Linux-Advocacy Digest #644, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 11:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Spaceman")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:57:03 -0400
JSPL wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> > Duh. When DR-DOS was around, m$ dropped DOS prices and added the
> > features that Digiatl included.. After DR-DOS was effectively killed M4
> > raised the prices again. becasue of economies of scale, window$ should
> > be much cheaper. It isnt.
>
> Why do you care what the price is? Besides 95% of Windows users paid less
> than $100.00 for the OS through an OEM purchase. Their upgrades are also
> less than $100.00, the lates upgrade (Windows ME) hit the shelves at about
> $40.00. It is priced right.
>
I care becasue the price was kept artificially high. The latest ME
upgrade is $89 around here. It may be $40 where you are becasue the
general public isnt buying it.
> <paste>
> The prices of Microsoft?s applications and other packaged software have
> fallen sharply over the years. Since 1990 the retail price of Microsoft
> Word has dropped by 25 percent, that of Excel by 32 percent, and that of
> Office by 50 percent. Since Encarta Encyclopedia was launched in 1993, its
> price has declined by 85 percent. "Street" prices -- the discount prices
> paid by most consumers -- have dropped even more.
>
> Moreover, Microsoft?s prices routinely have fallen faster than those of its
> competitors. Metro Computing, an independent market-research group,
> estimates that the typical street price of Microsoft Word has fallen by 47
> percent since 1991 (the first year for which Metro Computing made such
> comparisons), compared with an 18 percent decline in the street price of
> rival Corel?s WordPerfect. The street price of Microsoft Excel has dropped
> by 42 percent, compared with a 40 percent decrease in the street price of
> Lotus 1-2-3.
>
You just showed why m$ needs competition. TWhen competition is viable,
prices fall.
> The price of most desktop operating systems -- such as Windows -- has
> remained low and relatively stable during the 1990s,
Just becasue a price is described as "low" doesnt mean its not
artificially high. And look at what window$ is being compared too...
enterprise Unix installations. Please.
> with the exception of
> Unix derivatives such as Sun?s Solaris, IBM?s AIX and SCO?s UnixWare, which
> were priced high when they entered the market and still carry premium price
> tags. Compared with other desktop operating systems, Windows 98 is good
> value. The street price of a Windows 98 upgrade is currently $89, compared
> with $110 for the OS/2 Warp 4.0 upgrade and $430 for Sun?s Solaris 2.6.
> Apple?s Macintosh OS, has a street price of about $85.
>
> Any comparison of the price of the Windows operating system over time must
> take into account that, until the launch of Windows 95, PC users wanting a
> graphical user interface had to have DOS on their computers as well as
> Windows. Factor in the cost of a DOS upgrade, and the price of Windows has
> remained little changed since 1990. But while the price has held steady,
> the functionality of Windows has increased immensely.
So, DOS has disappeared, but window$' price remains steady. Which is it?
window$ price has remained steady, or it has fallen?
> Each new version has
> included numerous new features and improvements. Windows 98, for example,
> includes the Web-based WebView user interface; a more efficient file
> system; faster launching of applications; complete Internet integration;
> USB support; self-maintenance; improved reliability and troubleshooting;
> support for multiple monitors; better and faster 3D graphics, improved game
> support; and Web TV support.
>
> The amount a typical PC user spends on Windows each day compares favorably
> with the price of other everyday items. At a typical street price of $89,
> and assuming a buyer uses the OS for 3 years, a Windows 98 upgrade will
> cost 8 cents per day. For consumers who purchased a PC already equipped
> with Windows, the cost is even lower.
> </paste>
And from where did you paste this ode to micro$oft?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Spaceman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:57:25 GMT
Over 1 million broken windows in the US.
An imfamous record is broken by these morons who throw rocks.
Newer Windows are not looking any better.
The morons are still throwing rocks.
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
> record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
> looking any better.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:02:04 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Why do people get window$, dolt? Becasue everybody else uses it.
> >
> > No, because it will run their apps.
>
> ... which everyone else uses.
Some of them, yes.
[snip]
> > > Tehy did run TRS-DOS, AND CP/M
> >
> > <shrug>So did Apple IIs, with the appropriate
> > upgrade.
>
> The TRS 80s didnt need an upgrade. They ran CP/M out of the box.
Hmmm? No, I don't think CP/M was included. Perhaps
you mean it was cheaper on the TRS-80 than,
the Apple II?
[snip]
> > Yes. TRS-80s had the usuasl limitations for
> > 8-bit computers, but unusually poor graphics
> > support- really pretty much nonexistant actually.
> >
> > This put a big kink in game support for the
> > computer, and games were really big on PCs
> > back then. Even moreso than now.
>
> Games !?!?!? Graphic laden games at eh time of the Model I, II, II??
> AHahhahahahahah...
> name some.
Go to:
http://www.classicgaming.com/vault/appleiiroms-AM.shtml
This is an archive of Apple II games. You can get
Choplifter and Montezuma's revenge. Poke around and
you'll find the necessary emulators to run them.
Lots more games too. Enjoy.
By the way, the Apple II wasn't actually
the most graphically rich platform of the
time, either. You might try the Commodore
64 stuff on the site too.
[snip]
> > I tried those search items just now. Didn't see
> > any review. Lots of nostalgia pages though.
> >
> > Am I supposed to search each?
>
> Do your own research.
I guess that means you don't have a clue
where to find this review of yours. Or
you just made it all up.
[snip- complaint removing snip]
> > > Not awlful close. MS-DOS had CP/M code in it. Code written, if not by
> > > Killdal himself, at least by Digital Research.
> >
> > Where'd they get it from, then?
>
> Where did who get what?
How did Seatle Computer allegedly
get source code for Digitial Research's
CP/M?
[snip]
> > > > The reason early Macs had so much less
> > > > memory was that it was expensive back
> > > > then.
> > >
> > > Define early Macs.
> >
> > The first Macintoshes were
> > the original 128k Macintosh,
> > and then a later 512k Macintosh.
>
> The 128K macs had upgrade kits available before the fat macs came out.
To >1 Meg of memory?
> > *Then* you get the Macintosh Plus,
> > which supports up to 4 megs if you
> > can afford it.
>
> Many pep[le were putting in the 4 megs as soon as they got their
> Plusses.
Oh, I rather think it was a minority. Remember, back
then Macintosh apps did not require so much
memory. Just 1 meg was a lot.
[snip]
> > Well, it was very different from the stuff
> > that you could get for timesharing systems.
>
> Get this through your thick passive-agressive head - we are discussing
> microcomputers.
You seem determined to reduce the scope of
the discussion, but I don't see how excluding
better computers than PCs helps you.
[snip]
> > I can find some references, but no details. You know
> > a good website on this?
>
> I dont need no steenking website. I have the manual. Find your own web
> site, or go to an Apple II group and try not to look to ignorant.
I guess you don't know much about
it either, then.
[snip]
> > Hmmm?
>
> It was the best selling software for years.
>
> > It may have been the best selling Apple II
> > software, but that didn't amount to all
> > that much for long.
>
> No. Not the best selling for Apple IIs. The best selling software.
This I do not believe for a second.
[snip]
> > It's limitations are not dependant on its
> > timeframe. The biggest one for an integrated
> > package is the problematic graphics support.
>
> Sheesh. It was the most advance piece of software of its time, yet you
> continue to compare it to later stuff. What the hell is wrong with you?
"The most advanced piece of software of its time"?
I'm trying to show you how the computer industry
advanced, and how the PC was part of it.
The Apple IIs time was the late 70's. It
was in many ways eclipsed before the PC
even came out by other 8 bit machines.
[snip]
> > > Well then EVERY "personal computer" was a joke, even your precious
> > > little IBM PC.
> >
> > Well, I dunno about that. The IBM PC was no 360, but at
> > least you could put a compiler on the fool thing.
>
> Anything you could do with a PC 5150 you could do with an Apple II.
You really believe that?
What's the Apple II equivalent of dBase?
[snip]
> > The inadequacies of early 8-bit PCs do not go
> > away just because you don't want to compare them
> > with better computers.
>
> THe comparisons are with the computers of the -same- timeframe.
The PDP-11 and System/360 were both old hat
by 1980. If you insist I can go find out what
models DEC and IBM were selling then.
[snp]
> > Yes. But the introduciton of the 16-bit
> > Apple IIgs was too late to prevent what
> > was by then the inevitable.
>
> What was that?
The collapse of the Apple II line. By the
time the IIgs came out, Apple had already
committed to the Macintosh, and
wasn't about to let the Apple II steal the
limelight back.
In some ways that's almost too bad.
The Macintosh remained too expensive
to be competitive for years, because Apple
insisted on using technology that was
ahead of its time.
The Apple IIgs was able to deliver a fair
part of what the Mac did much cheaper,
and was Apple II compatible to boot.
But to really succeed it would have had to be
avaiable earlier, I think.
[snip]
> > I, on the other hand, do give a rats ass about
> > developers, and I think you *should*, since
> > they are crucial to understand how the
> > industry has developed.
> >
> > Nobody bought an IBM PC to run COMMAND.COM,
> > but they bought them to run Lotus 1-2-3.
>
> And people bought Apple II's first to run Visicalc, then Appleworks.
There were quite a few things in between. :D
But you are quite right. People bouth Apple IIs to run
particular apps, VisiCalc perhaps the most famous
amoung them.
Developers, however, didn't write to Apple IIs
because VisiCalc had been written there; they
switched to the PC pretty quickly really.
[snip]
> > > I had a 1024k desktop. I dont care how it got there. I had it. At the
> > > time I had it, the PC didnt.
> >
> > PC's could have that much memory, or more, by 1987.
>
> Apple IIs had it before that and more.
Oh? Do you have a cite for this?
> > Even 8086s could. 80286s could access 24 megs of
> > memory directly, as is typical for 16-bit CPUs.
> >
> > And the 386 was released in '87 wasn't it?
>
> Doubtful. I thought you were supposed to be the big bad expert
> know-it-all person.
That was a rhetorical quesiton. I've got a magazine
from 1987 here that reviews the 386. It was released in '87.
[snip]
> > > Then why was it the best sellin pice of software, for years... without
> > > advertising?
> >
> > Apple didn't advertise it? You sure about that?
>
> It didnt advertise it until very late in the product cycle. Word of
> mouth sold it at first.
Apple's crazy, but I doubt they are this crazy;
I suspect you just didn't see any ads.
[snip]
> > You could put "database reports" in WP documents?
> >
> > I think you are talking about mail-merge and
> > have dressed it up as "reports".
>
> I tell you what. Get the damned manual and then tell me what you think
> since it is painfully obvious you have never used the program.
I have used it. That's why I find your recollections
so hard to swallow.
[snip]
> > > The Mac did not have software that worked together like Appleworks. No
> > > computer did. Prove ptherwise. Give an example.
> >
> > Certainly they did not. Only an 8-bit computer
> > would benefit from *that*.
>
> If only an 8 bit computer would benefit from an inegrated program, why
> did micro$oft develop and -continue- to market micro$oft work$?
They wanted an entry in the integrated desktop software
market. Works frankly was always a lousy one though.
> > The 16 bit computer could *multitask*,
> > and that gave you everything AppleWorks
> > did and much more.
>
> Multitasking, in and of itself does not integrate apps, or allow them to
> share information. there also has to be a way for the dtat to be shared.
> Your credibility continues to erode.
Yes; that was a the next step. That was what products
like ClarisWorks did; they provided integration, not just
easy switching between different types of documents.
> BTW, it was many years before Word and Excel could share information any
> where near as well as you could with micro$oft work$.
Oh? I have used Works but a little, so I'm not too
confident in my knowledge of it, but my impression
was that Works had very little integration actually. One
of the reasons it was such a dog.
[snip]
> > > So WHAT???? Thats all many people need.
> >
> > So, you can do much more on better
> > platforms.
>
> Not... at.. that.. time... on ... microcomputers. GET IT?
You could do it on IBM PCs.
[snip- complaint removing snip]
> > > YOU doubt. YOU??? I thought you knew it all. It could do mail merges.
It
> > > wa an integrated program, dolt.
> >
> > It wasn't all that integrated, really.
>
> Prove it. Prove to me it was integrated... as I sit here with my
> Appleworks manual, and the disks, and an Apple IIgs in the living room.
> prove to me you one bit of correct information on Apple IIs in general
> and Appleworks specifically.
Ah. An Apple IIgs. No wonder you have an exagerated
idea of what the Apple IIs that the IBM PC was up
against could do.
The IIgs was a rather later development; it was
a much better computer that the other IIs, and
comparable to the IBM PC. Better in some
ways, even- it could access more memory
directly.
So, perhaps you are refering to AppleWorks GS?
That's a whole 'nother program than the one I was
thinking of.
[snip]
> > > Really? That will be a first for you.
> >
> > Yep. :D You so rarely give me enough
> > information to verify your claims.
>
> Look. Its the grinning dolt that is too stupid to do google searches.
Well, I do them, but they don't seem
to be helping. :(
[snip]
> > > HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
> > > works of art by engineers of the day.
> >
> > They were *cheap*; they were implemented more
> > cheaply than anyone else. They got to market
> > first.
>
> HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
> works of art by engineers of the day.
Essentially, the IIs had a black and white graphics
mode that did funny synchronization things. The
color of a pixel would depend on where it was;
pixels would alternate green and violet as you
passed horizontally over the screen.
If you had the 48k upgade, there was something
else. The pixels were kept in a bitmap but
the high bit of each byte did not represent
any pixel. Instead it shifted the position of
the other pixels in the same byte over by
half a pixel; green and violet became orange
and blue.
You could get white by turning on consecutive
pixels; the collors blended together to make
white, but there were colored fringes.
this arrangement meant that shifting an image
over was quite a chore, unless it was by a
even multiple of 14 pixels. (You couldn't
move by just 7; that woudl turn all your
greens violet, and your violets green)
The bitmap layout was interleaved annoyingly;
row 2 didn't follow row 1 in memory, they were
arranged in a very much more complex way.
There were even 'gaps' in the video memory;
bits of video memory that represented no
row and would not be drawn. You could
put stuff in there. The Apple IIs were
so small that that was even profitable.
You needed a mapping table to convert logical
row numbers to addresses. I remember
keying in one of those; no fun at all.
> > But by 1981, they were obsolete and feeble
> > even by the standards of 8-bit computers.
>
> No, they werent.
Yes, they were. Commodore 64's even
had hardware sprites by then!
[snip]
> > > PCs? Crap.
> >
> > In 1981 they were the best thing going.
>
> Except for the TRS 80s, the C64s, and of course, the Apple IIs.
C64's were the best game machines (the 1981 vintage
PCs had terrible graphics).
But other than that the PCs were unbeatable;
they were the next generation.
[snip]
> > The Amiga had quite impressive multitasking
> > from day one, and didn't need "integrated"
> > packages like AppleWorks at all.
>
> You continue to mistake multitasking for for integraton. BTW, the PC
> first had taskswitching, not true multitasking. Look up the difference.
The Amiga had *multitasking*, all the way. The PC was
saddled with a retread 8-bit OS, which was a great
disservice to it. All the other 16-bit computers did better
on that score. Even your IIgs's GS/OS kicked DOS's
butt.
But they weren't available in 1981; the PC was
the first 16-bit machine to hit the market, largely
because they did cut those corners.
[snip]
> > > Appleworks did it.
> >
> > Certainly not. You don't appear to even
> > understand what you yourself are saying.
>
> I came home one night from a party. I had a 64k Apple II. I installed a
> memory card with 1 meg on it and went from about a 10k desktop to a
> 700somethingk desktop. You do the math.
You put RAM chips in. That's very nice. But *using*
that RAM was a big problem. AppleWorks did, but
most programs didn't.
> > > > Other apps did use it, but it wasn't common.
> > >
> > > OK.. just how uncommon was it?
> >
> > Quite uncommon. :D
>
> How uncommon grinng idiot dolt?
The cream of the crop did it- AppleWorks
among them. But many applications
did not do it, because it wa shard and
those applications didn't *need* it.
They would have benefitted from using
the extra memory, but it's a cost-benefit
analysis thing; if most of your userbase
hasn't got the extra memory, and its a large
effort to use it, it doesn't make sense to
do it.
[snip]
> > > It was *visibly* slowed.. compared to what? How could you compare?
What
> > > action was there in Wizardry?
> >
> > Compare to later products on the same hardware;
> > products written in assembly.
>
> Again with the LATER products. What is it with you? So, the Wright
> brothers' plane was shit becasue a 747 is better?
Yes, the Wright brothers plane *was* shit,
thank you very much. :D
> > > ... and are those "scare" asterisks?
> >
> > No, they are emphasis asterisks..
>
> Oh, but when I use " they are scare ". I see.
You've never heard of "scare quotes" before
this conversation? Really?
[snip]
> > > "... Other similar games came after that were dramatically faster and
> > > better"
> > >
> > > You keep comparing what came AFTER. AFTER. Thats like saying the V1
was
> > > shit because the Saturn 4 was so much better. You cant compare the 2.
> >
> > Sure I can. And the V1 *was* shit, it was totally ineffective
> > and a waste of resources. :D
>
> it was the best rocket -at the time-.
And it was shit. Really, being the best rocket
of its time doesn't make it any more effective.
Same with the Apple II. Saying that in 1978
it was the best thing going is true but doesn't
make the product any better.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:05:39 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > I see no grammar mistake here. Rick seems to
> > > > feel that Microsoft has founded a monopoly,
> > > > so that they can, er, have a monopoly.
> > >
> > > Tell it to the FTC, the EU, the DOJ, the several States Attorneys
> > > General and the several companies that have filed suit.
> >
> > But they didn't say it.
>
> Um, thats why all those guys keep trying to get m$ into court. Are you
> really this stupid?
I don't think *they* are stupid enough to say such
a silly thing.
> > Those guys seem to feel that
> > Microsoft founded a monopoly in order to raise
> > prices.
>
> Duh. When DR-DOS was around, m$ dropped DOS prices and added the
> features that Digiatl included.. After DR-DOS was effectively killed M4
> raised the prices again. becasue of economies of scale, window$ should
> be much cheaper. It isnt.
How cheap do you think Windows should be, and why?
[snip]
> > > Becasue thats what there?
> >
> > It's not the only thing there.
>
> Its what everyone else uses.
But why does *anyone* care about
that?
[snip]
> > I certainly would miss it, were it somehow
> > encoded into internal emails and memos from
> > somewhere.
>
> Nobody presented you with anything that was encoded. it was in plain
> english that you refuse to understand.
I refused to reinterpret it in the clever ways
you have, yes.
> > What a breathtakingly weird way
> > to explain what "unreasonable restraint of trade"
> > is.
>
> Plain English, expalin how m$ was going to kill off something or other.
> You refuse to acknowledge it.
Well, I refuse to pretend that MS did something
they didn't do, even if the memos do discuss
doing that thing.
But that has nothing to do with what
T Max Devling things "restraint of trade"
means. I don't see how Microsoft execs
could even know that.
> > [snip]
> More context removing snips.
Well, I'm trying to keep this thread
from being intorerably boring. :D
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 11:09:50 -0400
Matthew Gardiner wrote in message <9e862u$b9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Sy you're saying that a brand new produch being hammered by a nearly
>> decomissioned product is a *good* thing? Man you have wierd logic.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
>> PS And how good do you think the sucessor to the E10000 will be?
>
>Just tried the Sun Blade 1000 w/ the same processors as the sucessor to
>E10000 will have, that is, the Ultra Sparc III. It is responsive, fast,
>great graphics, very, very, very, very, very stable. In terms of server
>performance, it will take the wintel empire to the cleaners.
Here is Sun, despite being the leading Unix vendor largely on the basis of
the Java hype,
losing overall share to Linux and Windows 2000, both in the server and
workstation markets.
Not only losing share, but trying to compete against hugely successful
companies SIMULTANEOUSLY as follows:
1. IBM in the high end market where services prevail and where IBM offers a
full range of products.
2. Microsoft in the software platform market where its new .NET platform
actually performs, unlike the Java- only solution, and offers every
language and gets their research talents.
3. Intel in chips where vast resources have been thrown at the new
generation of chips for ALL of the non-Sun server market.
4. Dell in the OEM market where Dell has a far better factory and internet
system
What characterizes the difference?
These competitors are all SPECIALIZED.
Is Sun a software company? They have absolutely butchered the execution of
the Java platform, during the web bubble, where they should have tuned their
"engine," like Dell did with JIT manufacturing, like IBM did with a new
dedication to service, like Microsoft did with an unprecedented investment
in Win 2000 and .NET, and like Intel did with tremendous resources invested
in EPIC chips.
Is Sun a high end company? They have a poor reputation for service.
Is Sun a chip company? They only make chips for their own servers. After the
smoke and mirrors of the web bubble hype, can this base support the R&D
needed to compete, now that Intel is AT THE DOOR.
Is Sun an OEM? Sun tries to offer low end servers, yet doesn't have the
efficiency to do anything but lose money. For the first time, Sun faces
competition from a lean and mean PC industry.
What happens now when the web bubble collapses and rationality returns? Will
Java be enough ambiance to market overpriced products?
Java of course was the "new paradigm" that would save the day:
"The Gilder piece had its biggest impact on McNealy. 'The moment he could
map Java to his problem--namely, how to harness the Internet to stop
Microsoft from swallowing us all--Eric Schmidt said.'" The Plot to Get Bill
Gates: An Irreverent Investigation of the World's Richest Man ... and the
People Who Hate Him, by Gary Rivlin, p. 180.
And harness it he did. Java was the "language of the internet" and Sun was
the "dot-in-the-dot-com."
But hype doesn't do it in a downturn.
2 + 2
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
