Linux-Advocacy Digest #989, Volume #26 Fri, 9 Jun 00 06:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Alan Baker)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Norman Levin)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451705 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Mike Stephen)
Re: Window managers (Terry Porter)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:11:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8hp38b$r88$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nonsens.. we have gone trough this before. Man pages do offer hyperlinks
>when used with both the GNOME and KDE help browsers - possibly other
>interfaces but im not aware of that. The big difference is that its not
>HTML based - and thats it.
I was thinking of command line man, not the Gnome/KDE man pages.
>Besides i would anytime prefer man pages since the detail in them is way
>ahead of the detail available in the Windows help system - where the
>Windows helpsystem just touches the subjects man pages go in real deep.
>This way they get complex- proven by your own experience by not reading
>the documentation and not being able to find the right man page in the
>sambamnt issue.
The detail on one man page has gone backwards - man tar used to have a lot
more information, now it is just a reference.
>How someone using a computersystem professionaly prefers the Windows
>helpsystem is beyond me!
It's simple. I prefer a hyperlinked system. Besides which most software you
don't normally need to refer to the documentation as the GUI makes it
obvious what to do. I can't say that so easily about KDE/Gnome.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 00:14:40 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nohow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:28:32 -0400, Jack Troughton
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 3900 15:57:32, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 06/05/2000 at 07:58 PM,
>>> > Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> >
>>> > > > > Most historians agree that in the end, the Canadians were the
>>> > > > > victors.
>>> > > >
>[snip]
>>> As for the orbit of the first man, no... Canadians were not
>>> involved.... That was entirely a Russian endeavour. However if
>>> you care to look up who ran the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo
>>> projects, you will find it was run by many Canadians. If you
>>> ever get to talk to an actual NASA employee of those years, they
>>> will fondly refer to the "Canucks" that ran the show.
>>
>>Dunno about that... probably refugees from the Avro Arrow program.
>>Dief was an idiot; I personally know three people of that generation
>>that dumped the conservative party because of Diefenbaker's decision
>>to scrap the Arrow program.
>>
>>http://www.totavia.com/arrow/
>>
>>The Avro Arrow was well and truly ahead of its time... like warp,
>>you could say:)
>>
>
>It's the classic case of building an great product without knowing
>what the market wants. In this case there was little or no demand for
>high altitude, long range interceptors
Bullshit. The McDonnell-Douglas Phantom II was first flown in the same
year as the Arrow. It had a range of 1,750 miles and a service ceiling
of nearly 60,000 feet. Only it didn't have near the thrust to weight
ratio, which for the Arrow was around unity and among the first aircraft
to achieve it.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:19:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Win 2k installed so easily while Linux is asking me questions about
>>Monitor refresh rates and giving me a list of 1985 variety printers to
>>choose from.
>
> ...such misrepresentations don't tend to make your other
> assertions any more reliable.
xf86config does ask you all these questions if you run it. Not all distros
come with configuration tools to help you avoid running xf86config -
Slackware certainly doesn't.
Linux Mandrake 7.0 printer configuration does show a list of printers, and
its not terribly obvious which one to use; I tried Epson Stylus 600
wondering if that was a generic 6xx printer, then I tried the lowest
printer listed and that one worked.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:23:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (kosh) wrote in <8hmrba$3ub$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Creative is working on a product called openal with lokisoft. It is
>similar to opengl but for 3d sound. Liveware for linux was delayed to
>work on this and use this feature to implement liveware on linux. They
>are making a complete 3d sound infrastructure for linux. All sound card
>makers can use it also since it is completely open. I much prefer this
>method to liveware. It helps everyone. It allows us to program to a simple
>3d sound api and let the sound card worry about the rest. If they just did
>liveware and didn't make a simple open api every game on linux needing 3d
>sound would need to take account for every card.
Another example of how Linux lags behind Windows: 3D sound.
OpenAL offers EAX (Environmental Audio Extensions: reverb) etc.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:50:17 -0500
From: Norman Levin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
I think the new OS/X is supposed to have a version for intel processors.
However, if you want to try another interesting system, check out www.beos.com
System even comes with a nice multibooting loader that can be used instead of lilo.
Jeepster wrote:
>
> phoenix wrote:
>
> > Default wrote:
> > >
> > > Having just gotten through reading over 7,000 Linux posts in one sitting,
> > > I *still* fail to see the advantages of Linux over Apple's forthcoming OS
> > > 'X'.
> > >
> > > Okay, Steve is still an Assh**e, and Apple Inc., leaves much to be
> > > desired. And Apple's present operating system stinks compared to what it
> > > replaced (8.6 vs. 9.04). Sort of like Windows 95 vs. 98/2000.
> > >
> > > And yes, there's PPCLinux for the PowerPC processor (a.k.a. Mac) -- but why???
> > >
> > > I fail to see why anyone, other those that want to make a living via
> > > Linux, would want to be involved in Linux?
> > >
> > > Disregarding the monetary aspects of this issue, why do those here feel
> > > that Linux is better than the other operating systems, and more
> > > importantly, why do you feel it will succeed when Apple finally releases
> > > 'X'? {And I'm no great fan of Chuckle's forthcoming 'X' either.}
> > >
> > > Look, I'm *not* trying to start a flame here. I'm merely asking this in
> > > light of everything that I've read here about Linux and all its various
> > > problems with drivers, fonts, utilities, kernal changes, video cards,
> > > mice, etc., etc., etc., and how "forgiving" Windows and the other
> > > operating systems are with these items.
> > >
> > > Care to enlighten me and everyone else who reads this post?
> > > I wanted the simplest computer possible -- one that wouldn't break down.
> > > I now have a pen and lots of writing paper.
> > >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've used MacOS before (and still do - my Churches computer runs
>on
> > MacOS ) I find it to be very much less powerful than Linux. Besides
> > which , MacOS is ALL
> > GRAPHIC, which is okak, if you like graphics. HOwever, with MacOS you
> > have just one type
> > of desktop. Linux gives you a choice. You can use Fvwm, Fvwm2,
> > Fvwm95, ICEwm, BlackBox,
> > Sawmill, etc....
> > With MacOS, you have no way of entering commands to the system,
> > outside
> > of using your one-button mouse and clicking the icons. With Linux,
> > commands can be entered
> > in XTerm or with 2 or 3 buttons on a mouse.
> >
> > X Windows is still a better product !
>
> Here here
>
> I totally agree, in fact you can alter almost every aspect of your system to suit
>your
> mood or job/work/task needs..... a work of art is Linux.
>
> Jeepster
>
> --
> SYSTEM: Linux 2.2.14 Workstation,128MB Ram,
> 20 gig HD and Netscape 4.7 / StarOffice 5.1a
--
Norman Levin
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451705
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:45:03 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> Where are you going?
Where were you coming from?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stephen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:06:45 GMT
On Thu, 1 Jan 1970 01:59:59, Alan Baker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nohow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:28:32 -0400, Jack Troughton
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Mike Stephen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 7 Jun 3900 15:57:32, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 06/05/2000 at 07:58 PM,
> >>> > Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>> >
> >>> > > > > Most historians agree that in the end, the Canadians were the
> >>> > > > > victors.
> >>> > > >
> >[snip]
> >>> As for the orbit of the first man, no... Canadians were not
> >>> involved.... That was entirely a Russian endeavour. However if
> >>> you care to look up who ran the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo
> >>> projects, you will find it was run by many Canadians. If you
> >>> ever get to talk to an actual NASA employee of those years, they
> >>> will fondly refer to the "Canucks" that ran the show.
> >>
> >>Dunno about that... probably refugees from the Avro Arrow program.
> >>Dief was an idiot; I personally know three people of that generation
> >>that dumped the conservative party because of Diefenbaker's decision
> >>to scrap the Arrow program.
> >>
> >>http://www.totavia.com/arrow/
> >>
> >>The Avro Arrow was well and truly ahead of its time... like warp,
> >>you could say:)
> >>
> >
> >It's the classic case of building an great product without knowing
> >what the market wants. In this case there was little or no demand for
> >high altitude, long range interceptors
>
> Bullshit. The McDonnell-Douglas Phantom II was first flown in the same
> year as the Arrow. It had a range of 1,750 miles and a service ceiling
> of nearly 60,000 feet. Only it didn't have near the thrust to weight
> ratio, which for the Arrow was around unity and among the first aircraft
> to achieve it.
>
Actually the Arrow basically was just an airframe. The real
tehnical prowess was in the Orenda built engines that
outperformed all others by a 50% margin. The other technical
advantage was in the control system. Only in the past 25 years
has "fly by wire" been used to a great extent in aircraft. The
Arrrow had "fly by Wire" in 1958! The controls were also
seperate from the stick controls in the cockpit and responded to
a "computer system" much like modern aircraft today such as the
CF18.
All in all the aircraft was at least 20 years ahead of the pack.
In raw performance, the Yanks were working on early prototypes
that had similar performance, as were the British.
However Canada did succeed in showing up the US industry in much
the same way they did with the Arrow, when they flew the worlds
first "Jetliner" into La Guardia (actually it was whatever it was
called in 1947) airport. the New York Times put it on the front
page and embarrasingly reported to the American public that a
small country of 10 million had usurped the entire US aircraft
industry.
Were it not for foolish polititians at the time (again to be
repeated 10 years later with the Arrow) the "Jetliner" was doomed
to never make it to market. Had the go-ahead for production been
done, Canada would have a legitimate rival to Boeing.
A Canadian also introduced a major innovation in all modern
aircraft, with the first flying aircraft that sported movable
sections of wing (aileron, rudder, and elevator controls). Prior
to that most aircraft were basically controlled by wing warpage
ala the Wright brothers. All modern aircraft use the innovative
(at the time) methods introduced by Alexander Graham Bell. Oh
yea, by the way, he also invented the telephone.
Another Canadian first is the worlds first commercial sattelite.
A communications sattelite for Canada's people. All other
sattelites at the time were military, or test probes.
In 1952 in British Columbia, the worlds largest Microwave
telecommunications network was installed on the tops of a large
number of mountains. This brought all of British Columbia, the
worlds best telephone system in an area of the world that rivals
the topology of Tibet.
In the early 70's the British Columbia Telephone company
introduced a platform that could be driven to a remote mining
site or logging camp to allow workers to phone home. This was
done for the first time with a sattelite receiver and transmitter
that was mobile, called "Telsat". Until that time, there was no
mobile sattelite receiver/transmitter in use for commercial
service.
This is partially the reason employees of BCTEL (now called
Telus) are still much valued in projects around the world.
Canadians are found in many parts of the world building nuclear
reactors, and hydro dam projects that are among the largest and
most difficult.
All in all Canadians have a great reason to be proud of the
engineering and high tech innovation that they have done in the
past, and continue to do in the present. It is a pity that the
rest of the world really does not know much about Canada.
Because we "sleep next to an elephant" we often get forgotten.
>From the Desk of Mike Stephen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 9 Jun 2000 17:03:34 +0800
On 8 Jun 2000 14:22:23 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Terry Porter <No-Spam> wrote:
>> BlackBox forever dudes!
>> http://www.wa.apana.org.au/~tjporter/Blackbox_desktop_big.jpg
>
>Cute. I'm not sure it is practical, but definitely cute. (I use CDE;
>I don't like it, but it isn't so bad as to annoy me into committing to
>switching to something else. And some of the accompanying applets are
>quite neat and useful. As long as it runs emacs, I'm happy! :^)
Glad you liked the screen pic Donal :)
The transparent Aterm was just for show, I don't use them myself. However
BlackBox is definetly a very practical WM to me, as it offers virt desktops
(I have 23 in use) and easy switching between them, no icons, and a minimal
WM bar to display time, active prog/file name, and virtual desktop name.
I actually have about 8 WM's here on this machine, but BlackBox suits me the
best at this time. Thats the beauty of Linux so much choice!
>
>Donal.
>--
>Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
> realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
> -- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 20 hours 11 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:02:21 -0700
PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this topic!
G
budgie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:42:11 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 05:59:18 GMT
>
> >Sorry. None of this is true, except all of it, of course.
>
> Now that makes it all clear.
>
> >But the last thing in the world that I want
> >is the 'last word'.
>
> I'd like to see that in practice some time soon.
>
> > I would prefer the discussion continue, so that you
> >may learn why you are in error, or I may do so.
>
> The problem here is that you refuse to contemplate the possibility
> that you could be wrong.
>
> >>No, you're at it again. Their choice, as you put it, was Win95. Mine
> >>wasn't. It could have been hardware and no O/S, leaving me free to go
> >>with DR-DOS or other DOS-substitutes. The fact that I chose DOS/WFWG
> >>was a choice. Watch my lips - "I had a choice".
> >
> >Keep saying it long enough and you may think it is true. Thank you for
> >confirming that I was entirely correct; you choice was "Windows or
> >nothing", even purchasing the system custom-built from a small OEM.
>
> That is a choice.
>
> >Let
> >me ask you, did you have a choice of DOS 6 without Windows 3.1?
>
> Yes
>
> >The
> >fact that an Australian in 1996 could buy a PC with no operating system
> >is hardly support for your insistence that "most people on this side of
> >the planet" have a choice.
>
> It is, but of course never in your jaundiced eyes.
>
> > Nor is the fact that their 'choice' was
> >limited to "choose to bundle or choose not to bundle".
>
> It was a choice of several bundles or un bundled siftware. Sheesh!
> How much more choice?
>
> >Americans to
> >this day can build their own PC, or buy a Linux box from a number of
> >small OEMs.
>
> So can we Australians, TUVM. So what?
>
> >Its that old "I thought 'monopoly' meant 'only one company
> >in the business'" jazz. Its simply incorrect; the situation need not
> >get nearly so bad before legal action is in order to stop predatory
> >activities which raise artificial barriers to entry.
>
> Which is about as far away from the original point of discussion as
> you could get.
>
> (snip)
> >>I was commenting on non-domestic market asd opposed to domestic.
> >>Re-read if you missed that.
> >
> >Well, its the domestic market that had "VCR wars". If professionals
> >still use Beta, that merely proves the point, in several ways:
> >
> >a) Beta isn't even 'dead' as a technology
> >b) Professionals obviously have different selection criteria than home
> >consumers
> >c) Neither technology is selected because it is tied to a brand, and no
> >brand is selected because it is tied to a technology
> >
> >All of this supports my contention that the VHS/Beta issue is not a
> >useful analogy in any way to the PC OS market.
>
> No, it's more of your endless diversion. The point was about market
> share versus technical merit. Beta's technical merit stood largely
> without dispute until you (as the world expert in this area too)
> seemed to challenge it. In the domestic market which I referred to,
> it died and the technical merit versus market share analogy stands.
>
> >>No, it was what I said it was. AN example of how market share and
> >>subsequent market dominance is not the inevitable result of technical
> >>superiority. I suspect in your search for "points" to dispute you
> >>forget what has been stated or choose to lose the context.
> >
> >No, I'm just trying to get you to read my response, and stop ignoring
> >it, as you are apparantly still doing. Not only *isn't* it a useful
> >example of "market share and market dominance" as relates to PC OSes
> >(VHS is a technology, not a product or a brand), but it *also* doesn't
> >support the idea that consumer choices are "not the inevitable result of
> >technical superiority". I've already explained what "technical
> >superiority" means to the home consumer: longer play time. All you did
> >was scoff. Who's being supercilious here?
>
> Well if you think tape play length was the deciding factor in the home
> VCR wars, you saw different wars to most people.
>
> I'm sorry that you cannot or will not raed what is in front of you,
> and insist on deviating everything into a different issue. You can
> feel free now to have as many last words as you want.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:02:47 -0700
PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this topic!
G
budgie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:42:13 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:03:07 GMT
> > [...]
> >>I didn't pay for Win-anything unless I chose a Win-something. I had
> >>three basic choices - Win95, WFWG/DOS (or just DOS) or No_O/S. Prices
> >>for each options were available. I don't know why you all seem to
> >>have trouble with that situation.
> >
> >We have trouble understanding why you think it disputes our contention.
> >You have a choice of a) Windows 4 and DOS 6, b) Windows 3.11 and DOS 6,
> >c) No OS. What on earth makes you think this is evidence of a
> >competitive market? How can you be so brain-dead as to think this is a
> >CHOICE?
>
> I never claimed it was evidence of a competitive market. I have not
> commented to date on, nor do I intend to get drawn into comment on,
> whether the O/S_software market is competitive.
>
> I claimed it was a choice. It was.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:03:50 -0700
PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this topic!
G
budgie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 14:24:52 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Quoting JEDIDIAH from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:42:21
> >>Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:03:07 GMT
> > [...]
> >>>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
> >>>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
> >>
> >> IOW... a small player, perhaps a 'build your own box' type
> >> of operation typically avoided by most novice consumer types.
> >
> >Actually, the phrase "national chain who assembled their own boxes"
> >sounds more like a retail store, like a Radio Shack of Sears. Though I
> >would suspect that in 1996, a national chain in Australia could be
> >considered a "small player" in comparison with major OEMs, which would
> >explain why they had a "no OS" option still available.
>
> Oh for Christ's sake stick to what you know AT LEAST A LITTLE ABOUT.
> Read my other response on this point.
>
> >Does the same national chain still have a "no OS" option? I doubt it.
>
> Yes, they do TUVM for asking.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:03:21 -0700
PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this topic!
G
budgie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:42:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:03:07 GMT, budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On 2 Jun 2000 13:14:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>
> >>>What year was this, and did you pay attention to what happened
> >>>afterwards? Did you buy a PC from a major vendor in (say)
> >>>1997 without paying for Win95? How many people did?
> >>
> >>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
> >>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
> >
> > IOW... a small player, perhaps a 'build your own box' type
> > of operation typically avoided by most novice consumer types.
>
> In our market, a large player. Believe it or not, many of your "name
> brands" hardly scratch the surface here in the corporate sector, and
> vitually can't/don't sell in the SOHO sector. These would be one of
> the three biggest turnover national groups in our SOHO market, and
> guess what - most of that volume is novice and second_time_around
> buyers. They are still there four years on.
>
> The point of this still escapes me though.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:04:14 -0700
PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this topic!
G
budgie wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2000 00:57:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
> >>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
> >>DataExpert mobos and Fujitsu monitors. The point?
> >
> >That you are in a tiny minority. In the states at least all
> >of the large vendors were paying Microsoft for every box
> >they sold even if you were going to turn it into a
> >Netware server.
>
> It is clear that our market is somewhat different from the states.
>
> >>I didn't pay for Win-anything unless I chose a Win-something. I had
> >>three basic choices - Win95, WFWG/DOS (or just DOS) or No_O/S. Prices
> >>for each options were available. I don't know why you all seem to
> >>have trouble with that situation.
> >
> >It would have been nice to have other pre-loaded choices.
>
> I suppose. At that time here unix was a swear word, and
> DOS-substitutes were more of a curiosity than a serious thing. If
> they made 1% I would have been surprised.
>
> >In the
> >early 90's Dell offered pre-installed unix but dropped it later.
>
> You wouldn't find one Dell in a hundred SOHOs here. They may be big
> in the states but (as I posted earlier) that doesn't equate to
> penetration here except in the corporate sector, and then not at
> anything like the stateside picture that I gathered from mags at the
> time.
>
> >There is also a fair chance that even if you picked the No_O/S
> >choice, your vendor was paying anyway to get the 'sell on every
> >box' pricing.
>
> Obviously I don't know what their input side costings were or whether
> the mafia took a percentage. Their "standard" advertised price
> included Win95 at that time. When I asked for options there was a
> slight drop for WFWG/6.22, more to 6.22 only and about $A165
> ($US100-ish then) for the no-O/S option.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:05:08 -0700
PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this chatter!
G
budgie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:40:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 05:09:07 GMT, budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>What a load or crap! Most people on this side of the planet CHOOSE to
> >>bundle or CHOOSE NOT to bundle. I CHOSE to have the P133 fitted with
> >
> > Unless you were buying it as parts, or from some miniscule operation
> > far too small to benefit from bulk pricing: that is highly unlikely.
> >
> >>6.22/3.11. Choice! Not the OEM's selection - MINE.
>
> Your knowledge of your market clearly doesn't translate into our
> market. Please read my other post on this.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
