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

[Jamie]

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:58:06 -0500



Nobody I've seen yet thanked you for recommending this fine program.
Well I for one am very grateful! Although I usually set my computers
clocks about 5 to 10 times per year because they were off about a
minute. But now this is one task I don't have to worry about anymore.
<grin>

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Hmm, D4 is an acronym for the once famous
"Delphi 4", now since never versions exist they
are in the order of D5,D6,D7 and now in the
D2005 and soon D2006.
maybe changing the name of the utility mite
help.

 

[BillW50]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:45:02 GMT

I suppose that's one way to look at the time that M$ spent sucking
money from IBM and using it for their own gains.

IBM paid Microsoft by the K-line. Which means by the lines of code they
produced. IBM got the lines and MS got paid. Anytime MS didn't produce
code for OS/2, MS didn't get paid. So how could MS get paid for their
own gains by IBM? That's impossible.

I think IBM had visions of stability that M$ will never attain, ever.


Yeah, morons. They only own the mainframe market even though
Honeywell made better hardware. IBM's only moronic move was to
allow M$ to screw them for a second time. The first time being with
MSDOS/IBMDOS games.

Who screwed whom again? IBM only paid MS $80,000 for everything
(including DOS, Basic, etc.). And IBM paid no royalties to Microsoft no
matter how many copies IBM sold.

Too bad that isn't true since they would have done the world a great
favor by crushing M$.

Actually Bill Gates did the world a favor by saving all of us from IBM.
As nobody else was willing to do it. Including Gary Kildall.

Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be
using something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad
Xerox didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the
best product for the office in 1980. Apple didn't have anything
that could come close for around 10 years. It took M$ almost
another 5 years on top of that to catch up.

Gates being greedy? Since IBM only paid Gates $80,000 for millions of
copies of DOS, Basic, Fortran, etc. So IBM *only* spent about a nickel
for all of the MS software per computer. So if anybody got ripped off,
it was Gates.

And since you mentioned Xerox, those foolish Xerox executives gave Steve
Jobs all of Xerox's GUI secrets for nothing! That is right, NOTHING!
Then Apple has the balls to turn around a sue Microsoft for stealing
Apple's GUI, when Apple had stolen it from Xerox in the first place.
Yup, Xerox could have had it all and they (bozos in management) didn't
even know it.

The only reason being that M$ delayed OS/2 was so that Win 3.0
could get the jump on it. If OS/2 would have shipped on time, it
would have possibly eliminated windows.

Yes probably this is true. Although MS still would have gotten third
parties to write applications for Windows instead of OS/2. Which did
happen anyway. And IBM had the balls to threaten third parties to
write applications for OS/2, but wasn't willing to pay them to do so.
Well I wouldn't listen to big bully IBM either.

It's not a surprise to me. I think it just goes to show that M$ had
no qualms about directly lifting the code that they originally
wrote for IBM using IBM's money and, AFAICT, IBM's design goals.
I'm not saying that was illegal back then, but it certainly
wouldn't happen in today's IP obsessed world without bringing about
major court battles.

Here was a true visionary: http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm

Yes I know all about Gary Kildall! I was a big supporter of his until he
killed off CP/M without any warning! Then Gary had become a big creep to
me and other developers. Later I learned he often screwed his other
customers left and right as well. SCP was one company that he burned
badly. Luckily it burned him in his ass, now didn't it?

And talk about being greedy, Gary almost invented the word. As you had
to pay him big bucks to make him do anything. And it wouldn't be to your
liking, but his. And while Gary Kildall and Bill Gates were playing
around with DEC computers. I was working on the VTAS computer which got
the US to the moon. So as far as I was concern, both were playing around
with kids' stuff at the time.

Now having said the above, I do admit that Gary was nothing less than
one great programmer without a doubt. Although everything had to be done
his way, or forget it. And that is why Gary did well without any
competitors, but failed once someone else was in the OS game.

Funny IBM also does well without competition, but also fails once
competition arrives. And oddly enough, Microsoft only gets better when
there are competitors. Otherwise they basically just sit on their butt
doing nothing.

You obviously really like M$ so there probably isn't much point in
continuing this until it becomes a real pissing contest. I run windos
on some machines because I basically have to. When I need something
that really works, I use Linux.

I actually use Windows because it does work. Linux has way too many
lacks and wants to keep me happy. And did you know that Linus Torvalds
also uses Windows? Yup he said so right in his own book.

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[BillW50]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:23:18 -0800

Ha., i would be careful making statements like that.
i cut out most of the original poster since you
were trying very hard to out smart him (publicly).
there are a couple of things you made an error on
which i won't get into.

I reread what I had posted and I see no errors I've made. So feel free
to disprove me if you wish. And yes, I am indeed human and I do make
mistakes. Most of them are do from moody, irrational female types.
Otherwise I do fairly well most of the time. <grin>

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[BillW50]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:12:37 -0800

excuse me, if memory serves IBM had MS write the first OS which i
think was for the 286 and thought that it would be alive for a long
time. then when 386 hit they tried to get MS to rewrite it for them
and thus ms quoted such a high price just to get them to go away
thus leading the way for MS to where they are now. mean while IBM
then took over the development to carry it on with their own
programmers. that is the way i remember it.

Yes. Did you feel I would disagree with your memory?

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:45:02 GMT


IBM paid Microsoft by the K-line. Which means by the lines of code they
produced. IBM got the lines and MS got paid. Anytime MS didn't produce
code for OS/2, MS didn't get paid. So how could MS get paid for their
own gains by IBM? That's impossible.

No, it's not impossible. M$ got paid by IBM to write code for IBM.
They also were able to use much of the same exact code in Windows.

Who screwed whom again? IBM only paid MS $80,000 for everything
(including DOS, Basic, etc.). And IBM paid no royalties to Microsoft no
matter how many copies IBM sold.

As far as I can remember, I've never heard that before so I need to see
a link to back that statement up. M$ had to pay $50,000 to Seattle
Computers just to buy the thing that they turned into DOS 1.0. How
could they have possibly done the whole job for $80,000 with no royalty
income? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that without some kind of proof.

Actually Bill Gates did the world a favor by saving all of us from IBM.
As nobody else was willing to do it. Including Gary Kildall.

IMO Kildall was 100 times the human being that B.G. could ever hope to
be. That's taking into consideration B.G.'s charity work.

Gates being greedy? Since IBM only paid Gates $80,000 for millions of
copies of DOS, Basic, Fortran, etc. So IBM *only* spent about a nickel
for all of the MS software per computer. So if anybody got ripped off,
it was Gates.

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got plenty
for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

And since you mentioned Xerox, those foolish Xerox executives gave Steve
Jobs all of Xerox's GUI secrets for nothing! That is right, NOTHING!
Then Apple has the balls to turn around a sue Microsoft for stealing
Apple's GUI, when Apple had stolen it from Xerox in the first place.
Yup, Xerox could have had it all and they (bozos in management) didn't
even know it.

They certainly had the right to intervene on the Apple vs. M$ battle for
"look and feel".

Yes probably this is true. Although MS still would have gotten third
parties to write applications for Windows instead of OS/2. Which did

Right, nothing like ludicrous binding legal agreements to crush free
trade and capitalism.

happen anyway. And IBM had the balls to threaten third parties to
write applications for OS/2, but wasn't willing to pay them to do so.
Well I wouldn't listen to big bully IBM either.

Who's the greedy bully now?

Yes I know all about Gary Kildall! I was a big supporter of his until he
killed off CP/M without any warning! Then Gary had become a big creep

to

And I thought DOS killed it with the "here have DOS free with your PC,
or send us money and we will send you CPM". Well that, 8" diskette
drive issue and the fact that CPM was limited to using 64K of RAM. I
could be wrong though.

me and other developers. Later I learned he often screwed his other
customers left and right as well. SCP was one company that he burned
badly. Luckily it burned him in his ass, now didn't it?

Given that you feel that way about the insignificant "damage" that
Kildall did, how can you be so bubbly when talking about M$ and their
"success"?

And talk about being greedy, Gary almost invented the word. As you had
to pay him big bucks to make him do anything. And it wouldn't be to

your

So what? He was good and he knew it. Are you saying that his efforts
weren't worth big bucks?

liking, but his. And while Gary Kildall and Bill Gates were playing
around with DEC computers. I was working on the VTAS computer which got
the US to the moon. So as far as I was concern, both were playing around
with kids' stuff at the time.

I didn't start getting paid for tinkering with computers until 1980.
Before then it was me and my COSMAC ELF and whatever else I could get my
hands on. When the PC came along, I was already into mainframes so I
really didn't pay the PC any mind until pretty much the end of the 80's.
Once I had a mainframe to control, I could hardly treat any micro
seriously.

BTW, I searched Google for VTAS computer and it seems that you are the
only person in the USENET archive that ever mentioned it. I also can't
find any links on the web either.

Now having said the above, I do admit that Gary was nothing less than
one great programmer without a doubt. Although everything had to be done
his way, or forget it. And that is why Gary did well without any
competitors, but failed once someone else was in the OS game.

That's the problem with genius, it usually doesn't come with greed and
"good business sense" attached.

Funny IBM also does well without competition, but also fails once
competition arrives. And oddly enough, Microsoft only gets better when

They seemed to do ok against Burroughs, Honeywell and the rest.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> Mxsmanic

IBM sounds a lot like Apple.

Of course we've all seen how this has worked for Apple... "Think
different (as long as it's how we tell you)"

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Anthony

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got plenty
for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

For each copy of MS-DOS, yes. They didn't get royalties for each copy
of IBM-DOS that IBM distributed.

Notice the different letters, "MS-DOS" and "IBM-DOS", that indicates
they're separate products, with separate licensing terms.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

In message <[email protected]> "Anthony


For each copy of MS-DOS, yes. They didn't get royalties for each copy
of IBM-DOS that IBM distributed.

Notice the different letters, "MS-DOS" and "IBM-DOS", that indicates
they're separate products, with separate licensing terms.

The sarcasm is unnecessary as I think I can tell the difference. IIRC
it was called PC-DOS and not IBM-DOS. At any rate, I don't care whether
they got royalties or not, I just want to see some proof that IBM only
paid them $80,000 for the whole shebang.

 

[w_tom]

...
Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be using
something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad Xerox
didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the best product
for the office in 1980. ...

Xerox had superb computer products in the 1970s. Yes -
they even had the precursor to Apple's MAC workings and
marketable in the 1970s. I worked with some 1970s products
that were even multiple workstations connected to a small box
- the disk server. When did you start using PCs with
servers? The problem, again, must be broken down to citing
top management. Hack Crowley, a Xerox vice president noted
the problem:

Xerox was spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on
research, development, and engineering. Yet there was no one,
literally, in top management who had ever run a product
development program, who could say to the engineers that such
and such should cost less or should be doable faster, and who
would know from their personal experience, that they were right.
If Xerox had one single management weakness, it was that none of
the power players from Peter [the president] on down, and that
includes me, had a technical background or the technical support
to permit them to challenge hard the judgements of the
engineering group.

Why was Microsoft constantly riding the bull? IBM
management were so business school trained - to
anti-innovative - at to even have only IBM XTs with CGA
monitors - 1984 technology - on early 1990 desks. How, pray
tell, how could MS ever promote innovation when IBM was that
anti-innovative. By definition, IBM was that anti-American.
This is why IBM kept pushing OS/2 - and even wrote it in
assembly language. How to made an OS and simply complex as
OS/2 unreliable? Do it all in assembly language. But then
IBM had no way of knowing how anti-innovative its top
management was. These people did not even come from where the
work gets done. They got promoted using business school
concepts - which routinely result in disasters even as serious
as 3 Mile Island, the Challenger, and just recently the
NorthEast blackout.

This is what Ballmer (of Microsoft) meant when he talks
about riding the bull. If it was innovative, then late 1980s
and early 1990s IBM would fight it all the way until it was
dead. OS/2 is a trophy of business school management in IBM.
Xerox also lost the computer and copier business for same
business school reasons. "A good manager can manage any
business". Only in myths and communism.

 

[BillW50]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:27:01 -0800

Hmm, D4 is an acronym for the once famous
"Delphi 4", now since never versions exist they
are in the order of D5,D6,D7 and now in the
D2005 and soon D2006.
maybe changing the name of the utility mite
help.

Hmm... you mean Delphi as in visual programming? Gee I thought
DBLEXPOSURE was referring to D4 as in Dimension 4 by Rob Chambers
(www.thinkingman.com). Was I mistaken?

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

 

[w_tom]

Appreciate why the IBM PC had a successful marketing plan
AND why IBM corporate philosphy repeatedly attacked and
undermined that game plan. The Estridge plan was superb. For
example, Estridge would have sold IBM PCs with a solution to
the kludge "Real / Protected mode" problem found in Intel's
80286s. It would have kept the clones in a game of catchup.
He adocated innovation to stay ahead of any competition. But
when the corporate MBAs discovered a kludge solution around
that "Real / Protected mode" problem using the keyboard's
single chip computer (yes, the keyboard was a complete and
separate computer), then IBM again lost oppurtunity to
dominate the PC market. Those with basic computer hardware
knowledge understand this completely.

Estridge's game plan also included clones. A successful and
dominant player in any industry wants clone competitors.
Clones are essential to a productive #1 in any industry. But
bean counters in IBM corporate management promoted Cannavino
to run the PC Entry Division. Cannavino did everything to
stifle clones - and therefore also stifled all innovation in
IBM's personal computer division.

As BillW50 accurately notes, IBM created the obsolete
technology OS/2 using Cannavino's MBA school philosophy of
"what is good for IBM is good for all computer users". This
is not even debateable because it is so obvious and so well
documented in history - including a PBS report.

What so many never learned is why IBM's personal computer
business model changed. Someone with dirt under his finger
nails was replaced by someone who ran business as taught in
the business schools. A devil is named Cannavino - who was as
satanic as his boss John Akers.

The Estridge business model became a precursor to how free
market, innovative, and therefore patriotic American
industries operate today. But when top management does not
even know how to use a comptuer and is trained in business
school philosophies, then we have a classic example of the man
most responsible for IBM's loss in the personal computer
industry. Jim Cannavino - a man who routinely stifled
innovation promoted a mythical belief that profits were more
important.

Let's not lose sight of why this discussion has gotten
here. Someone without sufficient knowledge declared that
application software and a weak OS structure could cause a
CMOS date time clock to lose time. Obviously not. Someone
has represented 1990 IBM as a decent, respectable, and
innnovative company. Obviously not. OS/2 is a symptom of how
bad IBM had become.

 

[BillW50]

No, it's not impossible. M$ got paid by IBM to write code for IBM.
They also were able to use much of the same exact code in Windows.

Well okay, you have me there.

As far as I can remember, I've never heard that before so I need to see
a link to back that statement up. M$ had to pay $50,000 to Seattle
Computers just to buy the thing that they turned into DOS 1.0. How
could they have possibly done the whole job for $80,000 with no royalty
income? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that without some kind of proof.

Bob Cringely produced "Triumph of the Nerds" for PBS back in '96. It
was truly a great documentary. Cast of characters included were:

Robert X. Cringely...Himself (host/interviewer)
Douglas Adams...Himself (author)
Sam Albert...Himself (former IBM executive)
Paul Allen...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft)
Bill Atkinson...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team)
Steve Ballmer...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft)
Dan Bricklin...Himself (VisiCalc inventor)
David Bunnell...Himself (founder, PC World and Macworld magazines)
Rod Canion...Himself (co-founder, Compaq)
Jim Cannavino...Himself (former head, PC division, IBM)
Christine Comaford...Herself (CEO, Corporate Computing International)
Eddy Curry...Himself
Esther Dyson...Herself (computer industry analyst)
Larry Ellison...Himself (founder and president, Oracle)
Chris Espinosa...Himself (manager, Media Tools, Apple)
Gordon Eubanks...Himself (former head of language research, Digital Research)
Lee Felsenstein...Himself
Bob Frankston...Himself (VisiCalc programmer)
Bill Gates...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft)
Adele Goldberg...Herself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, PARC Place Systems)
Marv Goldschmitt...Himself
Andy Hertzfeld...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team)
Steve Jobs...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)
Gary Kildall...Himself (founder, Digital Research)
Joe Krause...Himself (president, Architext Software)
Bill Lowe...Himself (Head, IBM PC Development Team 1980)
Roger Melen...Himself
Bob Metcalfe...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, 3Com)
Gordon Moore...Himself (co-founder, Intel)
Dana Muise...Himself (founder, Hypnovista)
Doug Muise...Himself (software designer)
Bill Murto...Himself (co-founder, Compaq)
Tim Patterson...Himself (programmer)
Vern Raburn...Himself (former vice-president, Microsoft; president, The Paul Allen Group)
Jeff Raikes...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft)
Jean Richardson...Herself (former VP, corporate communications, Microsoft)
Ed Roberts...Himself (founder, MITS)
Arthur Rock...Himself (venture capitalist)
Jack Sams...Himself (former IBM executive)
John Sculley...Himself (president, Apple Computer, 1983-1993)
Rich Seidner...Himself (former IBM programmer)
Charles Simonyi...Himself (chief programmer, Microsoft)
Sparky Sparks...Himself (former IBM executive)
Claude Stern...Himself (Silicon Valley attorney)
Bob Taylor...Himself (former head of computer science lab, Xerox PARC)
Larry Tesler...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; chief
scientist, Apple Computer)
Mark Van Haren...Himself (programmer, Architext Software)
John Warnock...Himself
Jim Warren...Himself (founder, West Coast Computer Faire 1978)
Steve Wozniak...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)

You can find the transcript at: http://www.pbs.org/nerds/

The quote of $80,000 is in Part 2:

Bill Gates: "The key to our...the structure of our deal was
that IBM had no control over...over our licensing to other
people. In a lesson on the computer industry in mainframes was
that er, over time, people built compatible machines or clones,
whatever term you want to use, and so really, the primary
upside on the deal we had with IBM, because they had a fixed
fee er, we got about $80,000 - we got some other money for some
special work we did er, but no royalty from them. And that's
the DOS and Basic as well. And so we were hoping a lot of other
people would come along and do compatible machines. We were
expecting that that would happen because we knew Intel wanted
to vend the chip to a lot more than just than just IBM and so
it was great when people did start showing up and ehm having an
interest in the licence."

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html

IMO Kildall was 100 times the human being that B.G. could ever hope to
be. That's taking into consideration B.G.'s charity work.

Well I don't know if I would say that about pot head Kildall?
Getting into bar room fights and all.

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got plenty
for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

Yes MS did make money from the clone market. But there was no clone
market when Gates and IBM made the deal.

They certainly had the right to intervene on the Apple vs. M$ battle for
"look and feel".

That battle cost both Apple and MS lots of money and nobody won. And
then Apple needed money and MS bailed them out. Go figure.

Right, nothing like ludicrous binding legal agreements to crush free
trade and capitalism.

Yeah well nobody put a gun to their heads to sign any agreements
either. And companies do this all of the time and I don't like these
agreements either. For example Coke gets stores, restaurants, etc. to
sell only their brand. So you can't throw stones at just Microsoft.

Who's the greedy bully now?

And I thought DOS killed it with the "here have DOS free with your PC,
or send us money and we will send you CPM". Well that, 8" diskette
drive issue and the fact that CPM was limited to using 64K of RAM. I
could be wrong though.

No you got it close enough. But lots of folks just purchased and
supported CP/M. But one day Gary said we are not doing CP/M anymore
because we lost interest. That wasn't right! Take their money and
then refuse support. I'm sure that was totally illegal.

Given that you feel that way about the insignificant "damage" that
Kildall did, how can you be so bubbly when talking about M$ and their
"success"?

Because when I added it all up and all the other companies who had
taken my money and then dropped support. Microsoft turned out to be
the cheapest bang for the buck. And it still is true today IMHO.

So what? He was good and he knew it. Are you saying that his efforts
weren't worth big bucks?

No... not really. But what I'm saying that Microsoft was cheaper. So
you can't ask for big bucks with competition.

I didn't start getting paid for tinkering with computers until 1980.
Before then it was me and my COSMAC ELF and whatever else I could get my
hands on. When the PC came along, I was already into mainframes so I
really didn't pay the PC any mind until pretty much the end of the 80's.
Once I had a mainframe to control, I could hardly treat any micro
seriously.

Well I was building my own PCs from scratch as a side hobby (as
being an EE). Although I never thought about selling the damn
things. But when others were mass producing them, I started buying
them instead of building my own.

BTW, I searched Google for VTAS computer and it seems that you are the
only person in the USENET archive that ever mentioned it. I also can't
find any links on the web either.

Well I know there was virtually nothing about it on the net. So I
had taken a peek and I found this (forgive the long and broken link
you will have to piece together).

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/
thread/c80a6dfb833506f0/7f48902fead1d2fa?lnk=st&q=VTAS+computer&rnum
=30&hl=en#7f48902fead1d2fa

Yes the VTAS computer was so great, they used it for military
purposes too like in the F4.

That's the problem with genius, it usually doesn't come with greed and
"good business sense" attached.

You're right there.

They seemed to do ok against Burroughs, Honeywell and the rest.

Isn't that like saying Apple does okay against the IBM clones?


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

 

[[email protected]]

Let's not lose sight of why this discussion has gotten
here. Someone without sufficient knowledge declared that
application software and a weak OS structure could cause a
CMOS date time clock to lose time. Obviously not. Someone
has represented 1990 IBM as a decent, respectable, and
innnovative company. Obviously not. OS/2 is a symptom of how
bad IBM had become.

Proof that the biggest dick isn't in my pants. Read the frigging posts
and quit being a jackass. If you really knew anyting about PC operating
systems, you would know that the RTC on the motherboard is ONLY used
upon a reboot, and that the OS does its OWN timekeeping. Punks like
you, who just got a PC like two years ago, think that Windows reads the
MB clock on every time slice, which only shows that all you are is a
troll, with no knowledge of how things work.

A whole generation gave pukes like you computers and technology that
your kind could never reproduce, and you don't even take the time to
understand it.

Let's not loose track of that fact that windows, being unable to do
REAL prememptive multitasking, is also incapable of keeping accurate
time, for that very reason. Try not to listen when cornheads make dopey
statements like "write a tight running program, and if you can switch
to another one while it is running, then it is pre-emptively
multitasking" for surely, stupider words were never spoken on Usenet,
and that is saying a whole lot.

Only morons make statements about OS/2 when they can barely spell it,
have never used it, and would not know a quality piece of software if
they fell over it. It takes a real windows loving douche bag to
proclaim OS/2 as technically inferior, and ever stupider people to not
know that NT was originally OS/2.

What it takes tho, is reading, and research, instead of Public
(government) TV as the means for the information.

Here are your replies, even before you write them:

"Listen shithead, I have been involved with computers for over forty
years, and was on the internet before it was the internet. I was there
when Gates cut his own umbilical cord and started typing on a keyboard
before he was even toilet trained. I worked for IBM when they screwed
up OS/2 because everyone knows that IBM was the stupidest, lamest,
worst company in the history of the world....." and on and on with the
same stupid, lame, moronic comments about how you are the most skilled
person in usenet.

Usenet sucks, and so do the people who seem to need it in order to find
any kind of self esteem and purpose in their lives. Try going outside,
and doing something useful with life, instead of just being a ding dong
all day with a keyboard. Sex can help, but not just with yourself.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:10:17 GMT


Well okay, you have me there.
proof.

Bob Cringely produced "Triumph of the Nerds" for PBS back in '96. It
was truly a great documentary. Cast of characters included were:

I saw this once, I wish I had it recorded.

Robert X. Cringely...Himself (host/interviewer)
Douglas Adams...Himself (author)
Sam Albert...Himself (former IBM executive)
Paul Allen...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft)
Bill Atkinson...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team)
Steve Ballmer...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft)
Dan Bricklin...Himself (VisiCalc inventor)
David Bunnell...Himself (founder, PC World and Macworld magazines)
Rod Canion...Himself (co-founder, Compaq)
Jim Cannavino...Himself (former head, PC division, IBM)
Christine Comaford...Herself (CEO, Corporate Computing International)
Eddy Curry...Himself
Esther Dyson...Herself (computer industry analyst)
Larry Ellison...Himself (founder and president, Oracle)
Chris Espinosa...Himself (manager, Media Tools, Apple)
Gordon Eubanks...Himself (former head of language research, Digital Research)
Lee Felsenstein...Himself
Bob Frankston...Himself (VisiCalc programmer)
Bill Gates...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft)
Adele Goldberg...Herself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, PARC Place Systems)
Marv Goldschmitt...Himself
Andy Hertzfeld...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team)
Steve Jobs...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)
Gary Kildall...Himself (founder, Digital Research)
Joe Krause...Himself (president, Architext Software)
Bill Lowe...Himself (Head, IBM PC Development Team 1980)
Roger Melen...Himself
Bob Metcalfe...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, 3Com)
Gordon Moore...Himself (co-founder, Intel)
Dana Muise...Himself (founder, Hypnovista)
Doug Muise...Himself (software designer)
Bill Murto...Himself (co-founder, Compaq)
Tim Patterson...Himself (programmer)
Vern Raburn...Himself (former vice-president, Microsoft; president, The Paul Allen Group)
Jeff Raikes...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft)
Jean Richardson...Herself (former VP, corporate communications, Microsoft)
Ed Roberts...Himself (founder, MITS)
Arthur Rock...Himself (venture capitalist)
Jack Sams...Himself (former IBM executive)
John Sculley...Himself (president, Apple Computer, 1983-1993)
Rich Seidner...Himself (former IBM programmer)
Charles Simonyi...Himself (chief programmer, Microsoft)
Sparky Sparks...Himself (former IBM executive)
Claude Stern...Himself (Silicon Valley attorney)
Bob Taylor...Himself (former head of computer science lab, Xerox PARC)
Larry Tesler...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; chief
scientist, Apple Computer)
Mark Van Haren...Himself (programmer, Architext Software)
John Warnock...Himself
Jim Warren...Himself (founder, West Coast Computer Faire 1978)
Steve Wozniak...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)

You can find the transcript at: http://www.pbs.org/nerds/

The quote of $80,000 is in Part 2:

Bill Gates: "The key to our...the structure of our deal was
that IBM had no control over...over our licensing to other
people. In a lesson on the computer industry in mainframes was
that er, over time, people built compatible machines or clones,
whatever term you want to use, and so really, the primary
upside on the deal we had with IBM, because they had a fixed
fee er, we got about $80,000 - we got some other money for some
special work we did er, but no royalty from them. And that's
the DOS and Basic as well. And so we were hoping a lot of other
people would come along and do compatible machines. We were
expecting that that would happen because we knew Intel wanted
to vend the chip to a lot more than just than just IBM and so
it was great when people did start showing up and ehm having an
interest in the licence."

I can't help but think of "the incredible liar" from Saturday Night Live
fame. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;-) $80,000 still seems a bit low to
me as they would have had more than that invested themselves. But I
will concede that you actually did back up your statement, even though I
don't believe Bill for a minute. ;-) I certainly will never believe
that DOS 2 and DOS 3 were included in that $80K.

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html


Well I don't know if I would say that about pot head Kildall?

Oh come on now, are you suggesting that those geeky kids, flying a jolly
roger over their corporate headquarters weren't toking it up a bit, are
you?

Getting into bar room fights and all.

I don't recall seeing his mugshot anywhere. Sure can't say the same for
B.G. though, huh? ;-) No nasty anti-trust suits either.

Yes MS did make money from the clone market. But there was no clone
market when Gates and IBM made the deal.

M$ was so late with DOS 1.0 that the clone market was probably already
booming in Korea. Remeber those days? The Peach computer?(an
apparently perfect Apple II clone) If it hadn't been for Compaq and The
Compatible, the clone market wouldn't have done so well so quickly.

That battle cost both Apple and MS lots of money and nobody won. And

Sure we all won. Look and feel is freely copyable, it's the only piece
of sanity left in the trademark/copyright/patent/ip scandal that's
taking place these days.

then Apple needed money and MS bailed them out. Go figure.


Yeah well nobody put a gun to their heads to sign any agreements
either. And companies do this all of the time and I don't like these
agreements either. For example Coke gets stores, restaurants, etc. to
sell only their brand. So you can't throw stones at just Microsoft.

Except that to survive as an OEM you need to not piss of M$, it's that
simple. Even after the courts ruled that OEMs couldn't force you to buy
an OS with hardware, many of the smaller OEMs continued to do it out of
fear of retribution.

I don't know? Redhat? <grin>

I'll give you that. ;-) I do the Gentoo thing myself. I guess I've
been tinkering with Linux for a little over ten years now, wow time sure
flys when you're having fun. My favorite computer toys are
microcontrollers though.

No you got it close enough. But lots of folks just purchased and
supported CP/M. But one day Gary said we are not doing CP/M anymore
because we lost interest. That wasn't right! Take their money and
then refuse support. I'm sure that was totally illegal.

Illegal? It seems to work well for M$ and most other vendors out there
today. Read your EULA, software is never guaranteed to be fit for "any
particular purpose". ;-D

Because when I added it all up and all the other companies who had
taken my money and then dropped support. Microsoft turned out to be
the cheapest bang for the buck. And it still is true today IMHO.

But the extent of "support" is to provide some security fixes, but not
too many bug fixes. You have to upgrade for that. How about all those
poor people that bought 3.0 and then had to turn around and pay for 3.1?
Or the really unfortunate people that bought ME?

No... not really. But what I'm saying that Microsoft was cheaper. So
you can't ask for big bucks with competition.

Well it certainly proves the old adage about getting what you pay for.

Well I was building my own PCs from scratch as a side hobby (as
being an EE). Although I never thought about selling the damn
things. But when others were mass producing them, I started buying
them instead of building my own.

I was too young and poor to play with the 8080 stuff. Stuff like my ELF
was all I could afford to build back then. I could only dream about
building an Altair or an Imsai.

Well I know there was virtually nothing about it on the net. So I
had taken a peek and I found this (forgive the long and broken link
you will have to piece together).

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/
thread/c80a6dfb833506f0/7f48902fead1d2fa?lnk=st&q=VTAS+computer&rnum
=30&hl=en#7f48902fead1d2fa

Yes the VTAS computer was so great, they used it for military
purposes too like in the F4.

Ah the infamous mud shark, proof that with a big enough engine, even a
brick can fly. ;-)

You're right there.

Kildall needed a cut throat business man to be really successful. Gates
and Allen, Jobs and Wozniak, it's how it works. Interestingly enough,
it's not who has the best techy stuff that wins. It's he who can tell
the biggest lies, cut the most throats and stab more backs that usually
comes out on top.

Isn't that like saying Apple does okay against the IBM clones?

IBM completely killed of Honeywell and Burroughs with good marketing
skills, not better hardware. The competition lay in salesmanship and
brainwashing, not making better stuff or even trying to be cost
competitive.

 

[w_tom]

I was using, repairing, and designing for computers when a
small HP computer weighed about 300 pounds. You did not even
respond accurately to what I had posted. Since you are
insulting, then we know you haven't facts nor confidence in
your claims. Meanwhile ?which? windows is not a preemptive
multitasking operating system? Again you post as if all
Windows were same. But then the child would not have
sufficient knowledge to know that - just as the child also
resorts to insults.

Windows NT was designed and is a preemptive multitasking
operating system. There is no way around that reality.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Anthony

I can't help but think of "the incredible liar" from Saturday Night Live
fame. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;-) $80,000 still seems a bit low to
me as they would have had more than that invested themselves. But I
will concede that you actually did back up your statement, even though I
don't believe Bill for a minute. ;-) I certainly will never believe
that DOS 2 and DOS 3 were included in that $80K.

I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus
Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs
of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

 

[David Maynard]

In message <[email protected]> "Anthony



I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus
Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs
of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

No, "in other words" Microsoft had the insight to retain distribution
rights on non-IBM products and IBM didn't mind one whit because they didn't
take the PC market seriously to begin with. Besides, it was a 'steal' at
$80,000 and who gives a dam about 'clones'?

Microsoft has the same kind of arrangement with Apple and they didn't care
either because both Apple and IBM figured on a 'system' sales model of
hardware and software. IBM expected their 'business machines' reputation to
swamp all other considerations and Apple depended on closed hardware.

On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software
that ran on any clone.

In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run
Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that is
not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.', because
you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word (and
the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that
sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.

 

[Jamie]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:23:18 -0800




I reread what I had posted and I see no errors I've made. So feel free
to disprove me if you wish. And yes, I am indeed human and I do make
mistakes. Most of them are do from moody, irrational female types.
Otherwise I do fairly well most of the time. <grin>

Hmm, i hope that last female remark wasn't intended to
be directed this way? because the last time i looked i
wasn't missing anything from my manly hood!
and to pic a little at OS/2, the only thing it did well
was operate the floppy drives while writing data to them
with out generating random sectors now and then that has
blank data in the stream.
for what ever reason, i still see this taking place in
windows. still need to use the CMD line version with a
write /V to make sure it goes there.
even linux doesn't have this problem on top of it
writing a floppy disc many times faster.

 

[Mxsmanic]

I think the key is that it wasn't JUST $80K... It was $80K, plus
Microsoft got unlimited distribution rights of their own.

In other words, Microsoft got somebody else to pay the development costs
of a product that Microsoft was now selling.

Just like Intel--their first microprocessor was developed for a
calculator, but the calculator company (Busicom) decided to drop it
and signed over all rights to Intel. And if these things had not
happened, we might not have microprocessors or PC operating systems or
even PCs today. So be glad.

 

[Mxsmanic]

On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software
that ran on any clone.

A wise decision. Build an essential component, then encourage the
market to do the rest. If Apple had adopted the same philosophy,
there might be 50% Macs and 50% PCs today, instead of 4% Macs and 96%
PCs.

In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run
Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that is
not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.', because
you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word (and
the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that
sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.

Yes. A simple difference but one that earns billions.