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

[Mxsmanic]

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

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

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

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

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

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

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

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

 

[Peter]

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.

 

[Gary H]

your a well rounded bigot aren't you?

Bigot?? You never learned to read *and* understand at the same
time, is that correct??

 

[JAD]

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

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

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

 

[Gary H]

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

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

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

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

 

[David Maynard]

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

Your previous post proves otherwise.

Not if you pay close attention.

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

It happens all the time in a free market.

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

To someone who believes in a rule-based society.

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

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

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

You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.

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

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

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

 

[Gary H]

Your previous post proves otherwise.



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



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



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

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



You clearly haven't a clue.



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



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



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

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



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



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

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

 

[John Doe]

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

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

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

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

unless he indicates his level in some way.

I thought that's how you knew.

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

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

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

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


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:32:09 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:32:09 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <qdgrp1ta36mr1prs6lgmqfmc12pmf0g94a 4ax.com>
References: <ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net> <4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net> <YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com> <c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com> <FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pofogljj3u3f2 corp.supernews.com> <%EXmf.400$PQ3.28531 news20.bellglobal.com> <jvnop1hrgmehjkin684rcrl7lr99eor362 4ax.com> <Xns972A10479A25Cfollydom 207.115.17.102>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
X-Trace: sv3-Luey5wfuBJ76wTOK6Uzb2ylrgCDZeBmCv3iA5TpqKzoyiOjG7oJJe/+ocvdLmj2H7JWnO1eVeWUPWV6!le90vMvU/q4hh7gWSwWfzkNKKbbod2+gQus38ausTCaB9B/xwvXEgySS/m6VXa1hsyXQX/c=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229803 sci.electronics.repair:432881 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452523

 

[John Doe]

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

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

 

[John Doe]

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

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

That's true IMO.

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

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

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

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

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


Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:36:36 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:36:36 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com>
References: <ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net> <4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net> <YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com> <c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com> <FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com> <psnop159npj8vrqanalegtfacrna5dapb1 4ax.com> <QZgnf.481$El.105846 news20.bellglobal.com> <VDhnf.26032$a15.18063 newsfe5-win.ntli.net> <Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
X-Trace: sv3-VXB23SbuUBHR4ZM1Vy+GRN7eBbQjOzz8hjeXzUKGA0PRcgdulO6wPVxl70toi4rDbIi2SCalL+qxTZN!rmhPg72xSDyyCq7JGTTDBDmc3GVKxsF4QZ9n5JoPqwJqrctBKQiTzoj4rFpyEG72H83Jj9M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:229806 sci.electronics.repair:432885 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452525

 

[John Doe]

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.

 

[David Maynard]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]

Gary H wrote:



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



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



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

much of version 1 of dos was purchased from someone else, not developed at
microsoft.

Yep. QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), by Seattle Computer Products
(SCP), marketed as 86-DOS. It was a CP/M 'clone', except 16 bit of course,
and SCP developed it because Digital Research didn't seem interested enough
in an 8086 version of CPM, at least not soon enough for SCP's 8086 computer
kit. DR seemed to think that 8 bit processors were just fine and they were
satisfied with CP/M sales.

QDOS's 'innovation' was the FAT file system.

Microsoft's fist PC-DOS was essentially 86-DOS, heavily reworked to pass
IBM testing (supposedly over 300 bugs fixed), but PC-DOS 2.0 was almost a
complete rewrite.

So if one wants to argue about who stole what from who you'd have to point
the finger at SCP as Microsoft simply licensed, then purchased outright, an
existing product and I don't know how anyone can call that 'stealing'.

IBM's PC was designed fully expecting to use a not yet in existence 16 bit
version of CPM but, somehow (plenty of rumors), DR royally pissed them off
so IBM turned to MS and the rest is history.

while not binary compatible with 8080-based CP/M it did have a
similar functional structure.

Of course it did. That was the technology of the time.

and was probably atleast partially compatible
with CP/M-86 an 8086 version of CP/M that never really took off.

First version of MS-DOS (86-DOS) might have been call compatible (I don't
know) but they were independently developed, one by SCP and the other by
DR, and CP/M-86 came after QDOS. Ironically, software developers claimed it
was easier to port 8 bit CP/M software to PC-DOS than to CP/M-86.

CP/M-86 would run on an IBM PC, and IBM offered it as an option (first PCs
didn't come with anything, software was 'optional'), but DR wanted $495 a
copy while PC-DOS was going for $39.95. Which would you get?

 

[David Maynard]

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.

Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

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.

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. That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.

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

<snip of paranoia>

 

[Gary H]

Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.

And you got this little tid-bit where? "Psychology are Us".
You are sooo good at pulling bullshit out of the air and passing
it off as valid material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion
without verification and you sound so sure of it. You have no
idea who I am, what I do why I'm here, damn, you know nothing
about me yet, you are able to label me a "conspiracy buff" and a
"paranoid". How about letting me in on what my life will be
like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you want to
take a crack at it.

I got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind
of impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the
one you just horked up.

 

[Gary H]

David Maynard wrote:

<snip of stupidity>

So there.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

That averages out to well balanced.

 

[John Doe]

ROTFL

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

Not by me. You always defend Microsoft.

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

Are you saying you are just a troll?