Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

[Mxsmanic]

This troll is whining about Bill Gates bashing. But in fact, his
side entered the argument.

You're attempting to base your position on personal attacks and
personality conflicts. Others base their positions on arguments
relevant to the topic under discussion, with personalities being
ignored and personal attacks being nonexistent. What might this
imply?

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

Good point!

Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command
and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they
are just pissed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to
use a computer?

And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is
pissed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed..


Before anyone gets pissed, is all in jest


BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will
earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax
evasion....


I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....


Good day...

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




The engineer is probably right, in a sense, but that won't pay the
bills. Apple has come up with many interesting innovations, but it is
rather blind in its belief that its ideas are the _best_ ideas, and
it's also very obstinate in not backing down on its principles. I
suppose that's commendable, in a way, but it doesn't bring in
business. If I truly believed Apple to be the best, I might invest in
it, but although Apple is distinctive, I'm not at all convinced that
it's the best, so paying a price premium for it (and spending eternity
under Apple's thumb for both the hardware and the OS) isn't justified.

Well, yes, and that's what my comment "But 'best' includes more than just
the technical" meant to address.

As I recall, I skipped Apple just because it was far too expensive. I
liked the concepts and the look and feel and so on, but not enough to
pay such a severe price premium. Also, at work we used PCs from the
beginning for everything except secretarial workstations, because they
could easily be customized to work with our mainframes, whereas with
Macs, there was either the Apple way or the highway.

Yes, but I think you're talking about a time period slightly after the
period I was, before the clones were in swing. Although, IBM *did* leave
the hardware open to encourage third party add-on suppliers, just not
copies, while Apple kept things much closer to the vest.

But the mainframe point is well taken and IBM would, of course, have a lot
more experience in that what with them being the premier mainframe supplier
at the time.

Point taken. I guess it's easy to find ten smart people, but much
more difficult to find 40,000 smart people. Eventually, you get a lot
of stupid people in the company.

Well, 'average' people or, simply, lots of people. And that'll take
managing because you simply can't expect everyone to be a genius, much less
a genius at everything. Not to mention you can't have even geniuses going
in every which a way direction. There has to be focus.

Yes, but conversely, the beginning of the end for many companies is
marked by the departure of the founder(s). Disney, Hewlett-Packard,
Microsoft, IBM ... the list goes on and on. Notice that Microsoft has
changed since Bill Gates left.

Yes, there's the 'vision' thing.

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

IBM had a history of publishing source, which was the norm at one time
for mainframes. Microsoft never had any exposure to that.

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

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

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

If the first great idea was pure luck, that's true. But if it was the
product of a really smart group of people, they should be able to come
up with other great ideas.

Sounds simple but, in practice, it isn't as it usually takes more than just
a really smart group of people as familiarity, experience, insight, or
whatever combination that went into the particular 'great idea' isn't
necessarily translatable into another one. I think it was you, yourself,
who pointed out that Microsoft was good at the business suite business but
not very good in others as they just don't have sufficient experience or
insight for them.

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

Since Bill Gates assumed a background role, Microsoft has shown
distinctly less innovation and much more bottom-line-style management.
Steve Ballmer is a businessman rather than a geek, but he has no prior
experience, and now he's in charge of a multi-zillion dollar company.

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

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

Inevitably, mistakes are made, and eventually too many mistakes will
be made and the company will being its downward slide. Like so many
big companies, Microsoft will commit suicide; it won't be killed by
the competition.

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

Of course, I suppose you can always call it a 'mistake' to not be
diversified enough (that's those bottom-line-style management types you
don't like), not see that microcomputers can do almost anything
(electronics wasn't their business), or whatever the 'next great idea' is
(how are you going to get around the patent/copyright?) but that's
stretching the 'mistake' concept a bit.

It's fun musing about it though.

 

[clifto]

A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this
is what motivates them to bash Microsoft.

I wouldn't mind having his bucks, or even what he pays in taxes, but
I've hated his software since he was nothing but a rich kid with a
couple of computers.

Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do
something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that
anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many
people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by
intelligently managing a computer software company, because they
cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves.

More than anything Gates was (and is) a marketer. He knows how to put
just enough stuff into a box to get people to buy the box. I'd never
claim to be able to make money as well as he does.

Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same
lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply
because Microsoft would not hire them.

Microsoft would never hire me; I have no degrees. However, I still lay
claim to having asked the question, would I ever work for Microsoft?
and answered in the negative long before I ever considered the question
you pose.

 

[clifto]

Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command
and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they
are just pissed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to
use a computer?

I hate mice. I hate graphics tablets worse, and I hate trackballs only
marginally less than I hate mice, but I hate mice with a passion.

I am to pointing devices what Yosemite Sam is to rabbits.

 

[David Maynard]

The findings of fact explain what you need to know.

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

It's good reading.

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

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

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

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

Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe that no
guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent person ever convicted
nor any injustice ever done, and that's where the court works best. It's
even more absurd to think the court is infallible in business law suits and
just plain nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what does, or
does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what the features of an
O.S. 'should be', and software/product content in general. You can't even
get a room full of 'experts' to agree on it and the court ain't no
'expert'. Put simply, they got no clue.

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

That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final
findings but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel' of
anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the text of it.

And since that is the entirety of your 'argument', for everything, there is
nothing to 'discuss'.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe writes:




You're attempting to bolster your position with personal attacks.
That is rather telling, too.




Because not everyone treats operating systems as religions, and
reality is much more complex and subtle than black and white.

Bingo!

Attempting to discuss the nuances of a rainbow with a black and white TV
set is an exercise in futility.

 

[BillW50]

I love and use both DOS and GUI. Somethings still can't easily been
done under the GUI (which is one of the weak things about the GUI
that has been true since day one). OTOH somethings are also easier
under the GUI instead of DOS. So I use whichever one is best suited
for the task.

I hate mice. I hate graphics tablets worse, and I hate trackballs only
marginally less than I hate mice, but I hate mice with a passion.

I don't hate mice. But I'll use a mouse if my hands aren't doing
anything important on the keyboard. OTOH I know most of the keyboard
shortcuts when my hands are on the keyboard. So I try to use one or
the other for long periods of time.

Trackballs are about the same to me as mice. The rubber tiny
joystick thing on the keyboard I can use better than most. Although
I only like it if my hands are already on the keyboard. And
highlighting with this thing seems to be the hardest to do for me.

I have used touchpads and I think they are just as useful for the
most part. Although none of my many computers have this device. I
only use it on other people's computers. First time was a real trip.

I am to pointing devices what Yosemite Sam is to rabbits.

I guess I am a bit lucky, it doesn't matter much by me. Mice,
without, or whatever. I still get the work done. <grin>


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

 

[David Maynard]

I hate mice. I hate graphics tablets worse, and I hate trackballs only
marginally less than I hate mice, but I hate mice with a passion.

I am to pointing devices what Yosemite Sam is to rabbits.

Careful, Yosemite Sam always loses

 

[Mxsmanic]

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

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

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

In the case of Microsoft, it would be because the only way to keep
things humming along is through continuous exercise of the same
vision--and that vision is now gone. Steve Ballmer is a businessman,
not a visionary, and he belongs much more to the standard MBA school
of management. I understand he reads all the latest "how-to" books on
management (literally).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And has any company ever succeeded at this? Success requires being
smart, and no process can produce intelligence where it didn't
previously exist.

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

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

The whole business model of continually forced upgrades isn't going to
work forever, either. Eventually consumers will get tired of moving
to a new OS every year. Even now, there are untold millions of PCs
that are never "upgraded" beyond the OS they had when first installed.
Each time Microsoft tries an "upgrade" to maintain revenue, it
increases the incoherence of the installed base, which has more and
more versions of Windows up and running, from Windows 3.1 to XP.

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

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

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

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

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

If a single brilliant CEO could live forever, then companies could be
successful forever. But that's impossible, so virtually all companies
end up with bad management at some point and dwindle or disappear.
There are very rare exceptions, such as GE, which is so diversified
that it can scarcely avoid making money no matter who is at the helm.
Microsoft has no diversification at all, though, and that's very
dangerous. Its attempts at diversification have been largely
unsuccessful, too (MSN was a disaster and has only survived through
constant infusion of billions to keep it in business).

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

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

I wouldn't mind having his bucks, or even what he pays in taxes, but
I've hated his software since he was nothing but a rich kid with a
couple of computers.

Your statements are very revealing. There's no real connection
between his state of wealth at any time and the computers he may have
owned and the quality of the software his company sells--but you seem
to imagine such a connection. You hate his software because you hate
him, not because there's anything wrong with the software. That's
your prerogative, but it wouldn't do if you were responsible for IT
acquisitions in a large company, since it makes it impossible for you
to evaluate solutions unemotionally.

More than anything Gates was (and is) a marketer.

Have you met him? He's a geek, not a marketroid. He's smart, which
is is main asset, but he's no marketing genius. Microsoft marketing
campaigns have always been a bit stunted and laughable compared to the
campaigns of, say, Apple. But Gates actually delivered the goods, and
didn't have to depend on marketing, and that's why his company has
done so well.

He knows how to put just enough stuff into a box to get people
to buy the box.

That has never been the case for Microsoft up to now (although the
situation is changing now). I've seen others do it (e.g., Netscape),
but not Microsoft.

Microsoft would never hire me; I have no degrees.

Microsoft hires people without degrees. They are interested mainly in
smart employees, not in employees with degrees.

Of course, this, too, is gradually changing, now that Gates is
effectively out of the picture.

 

[John Doe]

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

Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.midco.net!news.midco.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:24:06 -0600
From: "DBLEXPOSURE" <celstuff hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com> <360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com> <Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102> <7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com> <Xns97013EF13E444follydom 207.115.17.102> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com> <Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102> <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com> <Xns97027FDA9A9DFfollydom 207.115.17.102>
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:22:15 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <bZednfQYcbvLj_TeRVn-vA midco.net>
Lines: 182
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.220.64.108
X-Trace: sv3-wv1vumB7w/E2svQM+Ubb+UgagM/jBz396sDaaNUJ8h7v5mFqYDeeBN+yDD3Mfr/CB755ap0YwfiKHYC!SMJlpwUyeAD/ndG5tTPTL9I8gAH2jaXytNI/S39v5f5Lrlp+p+M8RmG2mjmhfwJubCrvWA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse midco.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225859 sci.electronics.repair:427583 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448907

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

Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies.

What?!!

Microsoft is a capitalist's wet dream.


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

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

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

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

John Doe writes:

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

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

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

Microsoft will eventually self-destruct.

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

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

So those who hate Microsoft need only be patient. A

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

Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies.

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

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

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

And in fact, there's very little difference.

Our system thrives on competition.

Some parts do, some parts don't.

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

We don't have competition for the
military.
lol

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

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

<Snipped silliness>

I've heard different.

From whom? Not ordinary consumers.

I guess you haven't interacted with consumers.

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

They are extremely meaningful to the companies that produce them.

Without a single dominant platform for applications,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I'm using AMD very well.

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


Path:
newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:00:50 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:00:48 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <ebvgm158pq32j72bi9c152mp54r5u5b520 4ax.com>
References: <lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
<oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com>
<360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <11mbajursouao13
corp.supernews.com> <26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com>
<Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791 fe05.lga> <Xns97013291640DEfollydom 207.115.17.102>
<7ckem19kc6p8hlauveqnhmr3j5egjfp7ot 4ax.com> <Xns97013EF13E444follydom
207.115.17.102> <e10fm1t8q1rq87ftgq2p7lhnga0r5le55o 4ax.com>
<Xns9701B2F457861follydom 207.115.17.102>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 94
X-Trace:
sv3-CuP+A378gpwxrNhKwrgvEp9PpPJQItqoA7wppK/2pKCqoCK+Fqvrztw+37NRcfMLc1E+dNFyyLSxQa2!4/B/1pCSzanE1HMsrxXBpPyw43dH2uCBkSrvha21OsLL5qxVX+UPN2sZcMOOfQZY8w==
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225823
sci.electronics.repair:427524 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448868

 

[BillW50]

Everything is fine until a company stifles competition. In fact,
Microsoft holds a monopoly on personal computer operating system
software.

John... you are such a liar! Linux itself is a personal computer OS
which is being used by millions.

Capitalists believe in competition. Microsoft has no
competition for Windows,

John you lie like the devil! Linux is hot on Microsoft's Windows
butt and is actually competing against Windows. OS/2 tried. but was
managed by IBM and was doomed from mismanagement.

mainly because of network effects and a
positive feedback loop. The only capitalists who adore Microsoft are
mainly those stockholders who have made a killing. Many capitalists
don't like Microsoft at all.

You are still lying your butt off John. There are tons of third
party companies making a killing off of Windows applications alone.
Ignoring the facts is just making you look foolish. Maybe you should
give up.


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

 

[John Doe]

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

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

Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems.

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

Are you a Libertarian?

I don't understand this statement.

Microsoft has a stranglehold on personal computer software.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should buy a Mac.

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

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

 

[John Doe]

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

What part don't you understand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I use them both, but not interchangeably.

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

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

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

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

 

[John Doe]

Your lack of quoting helps when playing semantics.

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:21:58 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:21:57 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <nm0hm1tdkm37k5b5q47kl21b3hu105aeu0 4ax.com>
References: <dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com> <lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com> <360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com> <Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102> <9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com> <Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102> <sc0fm19vvg3157d2quttib6vd6rnpo9fm6 4ax.com> <Xns9701AC2901266follydom 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: 93
X-Trace: sv3-k2rUl52vRPVIr6EJ82V3kGMa9EdTswXYCDeU2wpyiTeV6kqFtdMciz0pxRzilnlDOtt0wDLnPXJz6Zg!uignGJ6y/I35yd3UUiY7eJvezV9KwnWyIThMFuOxLvuEOJmkXq+3sQR1ApgcvZj+7Q==
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:225830 sci.electronics.repair:427530 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448874

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?

 

[Mxsmanic]

Everything is fine until a company stifles competition.

Nobody is stifling competition.

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

You've just contradicted your previous statement above.

 

[John Doe]

A troll defending another troll.

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:31:39 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:31:39 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <ke8im1d8oep83nl1rkstc8l7rqt7ue7mdt 4ax.com>
References: <360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com> <62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com> <Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102> <9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com> <Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102> <8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> <Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102> <8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com> <0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com> <Xns970284171FB60follydom 207.115.17.102>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
X-Trace: sv3-oWuBIE19ospxTSVmRZ1hwDGiuzoGLlLcF5YjnzprE3MYTRN89GoFUOsw9HJp3w/Leq2IeK+ybs8ZVWq!BSwgpGsRkpm63dyE5Yl3hjzV9nnf9O7+o3AVbIiw/MnyzL3ws909IfcBW6Rq+sG32A==
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:225867 sci.electronics.repair:427591 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448914

This troll is whining about Bill Gates bashing. But in fact, his
side entered the argument.

You're attempting to base your position on personal attacks and
personality conflicts. Others base their positions on arguments
relevant to the topic under discussion, with personalities being
ignored and personal attacks being nonexistent. What might this
imply?

 

[Mxsmanic]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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