrgCDZeBmCv3iA5TpqKzoyiOjG7oJJe/+ocvdLmj2H7JWnO1eVeWUPWV6!le90vMvU/q4hh7gWSwWfzkNKKbbod2+gQus38ausTCaB9B/xwvXEgySS/m6VXa1hsyXQX/c=
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:229803 sci.electronics.repair:432881 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452523

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

It wasn't all that Herculean. Apparently IBM didn't try very
hard. Microsoft did a good job of gaining a stranglehold on the
personal computer software market and never letting go, and
that's where we are today.

A stranglehold? Perhaps you meant a struggle, which far better
characterizes Microsoft's activities back in those days.

I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it published
Windows 95.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

That is a lot easier said than done. Many people think Microsoft
stifling personal computer growth is okay and would drive another
company out of business while they were working very hard to
switch operating systems.

In the world of computer software, the advantages of
standardization are so enormous that they sometimes take priority
over almost everything else, particularly from the standpoint of
ordinary computer users (as opposed to specialists).

Thus, although Microsoft Windows is by far the dominant desktop
operating system, the advantages of it being so outweigh the
disadvantages in many respects for the average end user,

That's true IMO.

which is why it tends to remain the dominant operating system.

The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects and
a positive feedback loop.

Programmers write for Windows because they can sell more copies.
Selling copies is how software publishers make money. Consumers by
Windows because so many programs are available. That positive
feedback loop is what keeps Windows entrenched.

The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.

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


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.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: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:36:36 -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: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:36:36 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com
References: <ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net> <4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net> <YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com> <c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com> <FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com> <psnop159npj8vrqanalegtfacrna5dapb1 4ax.com> <QZgnf.481$El.105846 news20.bellglobal.com> <VDhnf.26032$a15.18063 newsfe5-win.ntli.net> <Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
X-Trace: sv3-VXB23SbuUBHR4ZM1Vy+GRN7eBbQjOzz8hjeXzUKGA0PRcgdulO6wPVxl70toi4rDbIi2SCalL+qxTZN!rmhPg72xSDyyCq7JGTTDBDmc3GVKxsF4QZ9n5JoPqwJqrctBKQiTzoj4rFpyEG72H83Jj9M=
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:229806 sci.electronics.repair:432885 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452525

 

[John Doe]

Gary H <g.h@sympatico.ca> wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change
your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.

I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's something
in the contract, like he gets a discount with every brown nosing
Microsoft defender reply.