Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


David Maynard writes:



The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began
charging for it, which would seem to be an exercise in
monopolistic power... but maybe no one sued. Then, when Microsoft
gives away their browser, Netscape brings suit against Microsoft
for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84% market
share.

Amusing, eh?


Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The
difference between subjective perception and reality is sometimes
enormous.

You betcha. So much for 'blind' justice


You have a strange idea of justice.

It's the one represented by the blindfolded lady of justice standing in
front of the court: that the case shall be judged on the merits and not who
one hates the most. And that was precisely the context of my comment.

Netscape wasn't on trial.

Netscape was a complainant and in a civil case both sides are equal and
equally under scrutiny. Neither is presumed innocent or guilty.

As for the government's case, it is a fundamental legal principle that one
cannot use the law to 'enforce' an illegality (for example, an illegal drug
supplier cannot sue his 'customer' for non payment and collect) so if
Netscape were behaving in an illegal manner the court should not 'enforce'
that illegality. So, yes, Netscape would also be 'on trial' in that context.

I presented it (below) as an "interesting" conundrum.

Some
people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the
entity instead of the facts.

And brother you should know.

It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'ICON on the
desktop' issue. One could always install Netscape on a Windows
machine, and sell it that way, but what Netscape wanted was for
OEMs, with, one imagines, a bit of prodding from Netscape, the
holder of monopoly power in the browser market, to be able to
*remove* I.E. from Microsoft's own product, not simply coexist,
and sell it with Netscape *only*.


Besides being corrupt, that's false.

It's 100% true and nothing you present here contradicts it.

In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell
Windows without Internet Explorer.

That was certainly Netscape's 'argument'. Whether there were actually any
OEMS crying over wanting Netscape *exclusively* is debatable.

Original Equipment Manufacturers
were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep
the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop.

They were expected to not cut and hack Microsoft's product up, yes. And no
one likes having their product mangled by OEMs.

Original Equipment
Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because
Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the
desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical
help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.

The argument that the user would be befuddled by two browsers was certainly
made but, frankly, as easy as it is to befuddle the average user I've never
noticed that being a problem no matter how many browsers they had. Seems a
lot of them can read, like "Internet Explorer" vs "Netscape" vs "Opera" vs
"Firefox," etc.

The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put
Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's
attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding.
The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We
all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of
Windows

Really? "we all know?" You must have been a busy beaver surveying the
population of the entire planet for that absolute, all inclusive, declaration.

All I know is I certainly wouldn't buy one without a browser, not that I
know of any that don't come with one, and, in that context at the very
least, it's a 'necessary part' so if I were making a desktop O.S. it would
be in the design specifications. In my opinion.

(any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral
part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years
in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other
program.

And I've used Netscape. And you, Mr. Post Headers Freak, should certainly
know I'm using it right now. Funny how I was never 'prevented' from doing
so by anyone, even without a law suit. Always had more than one media
player too.

One way of looking at it might be to say that Netscape was
complaining about Microsoft 'infringing' on their 'free use of
monopoly power'


Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly,

There's no maybe to it. And they acted in what textbooks describe, to show
why they're 'bad', the classic monopoly manner: first offering the
product at a low price, in their case free, and then, once a commanding
market share is established, increasing the price.

but it was Microsoft's
monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator
out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong
to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding
monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another
market share is illegal.

The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't
understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the
applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their
case that way.

I've told you a thousand times that I am not going to discuss the case with
you and my simply describing the state of affairs at that time isn't a
'defense' of anyone either.

 

[David Maynard]

Peter wrote:

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.

You're pretty close but I don't think anyone managed to remove every bit
and piece of IE and if it there wasn't already some theory of what is not a
'part of the O.S.' then attempting to remove it would be moot. I mean, if
it *is* a 'part' then what's the point?

The problem with these kinds of things, though, is they're nebulous,
subject to opinion and interpretation, and you can 'prove' just about
anything, to your own satisfaction at least, depending on your underlying
assumptions and how you want it to come out.

Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it isn't
'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue they intentionally made it
break the O.S. when removed so failing to remove it proves nothing. They
'could' do it 'right' if forced to, or so you'd argue (and believe).

On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser? Would most
people? And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the
product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S.
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism,
hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than
whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product
schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a
necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?

But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you
just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine
if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball
(and you'd believe it).

And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because
there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S.
product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."

But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the
user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates,
who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?


You're quite right that it's more complicated.

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began
charging for it, which would seem to be an exercise in
monopolistic power... but maybe no one sued. Then, when Microsoft
gives away their browser, Netscape brings suit against Microsoft
for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84% market
share.

Amusing, eh?


Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The
difference between subjective perception and reality is sometimes
enormous.

You betcha. So much for 'blind' justice

You have a strange idea of justice. Netscape wasn't on trial. Some
people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the
entity instead of the facts.

It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'ICON on the
desktop' issue. One could always install Netscape on a Windows
machine, and sell it that way, but what Netscape wanted was for
OEMs, with, one imagines, a bit of prodding from Netscape, the
holder of monopoly power in the browser market, to be able to
*remove* I.E. from Microsoft's own product, not simply coexist,
and sell it with Netscape *only*.

Besides being corrupt, that's false.

In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell
Windows without Internet Explorer. Original Equipment Manufacturers
were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep
the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop. Original Equipment
Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because
Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the
desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical
help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.

The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put
Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's
attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding.
The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We
all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of
Windows (any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral
part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years
in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other
program.

One way of looking at it might be to say that Netscape was
complaining about Microsoft 'infringing' on their 'free use of
monopoly power'

Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly, but it was Microsoft's
monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator
out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong
to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding
monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another
market share is illegal.

The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't
understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the
applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their
case that way.

Path: newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!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: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:42:55 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11mo3gvnmrp1r76 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: <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> <558im1dvkk1a2f45tlplql8vsge5milc20 4ax.com> <11miosfrti53nca corp.supernews.com> <Xns9703E13A2C879follydom 207.115.17.102> <heslm1h5ardae6t559rsuoccbki3b7k4pd 4ax.com> <11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com> <a69nm19fsppktu1hbgqmlh0sbtkq7gkcnc 4ax.com
In-Reply-To: <a69nm19fsppktu1hbgqmlh0sbtkq7gkcnc 4ax.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 31
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:226053 sci.electronics.repair:427799 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:449117

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

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

I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with
words I do not understand.

Do you always speak loudly as possible? That makes about as much
sense.

There is no connection between my mental
capacity and the vocabularies of others.

Mental capacity has something to do with your ability/inability to
adapt.

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

No, I was not.

You were, like in this message.
Message-ID: <jvnop1hrgmehjkin684rcrl7lr99eor362 4ax.com>
You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.

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.

USENET is not a novel.

I wasn't referring to USENET as a novel. The same practice applies
to all different forums.

People express themselves as they naturally do, without
deliberately adjusting their levels for specific individuals.

If they are skilled or going by their instincts, they do so
automatically. At leastr people where I come from do.

Have you ever had kids?

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

But seriously. Microsoft was known to hold monopoly power over
the personal computer operating system market long before our
courts finalized the issue.

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.

That makes sense, coming from someone who plainly states that
Microsoft Office is a single application. Methinks someone has been
reading too much Steve Ballmer.

The rest of the world knows better.

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.

Market share by itself does not indicate monopoly power.

Nothing prevents me from buying an AMD processor which will run all
of the applications and Intel processor runs. And that's what I do.

There is no barrier to entry. Advanced Micro Devices is making a
profit competing with Intel.

We've agreed that multiple operating system makers would be
unacceptable (assuming they could not run the same programs). The
fact that multiple CPU makers is perfectly acceptable to consumers
should give you a clue about another reason why Intel does not hold
monopoly power.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

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

Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?

Not quite. Maybe you need to scroll up and reread your questions.

 

[Gary H]

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

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.


Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough to
power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the state of
the world's oil supply.

Overly simplistic bullshit. It's all of the sources worldwide
that supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It
will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..

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.


They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't get
permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every
technologically feasible source of new energy production.

Again, overly simplistic bullshit.

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.


Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a
bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every other
means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever local
supplies have been pre stocked.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is
not permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way*
you guys want to do it. We *do* have environmental protection
rules up this way, and where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as
well. Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from
it's appointed rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.

That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves
behind the eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll
just walk in and take it like you feel it's your right. What is
it you folks call it down there? Oh yes, "American interests".

Since you've got all that excess oil, why don't you lobby the
legislature for a refinery permit? hmm?

We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs
up this way. Other countries are responsible for their own
refining capacity construction programs. Unless the oil
companies there, wish to keep the cost of fuel artificially
high. And, what it's priced at on the good old New York Stock
Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the friggin' world,
pay for it.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell writes:

So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?

You're assimilating beggars with people who refuse to be helped. They
are not one and the same.

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

I can only speak about those that I have met. I'm sure that there are
others, but I have never met any of them.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[JAD]

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11psu6kc5pt47c5@corp.supernews.com...

John Doe wrote:

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:


John Doe writes:


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.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to steal
it.

ROTFLOL

Holy freaking crap that was undoubtedly one of the most ridiculous things
ever typed!
Which in my mind ends this convo, your not playing with a full deck, a
sandwich shy of a picnic, your elevator never sees the top floor, and your a
brick shy of a complete wall.

AND ABOVE ALL JD-Gary H - Mikey, you guys wouldn't know what to do if you
were suddenly dropped into BG's shoes. Other than put the company in ruin.
BUT if you struggled to make your company what it was, just to have whiners
try and take it from you, I am SURE you would sing a whole nother tune.

Whiners = those who wanted in, but didn't want the risk, and now think
because they 'thought' about getting in, they should have a piece of the
browser/OS pie. Anything that helps standardize, is a great thing for
advancing the technology. Thank you all those that screwed themselves, by
trying to screw others.

Now that Microsoft Windows is an entrenched monopoly, Microsoft
is putting the screws down.
You've contradicted yourself.


Where?


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.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it
want to. The greater the number of applications that run under
its OS, the better.


Unless Microsoft is making all the money.

 

[Mikey]

jakdedert wrote:

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


It happens.....

Not to me.

 

[Ken_B]

Too bad there's no service manuals available! I could've used a few.

"Michael Kennedy" <Mikek400@remthis.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IbqdnR_zCoar7wPenZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

well at least electronics make sense.. unlike women : )

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
newseednRZLtqlXjwPeRVn-gg@comcast.com...

"jakdedert" <jakdedert@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2cnnf.4419$w7.3134@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Michael Kennedy wrote:
What? I think this guy posted to the newsgroup instead of sending
e-mail..
It happens.....

If only we could repair busted relationships as easily as we repair
busted electronics!

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

<snipped the usual Microsoft defender nonsense>

The federal appeals court wrote:

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

"...we reject Microsoft's argument that we should vacate the
District Court's Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer
confusion."

"The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in
licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing
browsers other than IE."

"By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to
IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a
rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the
competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we
conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive."

"These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. (March 1997
letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: "We are responsible for
the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of
calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated
by your product.... We must have more ability to decide how our
system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another
supplier, based on your actions in this area, you would not be our
supplier of choice.")."

"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."

"In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the
OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft's
market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate
justification. The restrictions therefore violate section 2 of the
Sherman Act."

Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!news-out2.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!xindi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!138.199.65.86.MISMATCH!sn-ams-06!sn-ams-04!sn-post-ams-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:03:30 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11pssi349vi9v0e 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: <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> <558im1dvkk1a2f45tlplql8vsge5milc20 4ax.com> <11miosfrti53nca corp.supernews.com> <Xns9703E13A2C879follydom 207.115.17.102> <heslm1h5ardae6t559rsuoccbki3b7k4pd 4ax.com> <11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com> <a69nm19fsppktu1hbgqmlh0sbtkq7gkcnc 4ax.com> <11mo3gvnmrp1r76 corp.supernews.com> <Xns972AC7F976F09follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: <Xns972AC7F976F09follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 148
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229890 sci.electronics.repair:432950 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452606

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

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.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done. You've contradicted yourself.

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.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it want
to. The greater the number of applications that run under its OS, the
better.

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

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

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.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done.

All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to steal
it. Now that Microsoft Windows is an entrenched monopoly, Microsoft
is putting the screws down.

You've contradicted yourself.

Where?

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.

The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it
want to. The greater the number of applications that run under
its OS, the better.

Unless Microsoft is making all the money.

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


Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!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 22:23:12 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:23:08 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com
References: <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> <lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com> <Xns972AB206F4F76follydom 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: 20
X-Trace: sv3-8mGswK8iSLQiiUeXj1HB9yMbZ+ys8vTGDAl7ErzNirXXZ3TLUld1RzAtR9S49zOlcoghrCgdyAdktR4!amaIdreLabnG1pS9GCsa6RBixAvZlIo2dvpmEcyPk7jsw3DgwZKFKEYrnPgLVjGoMko1aGM=
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:229868 sci.electronics.repair:432931 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452596

 

[John Doe]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell earthlink.net> wrote:

JAD wrote:

<snipped the usual top-posted troll>

which group are you posting from? Its cross posted
to: sci.electronics.basics, sci.electronics.repair,
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

So what? The original poster is not a regular in any of those
groups.

Some of us have worked on PCs for over 20 years. and have no need
to hang around alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

The hardware group is not a subgroup of the electronics group.

I would be very impressed if (in reality) you never had a question
appropriate for the homebuilt PC group.

As far as STFU: You should practice what you preach.

Telling someone "shut up" on the Internet is a joke, isn't it?

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida


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!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!elnk-atl-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!b1a104da!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <439E6988.73EBEF85@earthlink.net
From: "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net
Reply-To: mike.terrell@earthlink.net
Organization: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
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?]
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> <fdinf.15$It6.5@fe02.lga
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:26:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.110.15.31
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1134455189 24.110.15.31 (Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:26:29 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:26:29 PST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229883 sci.electronics.repair:432946 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452603

 

[John Doe]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell earthlink.net> wrote:

JAD wrote:

I said STFU, do as your told!


YAWN. You barely get a .0001 on the "troll-o-meter". POAD

At least you finally figured it out.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida


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!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!207.69.154.102.MISMATCH!elnk-atl-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!b1a104da!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <439E69E7.A5A2525E earthlink.net
From: "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell earthlink.net
Reply-To: mike.terrell earthlink.net
Organization: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
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?]
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$ES.4450 fe05.lga> <439C9417.12D570A8 earthlink.net> <a6inf.11$It6.7 fe02.lga
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:28:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.110.15.31
X-Complaints-To: abuse earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1134455283 24.110.15.31 (Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:28:03 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:28:03 PST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229885 sci.electronics.repair:432947 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452604

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

Peter wrote:

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


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.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue

David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory to
a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to know
better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it in
fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?

Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use the
computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an operating
system with no browser.

A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid to
have access to the ever increasing universe of information on the
Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored to
help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

<snipped the rest of David Maynard's Microsoft Speak>

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!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:12:49 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11pt44i55gpote9 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: <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.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> <u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com> <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> <GkYmf.6406$Eu3.5706 fe07.lga> <WEYmf.92$El.19427 news20.bellglobal.com> <11ppupr51udv23e corp.supernews.com> <Xns972A100D147Afollydom 207.115.17.102> <11pq9qep0bghd9e corp.supernews.com> <Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102> <MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net
In-Reply-To: <MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 111
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229896 sci.electronics.repair:432955 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452613

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


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.

ROTFL

Within the last 24 hours I've been accused of being a Linux kook
and now a Microsoft OEM.


Not by me.

I didn't say by you nor is it even implied.

You always defend Microsoft.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss is not a
defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times before, but you are
apparently to stupid to understand simple english.

I'm pretty sure I can find your quotes of the OEM license agreement
spoken as if you took them to heart.

Don't tell anyone but I have a special secret: I know how to look things up
and read =:O)

Are you saying you are just a troll?

Why don't you go find another word and expand your vocabulary?

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:


John Doe writes:


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.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of
anything that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to
steal it.

ROTFLOL

Just a troll.

Message-ID: <11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com>

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact and
not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about Netscape giving
Navigator away is true, it is no different than allowing pirates to
steal Windows and later putting the squeeze on us (think Windows
Product Activation WPA).

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!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:31:31 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11psu6kc5pt47c5 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: <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> <lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com> <Xns972AB206F4F76follydom 207.115.17.102> <73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com> <Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: <Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 43
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229893 sci.electronics.repair:432952 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452608

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Do you always speak loudly as possible? That makes about as much
sense.

No, it does not. I can easily and immediately assess the level of
ambient noise and adjust the loudness of my voice in consequence. I
cannot immediately assess the vocabulary of the person with whom I'm
communicating, and so I cannot know whether it is larger or smaller
than my own.

Mental capacity has something to do with your ability/inability to
adapt.

Yes, but intelligence is not prescience.

You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.

Where?

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