Most business computers can't run Vista version ...
ad...@ng2000.com
Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
system software, says a new report.
Does yours?
Richard Maine
> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
> system software, says a new report.
Come back in 30 years or so when that's an appropriate subject for this
newsgroup.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
No. And damn glad.
--
ArarghMail612 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
Peter Flass
jmfb...@aol.com
Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
your money ;-).
/BAH
Roland Hutchinson
> On 7 Dec 2006 22:28:50 -0800, ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=computers
>>
>>Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
>>requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
>>system software, says a new report.
>>
>>Does yours?
>
> No. And damn glad.
I've no idea, but my new Mac does come with an "Intel inside" warning
sticker.
Thus does the industry progress.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Robert
<ad...@ng2000.com> wrote in message
news:1165559330.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Robert
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Certainly not, they lack the key requirement of an owner willing to
try it.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Andrew Swallow
> <ad...@ng2000.com> wrote:
>
>> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
>> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
>> system software, says a new report.
>
> Come back in 30 years or so when that's an appropriate subject for this
> newsgroup.
>
Windows.
Andrew Swallow
David Wade
Yes...
... But I remember a "spoof" mag article from several years ago about a
preview copy of the "next" version of windows. It said that they had managed
to get the desktop to display by attaching the PC Display to a Cray XMP48
but could not get any apps to run because of a lack of CPU resources, The
article went on to say that Microsoft estimated that by the time the
software was released the average PC would have anough power to run it...
toby
Which is a goddamn relief, really.
>
> Does yours?
Roland Hutchinson
Let's rephrase this:
Microsoft is incapable of delivering a new operating system that will run on
most business computers in America.
toby
Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> toby wrote:
>
> >
> > ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
> >> http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=computers
> >>
> >> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
> >> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
> >> system software, says a new report.
> >
> > Which is a goddamn relief, really.
>
> Let's rephrase this:
>
> Microsoft is incapable of delivering a new operating system that will run on
> most business computers in America.
Yes, wonderful... just wonderful. Except for the horrendous waste in
unnecessary upgrades.
Dave Garland
>Does yours?
No idea. The link didn't take me to anything that said, not even
anything that talked about the issue. Some sort of scam site, I guess.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> > toby wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
> > >> http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=computers
> > >>
> > >> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
> > >> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
> > >> system software, says a new report.
> > >
> > > Which is a goddamn relief, really.
> >
> > Let's rephrase this:
> >
> > Microsoft is incapable of delivering a new operating system that will
> > run on most business computers in America.
>
> Yes, wonderful... just wonderful. Except for the horrendous waste in
> unnecessary upgrades.
Look on the bright side - there are going to be a lot of *really*
nice workstations going cheap on the second hand market which will do very
nicely with a BSD or Linux loaded on them :)
Charlie Gibbs
ste...@eircom.net (Steve O'Hara-Smith) writes:
> On 8 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800
> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>
>>> toby wrote:
>>>
>>>> ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=computers
>>>>>
>>>>> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
>>>>> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
>>>>> system software, says a new report.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a goddamn relief, really.
>>>
>>> Let's rephrase this:
>>>
>>> Microsoft is incapable of delivering a new operating system that
>>> will run on most business computers in America.
>>
>> Yes, wonderful... just wonderful. Except for the horrendous waste in
>> unnecessary upgrades.
Unnecessary? They're vital to Microsoft's profits, as well as
those of the hardware manufacturers that are in bed with them.
> Look on the bright side - there are going to be a lot of
> *really* nice workstations going cheap on the second hand market
> which will do very nicely with a BSD or Linux loaded on them :)
Yup. My firewall is a box I picked up for free and loaded OpenBSD
onto. When the (non-ATX) power supply died, I just grabbed another
free box and moved the hard drive over. Windows wouldn't take kindly
to such a hardware upgrade, but the hardest thing about moving the
OpenBSD hard drive was inserting the two NICs from the old machine
in the proper order so the MAC address on the outgoing port was the
one my ISP was looking for.
One of the common characteristics of most of us here in this
newsgroup is that we've all put a lot of effort into making
things work. Nowadays, all the effort seems to be going into
making things fail - at least until you give the vendors lots
of money and swear an oath of allegiance to them.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Randy Howard
(in article
<1165559330.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>):
That's great news for North American business computer users.
At least until the empire building IT droids get their way.
> Does yours?
Probably, but I don't care. I run real operating systems
instead.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard
(in article <elbrod$8qk...@s848.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>):
Why should that make us care?
Randy Howard
(in article <e3seh.3886$Q36.2697@trnddc08>):
> toby wrote:
>
>>
>> ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
>>> http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=computers
>>>
>>> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
>>> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
>>> system software, says a new report.
>>
>> Which is a goddamn relief, really.
>
> Let's rephrase this:
>
> Microsoft is incapable of delivering a new operating system that will run on
> most business computers in America.
Correction: PC OEMs screamed at Microsoft for years to MAKE
SURE that the next version of Windows would not run on existing
computers.
Do the math.
Walter Bushell
Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> Roland Hutchinson wrote
> (in article <e3seh.3886$Q36.2697@trnddc08>):
>
> > toby wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
> >>> http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=computers
> >>>
> >>> Most business computers in North America do not meet the minimum
> >>> requirements to implement Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating
> >>> system software, says a new report.
> >>
> >> Which is a goddamn relief, really.
> >
> > Let's rephrase this:
> >
> > Microsoft is incapable of delivering a new operating system that will run on
> > most business computers in America.
>
> Correction: PC OEMs screamed at Microsoft for years to MAKE
> SURE that the next version of Windows would not run on existing
> computers.
>
> Do the math.
And since most don't upgrade until they get a new computer, it work to
Microsofts advantage also. Bah humbug!
--
Divided we stand!
Charles Shannon Hendrix
>> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>> your money ;-).
>
> Why should that make us care?
Because the masses will drag you along with them.
When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
ourselves.
It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
--
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["It's a damn poor mind that can only think
of one way to spell a word." -- Andrew Jackson]
toby
> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
> >> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
> >> your money ;-).
> >
> > Why should that make us care?
>
> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>
> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
> ourselves.
>
> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
And this is what MS hasn't been brought to account for: The
incalculable costs of their crime spree. Let's support the FSF in their
efforts to raise awareness of the problem!
-----> http://badvista.fsf.org/ <-----
(The word vista makes me think of the late scenes in the movie Brazil -
where the countryside is a blasted, toxic wasteland, with pretty
painted billboards lining the edge of the highways. That's MS' world.)
Roland Hutchinson
> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>> >> your money ;-).
>> >
>> > Why should that make us care?
>>
>> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>>
>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
>> ourselves.
>>
>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
>> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
>> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
>
> And this is what MS hasn't been brought to account for: The
> incalculable costs of their crime spree.
Let's not forget the major costs of the crime spree that their lax security
model has facilitated. A large chunk of the Internet's computing resources
is now p0wn3d by organized criminals and used to launch spams for pfishing
and confidence scams, denial-of-service attacks in support of "protection"
rackets, etc.
I'm hoping against hope that deployment of Vista might at least slow this
down a bit. But I'm not holding my breath.
Randy Howard
(in article <br8j54-...@escape.goid.lan>):
> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
>>> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>>> your money ;-).
>>
>> Why should that make us care?
>
> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
No, they most definitely will not.
> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
> ourselves.
Silliness.
> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
I'll take my chances. The more other people's computers are out
of control, the better. If people are too stupid to use a
system that works properly, then, they are too stupid to take
advantage of one as well, so, let the OS fit the person behind
the keyboard.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>> >> your money ;-).
>> >
>> > Why should that make us care?
>>
>> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>>
>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
>> ourselves.
>>
>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
>> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
>> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
>
> And this is what MS hasn't been brought to account for: The
> incalculable costs of their crime spree. Let's support the FSF in their
> efforts to raise awareness of the problem!
Personally, I think that the FSF, or Stallman/GNU parts of it anyway,
are often as draconian as Microsoft.
Both sides of the divide think they know best instead of me, and are
trying to force me into a certain way of operating, neither of which I
like.
--
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["Meddle not in the affairs of Wizards, for
thou art crunchy, and taste good with ketchup." -- unknown]
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote
> (in article <br8j54-...@escape.goid.lan>):
>
>> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>>>> your money ;-).
>>>
>>> Why should that make us care?
>>
>> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>
> No, they most definitely will not.
They most definitely already have.
>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
>> ourselves.
>
> Silliness.
Silly response, yes.
>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
>> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
>> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
>
> I'll take my chances. The more other people's computers are out
> of control, the better. If people are too stupid to use a
> system that works properly, then, they are too stupid to take
> advantage of one as well, so, let the OS fit the person behind
> the keyboard.
Those systems affect you too, even if you won't admit it or don't know
it.
--
Charlie Gibbs
(Roland Hutchinson) writes:
> toby wrote:
>
>> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>>>>> your money ;-).
>>>>
>>>> Why should that make us care?
>>>
>>> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>>>
>>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use
>>> it ourselves.
>>>
>>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally
>>> out of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that
>>> direction, and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS
>>> yourself.
>>
>> And this is what MS hasn't been brought to account for: The
>> incalculable costs of their crime spree.
>
> Let's not forget the major costs of the crime spree that their lax
> security model has facilitated. A large chunk of the Internet's
> computing resources is now p0wn3d by organized criminals and used
> to launch spams for pfishing and confidence scams, denial-of-service
> attacks in support of "protection" rackets, etc.
>
> I'm hoping against hope that deployment of Vista might at least slow
> this down a bit. But I'm not holding my breath.
Neither am I. In fact, I see Microsoft's efforts as an attempt to
take over the rackets. They want to own not only your computers,
but all the data in them - and they've publicly stated that they
consider themselves entitled to do so. If they have their way, you
won't be able to do anything about it. Machines running non-Microsoft
OSes will still work, of course, but they won't be interoperable with
that 90% of the net which Microsoft will control; hence they won't
be an option for most vict^H^H^H^Husers. Including those users who
really don't want to run Windows, but who will be forced to by their
employers, who have already been... uh... coerced.
Maybe this will result in a turf war. The mob might take out a
contract on Bill Gates. On the other hand, they might see him
as an indispensable partner and cut him in on the operation.
grey...@gmaildo.tocom
>
> Personally, I think that the FSF, or Stallman/GNU parts of it anyway,
> are often as draconian as Microsoft.
>
> Both sides of the divide think they know best instead of me, and are
> trying to force me into a certain way of operating, neither of which I
> like.
I disagree: Stallman wrote tools, which can work in any Unix-like
system that has a compiler, beyond that, GCC allows anyone to write
their own, and there are a host of interfaces.. This is freedom. His
political views are his own business. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
DragonflyBSD, Hurd... Then there are the tools that are free for
personal use, but commercial for commercial.
--
greymaus
Just Another Grumpy Old Man
CBFalconer
> On 2006-12-18, toby <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't
>>> use it ourselves.
>>>
>>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost
>>> totally out of the control of the user. Vista is the next step
>>> in that direction, and it hurts you even if you don't use a
>>> hindered OS yourself.
>>
>> And this is what MS hasn't been brought to account for: The
>> incalculable costs of their crime spree. Let's support the FSF
>> in their efforts to raise awareness of the problem!
>
> Personally, I think that the FSF, or Stallman/GNU parts of it
> anyway, are often as draconian as Microsoft.
>
> Both sides of the divide think they know best instead of me, and
> are trying to force me into a certain way of operating, neither
> of which I like.
I see no 800 pound gorillas forcing anyone to use GPLd code. Feel
free to ignore it all. Nor do I see any gorillas forcing anyone to
place their code under GPL. Feel free to charge whatever you think
the traffic will bear. Just don't feel free to steal GPLd code.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
jmfb...@aol.com
know how to change that and the primary people who may be able
to bend this policy don't have any incentive nor intention to
change it.
In a lot of ways, this is due to their being only a distribution
center and not a developement manufacturing center.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote
>(in article <br8j54-...@escape.goid.lan>):
>
>> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
>>>> your money ;-).
>>>
>>> Why should that make us care?
>>
>> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>
>No, they most definitely will not.
>
>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
>> ourselves.
>
>Silliness.
>
>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
>> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
>> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
>
>I'll take my chances. The more other people's computers are out
>of control, the better. If people are too stupid to use a
>system that works properly, then, they are too stupid to take
>advantage of one as well, so, let the OS fit the person behind
>the keyboard.
>
four letters of their nickname is spelled shit.
/BAH
si...@situ.com
Charles Shannon Hendrix <c s h> wrote:
snip--
>Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>
>When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
>ourselves.
'The Bell doth toll for him that thinkes it doth...
...
No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece
of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away
by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were,
as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any
mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee...
...
if by this consideration of anothers danger,
I take mine owne into contemplation, and so secure my selfe...
John Donne, in a passage entitled
'Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, Morieris'
or
'Now, this Bell tolling softly for another, saies to me, Thou must die.'
read the whole thing, as an allegory, if you must...
http://www.global-language.com/devotion.html
sidd
toby
> On 2006-12-18, toby <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> >> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
> >> >> your money ;-).
> >> >
> >> > Why should that make us care?
> >>
> >> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
> >>
> >> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
> >> ourselves.
> >>
> >> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally out
> >> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
> >> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
> >
> > And this is what MS hasn't been brought to account for: The
> > incalculable costs of their crime spree. Let's support the FSF in their
> > efforts to raise awareness of the problem!
>
> Personally, I think that the FSF, or Stallman/GNU parts of it anyway,
> are often as draconian as Microsoft.
>
> Both sides of the divide think they know best instead of me, and are
> trying to force me into a certain way of operating, neither of which I
> like.
This is so wrong it's almost funny, but at least it's a familiar kind
of wrong. It's been rehashed as long as the GPL has existed:
31 Jan, 1991:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/6f1d9ed00d65cd6d
and associated thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_frm/thread/1a1f932bc12166f3/
and so on, ad nauseam.
As others here point out, if you want to use a GPL licensor's code, you
abide by that license. If you don't use such code, do what you want. A
proprietary license - such as one from MS - also gives you conditions.
But in the end you're left with a hole in your wallet and not much
else.
The GPL at least leaves you with its four freedoms. What you can't do
is re-license *somebody else's* code - which is only fair. (Try
"re-licensing" Microsoft's and see how far you get.) Nobody's stopping
you from writing your own code or license - which is how the GPL and
GNU came to be in the first place, since RMS didn't like the
"draconian" and relatively useless proprietary alternatives.
Randy Howard
(in article <em8tgf$8qk...@s812.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>):
Yep. They're selling mass market slop to mass market lemmings,
just like McDonald's does with "hamburgers".
Morten Reistad
Well, if not true; it works in the sense that you end upp getting
the product you deserve when you keep sending your money to Microsoft.
I guess p.t. barnum was right.
>This is exactly what Micshit's attitude is and why the last
>four letters of their nickname is spelled shit.
You can fool some of the people all of the time ?
-- mrr
toby
Amen! The theory that their learning-resistant customers are actually
making an optimal, rational choice just isn't holding up very well
these days.
Say, do you think it's possible MS might be propping up their sales
with some "funny business"?
D.J.
wrote:
]I guess p.t. barnum was right.
He didn't say it.
JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ Dec 18, 2006
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Jan 5, 2006: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog July 26, 2006
Brian Inglis
() wrote:
>In article <br8j54-...@escape.goid.lan>,
>Charles Shannon Hendrix <c s h> wrote:
>
>snip--
>
>>Because the masses will drag you along with them.
>>
>>When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
>>ourselves.
>
>'The Bell doth toll for him that thinkes it doth...
...
>'Now, this Bell tolling softly for another, saies to me, Thou must die.'
>
>read the whole thing, as an allegory, if you must...
>
>http://www.global-language.com/devotion.html
...or as a slave repeated frequently to Roman generals during a
triumph: "Memento mori." ("Remember thou art mortal.") [Wikipedia]
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
jmfb...@aol.com
Wrong. McDonald's pays enormous attention to the quality of
the manfuacture and distribution of their products.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
When those people have no idea there are better ways, yes.
There are also ways to force people, who do know better, to
live with the junk. This is one thing that Micshit has
figured out; all they need is one person in a working group
to be the fool and upgrade each time Micshit says to. Now
they have automated these upgrades and the foolish people
don't even know their bits are changing out from underneath
them. This is a side effect of blinkenlight absence.
/BAH
Charlton Wilbur
t> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <em8tgf$8qk...@s812.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>> <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Well, if not true; it works in the sense that you end upp
>> getting the product you deserve when you keep sending your
>> money to Microsoft.
t> Amen! The theory that their learning-resistant customers are
t> actually making an optimal, rational choice just isn't holding
t> up very well these days.
Call it, rather, a rational choice with incomplete or inaccurate
information.
Everyone I know who uses Microsoft software does it for one of a few
reasons:
- they don't realize there are alternatives;
- they don't think the alternatives will do what they want;
- they think the alternatives are too expensive;
- they require specific software, only available on the Microsoft platform;
- they have a lot of investment in Microsoft, and staying with
Microsoft is cheaper in a single budget interval than switching;
- they make a lot of money supporting Microsoft software, and
switching to an alternative would lessen that revenue stream
significantly.
People in the last group are responsible for a lot of people remaining
in the first three groups.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Charlton Wilbur
BAH> In article
BAH> <0001HW.C1ADC0C1...@news.verizon.net>,
BAH> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>> Yep. They're selling mass market slop to mass market
>> lemmings, just like McDonald's does with "hamburgers".
BAH> Wrong. McDonald's pays enormous attention to the quality of
BAH> the manfuacture and distribution of their products.
Only in that they're optimizing for what people will pay for, rather
than what people are better off eating.
The Big Mac is designed to hit all the right food sensors in the
stomach: it has the right mix of carbohydrates, fats, flavors,
vegetables, textures to be satisfying. It's far from the best food
you can eat, but it's engineered to make you crave it.
Microsoft software is designed the same way; it is flashy, it makes
you feel like you're doing something important, and it's just as bad
for you in the long run. Microsoft pays attention to the quality, but
only insofar as it gets the customer to buy. It's far from the best
software you can get, but it's engineered to lock you into it.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> Say, do you think it's possible MS might be propping up their sales
> with some "funny business"?
As long as PCs routinely ship with Windows installed they have no
need to prop up their sales. IMHO the rot really got going when they
managed to arrange that (Windows 3.1 IIRC) prior to that few people bought
Windows.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
jmfb...@aol.com
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> In article
> BAH> <0001HW.C1ADC0C1...@news.verizon.net>,
> BAH> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yep. They're selling mass market slop to mass market
> >> lemmings, just like McDonald's does with "hamburgers".
>
> BAH> Wrong. McDonald's pays enormous attention to the quality of
> BAH> the manfuacture and distribution of their products.
>
>Only in that they're optimizing for what people will pay for, rather
>than what people are better off eating.
Wrong.
>
>The Big Mac is designed to hit all the right food sensors in the
>stomach: it has the right mix of carbohydrates, fats, flavors,
>vegetables, textures to be satisfying.
I would call that a balanced meal.
> It's far from the best food
>you can eat, but it's engineered to make you crave it.
BEcuase it furnishes what the body needs. Women know about
cravings and craving have everything to do with supplying
the missing complex molecules.
>
>Microsoft software is designed the same way; it is flashy, it makes
>you feel like you're doing something important, and it's just as bad
>for you in the long run. Microsoft pays attention to the quality, but
>only insofar as it gets the customer to buy. It's far from the best
>software you can get, but it's engineered to lock you into it.
There is no comparison unless you use the example that a McDonald's
customer has to eat the _same_ hamburger over and over again
after reguritation. Eventually, that no longer works and the
customer has to shit it out and reinstall.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Now add the more common reason....they are willing to go to
an alternative but don't know how, have no access to somebody
who does know how, and absolutely no idea how to get started
on their own.
Until Unix solves this problem, it won't really be competitive
with Micshit w.r.t. personal computing biz. I'm talking about
banking online which everybody is getting forced to do.
/BAH
Randy Howard
(in article <embcdl$8qk...@s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>):
Maybe they are, but that only means that McDonald's is
/incredibly/ poor on execution of their goals. So, they sound
more and more like M$. :-)
Charlie Gibbs
cwi...@chromatico.net (Charlton Wilbur) writes:
jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
> In article <0001HW.C1ADC0C1...@news.verizon.net>,
> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yep. They're selling mass market slop to mass market
>>> lemmings, just like McDonald's does with "hamburgers".
>
>> Wrong. McDonald's pays enormous attention to the quality of
>> the manfuacture and distribution of their products.
>
> Only in that they're optimizing for what people will pay for, rather
> than what people are better off eating.
>
> The Big Mac is designed to hit all the right food sensors in the
> stomach: it has the right mix of carbohydrates, fats, flavors,
> vegetables, textures to be satisfying. It's far from the best food
> you can eat, but it's engineered to make you crave it.
>
> Microsoft software is designed the same way; it is flashy, it makes
> you feel like you're doing something important, and it's just as bad
> for you in the long run. Microsoft pays attention to the quality, but
> only insofar as it gets the customer to buy. It's far from the best
> software you can get, but it's engineered to lock you into it.
If McDonald's was as serious about lock-ins as Microsoft is, each
Big Mac would be laced with chemicals which would render your
stomach incapable of digesting the Whoppers sold by the Burger
King down the street.
And yes, I stole that idea from "The Space Merchants" by Pohl &
Kornbluth. In that story there was a beverage called "Coffiest",
which contained an alkaloid which created an addiction to the
product. Most people chose to just continue drinking it rather
than spend the $5000 for the therapy required to break the
addiction.
Somehow that sounds a lot closer to Microsoft's behaviour than
McDonald's.
Charlie Gibbs
jmfb...@aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes:
> In article <87mz5ip...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>> Everyone I know who uses Microsoft software does it for one of a few
>> reasons:
>>
>> - they don't realize there are alternatives;
>>
>> - they don't think the alternatives will do what they want;
>>
>> - they think the alternatives are too expensive;
>>
>> - they require specific software, only available on the Microsoft
>> platform;
>>
>> - they have a lot of investment in Microsoft, and staying with
>> Microsoft is cheaper in a single budget interval than switching;
>>
>> - they make a lot of money supporting Microsoft software, and
>> switching to an alternative would lessen that revenue stream
>> significantly.
>>
>> People in the last group are responsible for a lot of people
>> remaining in the first three groups.
>
> Now add the more common reason....they are willing to go to
> an alternative but don't know how, have no access to somebody
> who does know how, and absolutely no idea how to get started
> on their own.
Now add one more: people are forced by corporate mandate to use
Windows.
Charlton Wilbur
CG> In article <embh5j$8qk...@s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
CG> jmfb...@aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes:
>> In article <87mz5ip...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone I know who uses Microsoft software does it for one of
>>> a few reasons:
>>>
>>> - they don't realize there are alternatives;
>>>
>>> - they don't think the alternatives will do what they want;
>>>
>>> - they think the alternatives are too expensive;
>>>
>>> - they require specific software, only available on the
>>> Microsoft platform;
>>>
>>> - they have a lot of investment in Microsoft, and staying with
>>> Microsoft is cheaper in a single budget interval than
>>> switching;
>>>
>>> - they make a lot of money supporting Microsoft software, and
>>> switching to an alternative would lessen that revenue stream
>>> significantly.
>>>
>>> People in the last group are responsible for a lot of people
>>> remaining in the first three groups.
>> Now add the more common reason....they are willing to go to an
>> alternative but don't know how, have no access to somebody who
>> does know how, and absolutely no idea how to get started on
>> their own.
This is just a subset of "they think the alternatives are too expensive."
CG> Now add one more: people are forced by corporate mandate to
CG> use Windows.
This is just my last reason, applied to the employees in the IT
department making that corporate mandate.
Morten Reistad
Exactly. Both turn your human biology against your rational interest.
It's like feeding children sugar. They crave it; they are genetically
programmed to. But it will have lots of detrimental effects, some pretty
immediate, if they get it in excess. Who hasn't met a sugar-hypered kid
in the process of having a blood-sugar crash; and the fits to follow it.
Similar processes is used by windows by exploiting the visual motor reflexes
of the eye-brain system to make you feel satisfied, and it attempts to reinforce
it by other sense stimuli. It is no accident that one of the heaviest tested
components are the accompanying sounds; because they are so vital to the
reinforcement of these stimuly. Microsoft spends serious research moneies
on this using "focus groups" for guinea pigs.
All of this happens on a sub-concious layer, triggering reflexes, and
it has addiction symptoms if you withdraw; because the basic biology in
your body has been taught to expect certain stimuli.
McDonalds do the same thing by messing with your metabolism.
TV likewise, they use the same triggers windows does. MTV is honest
about it, and tries to promote making art of the process.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <87irg6p...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> BAH> In article
>> BAH> <0001HW.C1ADC0C1...@news.verizon.net>,
>> BAH> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yep. They're selling mass market slop to mass market
>> >> lemmings, just like McDonald's does with "hamburgers".
>>
>> BAH> Wrong. McDonald's pays enormous attention to the quality of
>> BAH> the manfuacture and distribution of their products.
>>
>>Only in that they're optimizing for what people will pay for, rather
>>than what people are better off eating.
>
>Wrong.
>
>>
>>The Big Mac is designed to hit all the right food sensors in the
>>stomach: it has the right mix of carbohydrates, fats, flavors,
>>vegetables, textures to be satisfying.
>
>I would call that a balanced meal.
>
>> It's far from the best food
>>you can eat, but it's engineered to make you crave it.
>
>BEcuase it furnishes what the body needs. Women know about
>cravings and craving have everything to do with supplying
>the missing complex molecules.
No, cravings and food reflexes are not rational for you in a modern
age. What worked in a jungle/beach based stone age society where we
had cravings for some scarce items we should stock up on if we got
hold of them; like anything sweet, meats of all kinds, protein rich
foods etc. In a modern age these cravings can easily be manipulated.
Your main breath reflex is not triggered by the lack of oxygen, it
is triggered by blood acidity from the buildup of excess carbon dioxide.
This is the cause of lots of fatal accidents. Your craving is not
a good predictor of your need if you e.g. are high up in a plane or
deep underwater; i.e. away from the pressure level humans are built for.
All young people crave sugar, even though modern sugars mess with the
blood sugar levels. Ever tried to coax sweets from children ?
You will not feel much thirst if you are dehydrated from sun exposure,
because the salt balance is off whack as well. This is also the
cause of lots of fatalities.
>>Microsoft software is designed the same way; it is flashy, it makes
>>you feel like you're doing something important, and it's just as bad
>>for you in the long run. Microsoft pays attention to the quality, but
>>only insofar as it gets the customer to buy. It's far from the best
>>software you can get, but it's engineered to lock you into it.
>
>There is no comparison unless you use the example that a McDonald's
>customer has to eat the _same_ hamburger over and over again
>after reguritation. Eventually, that no longer works and the
>customer has to shit it out and reinstall.
The burger fills lots of "craving receptors", but only for a few hours.
When filled, those receptors learn, and expect to be filled, so they
will start to scream for more; even though that is not a rational
food intake.
--mrr
Charlie Gibbs
(Morten Reistad) writes:
> Similar processes is used by windows by exploiting the visual motor
> reflexes of the eye-brain system to make you feel satisfied, and it
> attempts to reinforce it by other sense stimuli. It is no accident
> that one of the heaviest tested components are the accompanying
> sounds; because they are so vital to the reinforcement of these
> stimuly. Microsoft spends serious research moneies on this using
> "focus groups" for guinea pigs.
Now I _know_ I'm wired differently. The first thing I do when I
sit down at someone else's Windows box is to turn off the speakers.
Yes, all those little clicks and burps do have an effect - it's just
that in my case it's that of the Chinese water torture.
> TV likewise, they use the same triggers windows does. MTV is honest
> about it, and tries to promote making art of the process.
Likewise, I avoid TV programs that use these effects.
"But hey, he's in the minority. Fuck him."
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> - they don't think the alternatives will do what they want;
Microsoft stuff just about works. I applied for a job with a government
organisation, they sent me a form to fill in using .rtf format. I
emailed it back to them but their email software could not read it. I
converted the file to Microsoft .doc format which they can read.
When propriety software interfaces work better than official standards
the general public is wise to stick to Microsoft.
We computer programmers can get on with getting international standards
to work on initial installation. Computers and software are black boxes
to personnel clerks, when they have to open the lid we have failed.
Andrew Swallow
jmfb...@aol.com
That can be changed...quite easily if I were the one doing the
changing...Until people begin to learn how an OS is supposed
to work, none of this can happen.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
NOT AT ALL!!!!
>
> CG> Now add one more: people are forced by corporate mandate to
> CG> use Windows.
>
>This is just my last reason, applied to the employees in the IT
>department making that corporate mandate.
Those people only know about one, and only one, OS company.
Think about that. Now think about a new generation of kiddies
who have learned how to choose and use a better coded OS.
When they grow up to make these middle management decisions,
which do you think they will edict?
/BAH
Charlton Wilbur
AS> Charlton Wilbur wrote: [snip]
>> - they don't think the alternatives will do what they want;
AS> Microsoft stuff just about works. I applied for a job with a
AS> government organisation, they sent me a form to fill in using
AS> .rtf format. I emailed it back to them but their email
AS> software could not read it. I converted the file to Microsoft
AS> .doc format which they can read. When propriety software
AS> interfaces work better than official standards the general
AS> public is wise to stick to Microsoft.
In other words, when people in power choose Microsoft and set
Microsoft compatibility as the bar, the canaille are wise to stick
with it or be ostracized.
As for myself, I think that the best solution would be for the
government organization in question to accept *plain* *text*. That's
where the flaw is in your story.
Charlton Wilbur
BAH> Think about that. Now think about a new generation of
BAH> kiddies who have learned how to choose and use a better coded
BAH> OS. When they grow up to make these middle management
BAH> decisions, which do you think they will edict?
Windows, assuming Microsoft hasn't collapsed under its own weight. If
it does, they'll choose whatever looks prettiest in the glossy
magazines or whichever company sends them on the nicest junket.
I see no reason to believe that the technically inclined will have any
more power in companies in 20 years than we do today. The kiddies
aspiring to middle management aren't the same kiddies who are playing
with Linux.
jmfb...@aol.com
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> Think about that. Now think about a new generation of
> BAH> kiddies who have learned how to choose and use a better coded
> BAH> OS. When they grow up to make these middle management
> BAH> decisions, which do you think they will edict?
>
>Windows,
Wrong. One of the reasons DEC became a billion dollar company
was because the kiddies who learned on early DEC machines signed
the purchase orders when they grew up. People stay with what
they know unless they have great incentives to change.
> assuming Microsoft hasn't collapsed under its own weight. If
>it does, they'll choose whatever looks prettiest in the glossy
>magazines or whichever company sends them on the nicest junket.
You would have never survived working at DEC (not Digital) with
kind of attitude against your customers. As much as people love
to demean lusers, those system users are not stupid.
>
>I see no reason to believe that the technically inclined will have any
>more power in companies in 20 years than we do today.
I see a reason because I know how this stuff works.
> The kiddies
>aspiring to middle management aren't the same kiddies who are playing
>with Linux.
Oh, come on. People don't aspire to middle management. They
get there through promotions (or steps through hiring).
/BAH
>
>Charlton
>
>
Bernd Felsche
>jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>> Think about that. Now think about a new generation of
>> kiddies who have learned how to choose and use a better coded
>> OS. When they grow up to make these middle management
>> decisions, which do you think they will edict?
>Windows, assuming Microsoft hasn't collapsed under its own weight. If
>it does, they'll choose whatever looks prettiest in the glossy
>magazines or whichever company sends them on the nicest junket.
>I see no reason to believe that the technically inclined will have any
>more power in companies in 20 years than we do today. The kiddies
>aspiring to middle management aren't the same kiddies who are playing
>with Linux.
Too right. They're the 19-year-olds struggling with Fisher-Price.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> Now add the more common reason....they are willing to go to
> an alternative but don't know how, have no access to somebody
> who does know how, and absolutely no idea how to get started
> on their own.
>
> Until Unix solves this problem, it won't really be competitive
> with Micshit w.r.t. personal computing biz. I'm talking about
> banking online which everybody is getting forced to do.
Unfortunately MS solved this problem (getting people to install
Windows instead of choosing one of PC/DR/MS DOS) by persuading the
manufacturers to ship all PCs with Windows pre-installed. This was a
master storke of marketing genius that cannot now be repeated. No PC
manufacturer is going to consider shipping all their PCs with a unix
installed and certainly not all of them.
The only hope would be for the bundling of OS and machine to be
banned thus forcing everyone to choose and install an OS.
Charlton Wilbur
BAH> You would have never survived working at DEC (not Digital)
BAH> with kind of attitude against your customers. As much as
BAH> people love to demean lusers, those system users are not
BAH> stupid.
Probably not. Alas, DEC is dead, and companies like it are few and
far between. Who's producing reliable software and hardware to match
what DEC did at its peak? Not HP, not Compaq, not Dell, not
Microsoft, not SGI. Possibly IBM, but they're more interested in the
commodity-consulting role. Possibly Apple, but they're avoiding the
"enterprise" market. Possibly Sun, but they're losing ground in all
directions and are taking increasingly desperate moves.
The system users aren't stupid, but they're rarely the ones making
buying decisions. The people who have the authority to sign the
checks, while not usually stupid, are almost always completely
technically ignorant, and (at least in my experience) are as likely to
believe _Computerworld_, a marketing brochure, or a consultant who's
getting a 50% kickback from the vendor as they are to believe the
person who's job it will be to support whatever is decided upon.
There's a reason DEC turned into Digital. Sizzle sells; steak doesn't.
>> I see no reason to believe that the technically inclined will
>> have any more power in companies in 20 years than we do today.
BAH> I see a reason because I know how this stuff works.
>> The kiddies aspiring to middle management aren't the same
>> kiddies who are playing with Linux.
BAH> Oh, come on. People don't aspire to middle management. They
BAH> get there through promotions (or steps through hiring).
Exactly. The people with technical knowledge avoid middle management;
the people who wind up there are the incompetent, who are promoted
because they're nice people and they do less visible damage in
management, and the people who aspire to being middle management from
the start.
I've had several bosses who aspired to middle management: programming
was a means to an end, and as soon as they got into middle management,
they quickly forgot everything they knew. For technically skilled
people, middle management is a nightmare of politics and subjectivity
completely divorced from reality.
Of course there are exceptions to this, but they're so rare as to be
statistically insignificant. I see far more internal threat to
Microsoft than external.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> As for myself, I think that the best solution would be for the
> government organization in question to accept *plain* *text*. That's
> where the flaw is in your story.
Most will, you just have to send it with a .doc extension :)
toby
WHAT ABOUT OS X? http://STORE.APPLE.COM/
If you find OS X hard to get started with, I'll put you in touch with
my 12 year old daughter.
>
> /BAH
toby
Since both you and I like to use online banking as an example of
inappropriate uses of Windows, we can also lament the fact that when
the 'bits' that encode account balances start changing out from
underneath them, they're still too ignorant to connect this with poor
choice of platform - or more accurately, imposition of poor platform.
Apple should publish statistics of OS X malware infections versus
Windows infections. Is there a Windows machine anywhere that's free of
it? The MS-type workplaces I know are lousy with malware, and they're
in a business where that kind of vulnerability is likely illegal. Does
anyone care?
David Wade
"Randy Howard" <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1ADC0C1...@news.verizon.net...
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote
> (in article <em8tgf$8qk...@s812.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.C1AC6F7F...@news.verizon.net>,
> > Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> >> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote
> >> (in article <br8j54-...@escape.goid.lan>):
> >>
> >>> On 2006-12-16, Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Because they are foolish, snotty, and believe they deserve
> >>>>> your money ;-).
> >>>>
> >>>> Why should that make us care?
> >>>
> >>> Because the masses will drag you along with them.
> >>
> >> No, they most definitely will not.
> >>
> >>> When people use Windows Vista, it hurts us all even if we don't use it
> >>> ourselves.
> >>
> >> Silliness.
> >>
> >>> It is a gradual step toward making computers a device almost totally
out
> >>> of the control of the user. Vista is the next step in that direction,
> >>> and it hurts you even if you don't use a hindered OS yourself.
> >>
> >> I'll take my chances. The more other people's computers are out
> >> of control, the better. If people are too stupid to use a
> >> system that works properly, then, they are too stupid to take
> >> advantage of one as well, so, let the OS fit the person behind
> >> the keyboard.
> >>
> > four letters of their nickname is spelled shit.
>
> just like McDonald's does with "hamburgers".
>
>
What does this have to do with computer folklore?
toby
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C1ADC0C1...@news.verizon.net>,
Yes, it's painstakingly and efficiently made slop.
>
> /BAH
Walter Bushell
Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2006 08:45:58 -0500
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
> > As for myself, I think that the best solution would be for the
> > government organization in question to accept *plain* *text*. That's
> > where the flaw is in your story.
>
> Most will, you just have to send it with a .doc extension :)
I heard an ".rtf" file with a "doc" extension works also.
--
Divided we stand!
Walter Bushell
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> The Big Mac is designed to hit all the right food sensors in the
> stomach: it has the right mix of carbohydrates, fats, flavors,
> vegetables, textures to be satisfying. It's far from the best food
> you can eat, but it's engineered to make you crave it.
I take it you mean that they try to make it addictive.
--
Divided we stand!
Charlton Wilbur
WB> In article <20061221153341....@eircom.net>,
WB> Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2006 08:45:58 -0500
>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>> As for myself, I think that the best solution would be for the
>>> government organization in question to accept *plain* *text*.
>> Most will, you just have to send it with a .doc extension :)
WB> I heard an ".rtf" file with a "doc" extension works also.
I wouldn't know; an organization that only accepts resumes in
Microsoft formats is not an organization I want to work for.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Unfortunately MS solved this problem (getting people to install
> Windows instead of choosing one of PC/DR/MS DOS) by persuading
> the manufacturers to ship all PCs with Windows pre-installed.
> This was a master storke of marketing genius that cannot now be
> repeated. No PC manufacturer is going to consider shipping all
> their PCs with a unix installed and certainly not all of them.
>
> The only hope would be for the bundling of OS and machine to be
> banned thus forcing everyone to choose and install an OS.
The bundling ban alone won't work. The unwashed want their OS
pre-installed and working out of the box. The ban has to be on
exclusive bundling. The machine supplier can then price their
machines accordingly, i.e. with their cost for the OS plus some
sort of installation fee. This will make the cheapest machines
Linux driven [1], because the OS cost approaches zero. A further
effect will be that the unwashed notice the EULA.
[1] or something like FreeBSD, etc.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
CBFalconer
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>> Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for myself, I think that the best solution would be for the
>>>> government organization in question to accept *plain* *text*.
>
>>> Most will, you just have to send it with a .doc extension :)
>
>
> I wouldn't know; an organization that only accepts resumes in
> Microsoft formats is not an organization I want to work for.
My practice has been to post my resume in text, html, and .doc
format on my site. I send cover letters with a link to that, and
ask them to pick the format of choice. The system is somewhat
moribund since I have retired.
jmfb...@aol.com
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> You would have never survived working at DEC (not Digital)
> BAH> with kind of attitude against your customers. As much as
> BAH> people love to demean lusers, those system users are not
> BAH> stupid.
>
>Probably not. Alas, DEC is dead, and companies like it are few and
>far between. Who's producing reliable software and hardware to match
>what DEC did at its peak? Not HP, not Compaq, not Dell, not
>Microsoft, not SGI. Possibly IBM, but they're more interested in the
>commodity-consulting role. Possibly Apple, but they're avoiding the
>"enterprise" market. Possibly Sun, but they're losing ground in all
>directions and are taking increasingly desperate moves.
>
>The system users aren't stupid, but they're rarely the ones making
>buying decisions.
Then you are ignorant of how decisions get made in a group of
people.
> The people who have the authority to sign the
>checks, while not usually stupid, are almost always completely
>technically ignorant, and (at least in my experience) are as likely to
>believe _Computerworld_, a marketing brochure, or a consultant who's
>getting a 50% kickback from the vendor as they are to believe the
>person who's job it will be to support whatever is decided upon.
>
>There's a reason DEC turned into Digital.
Yes. The people who gained power within Digital had your attitude against
our customers. As a result, our customers voted with the money
and walked out.
> Sizzle sells; steak doesn't.
But it didn't sell. It bankrupted the company.
>
> >> I see no reason to believe that the technically inclined will
> >> have any more power in companies in 20 years than we do today.
>
> BAH> I see a reason because I know how this stuff works.
>
> >> The kiddies aspiring to middle management aren't the same
> >> kiddies who are playing with Linux.
>
> BAH> Oh, come on. People don't aspire to middle management. They
> BAH> get there through promotions (or steps through hiring).
>
>Exactly. The people with technical knowledge avoid middle management;
No, they don't. Very few are successful at avoiding management.
>the people who wind up there are the incompetent, who are promoted
>because they're nice people and they do less visible damage in
>management, and the people who aspire to being middle management from
>the start.
If they are incompetent, then they were not trained properly by
those who reported to them. We've been over this before.
>
>I've had several bosses who aspired to middle management: programming
>was a means to an end, and as soon as they got into middle management,
>they quickly forgot everything they knew. For technically skilled
>people, middle management is a nightmare of politics and subjectivity
>completely divorced from reality.
None of those politics approach the kind at the lower levels of
the org charts.
>
>Of course there are exceptions to this, but they're so rare as to be
>statistically insignificant. I see far more internal threat to
>Microsoft than external.
Of course it's going to be internal. Why do think the stuff they
distribute becomes crap after two releases?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Sigh! This will not help anybody who isn't already online.
Think, or try to look at these things from a person's point
of view. You people are all looking at it from a bit god's
POV.
/BAH
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "WB" == Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>
> WB> In article <20061221153341....@eircom.net>,
> WB> Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 21 Dec 2006 08:45:58 -0500
> >> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
> >>> As for myself, I think that the best solution would be for the
> >>> government organization in question to accept *plain* *text*.
>
> >> Most will, you just have to send it with a .doc extension :)
>
> WB> I heard an ".rtf" file with a "doc" extension works also.
>
> I wouldn't know; an organization that only accepts resumes in
> Microsoft formats is not an organization I want to work for.
It's common with agencies too.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> > Unfortunately MS solved this problem (getting people to install
> > Windows instead of choosing one of PC/DR/MS DOS) by persuading
> > the manufacturers to ship all PCs with Windows pre-installed.
> > This was a master storke of marketing genius that cannot now be
> > repeated. No PC manufacturer is going to consider shipping all
> > their PCs with a unix installed and certainly not all of them.
> >
> > The only hope would be for the bundling of OS and machine to be
> > banned thus forcing everyone to choose and install an OS.
>
> The bundling ban alone won't work. The unwashed want their OS
> pre-installed and working out of the box. The ban has to be on
> exclusive bundling. The machine supplier can then price their
> machines accordingly, i.e. with their cost for the OS plus some
ISTR being told that at the time Windows 3 became universally
bundled the deal was that if they bundled it with every PC they got a
dramatic discount (figures of $5 per PC were mentioned). AIUI exclusive
bundling has been banned (some places now offer Linux as an option) but the
default is still Windows and for anything else you have to ask, perhaps if
they were also forced to charge the retail price for the bundled Windows
(and supply the media) it would help.
> sort of installation fee. This will make the cheapest machines
> Linux driven [1], because the OS cost approaches zero. A further
> effect will be that the unwashed notice the EULA.
Making the user read the EULA in front of a witness would be good.
Charlie Gibbs
pr...@panix.com (Walter Bushell) writes:
How about a plain text file? Could this be another tool
for the ASCII underground?
Charlie Gibbs
(CBFalconer) writes:
> The bundling ban alone won't work. The unwashed want their OS
> pre-installed and working out of the box. The ban has to be on
> exclusive bundling. The machine supplier can then price their
> machines accordingly, i.e. with their cost for the OS plus some
> sort of installation fee. This will make the cheapest machines
> Linux driven [1], because the OS cost approaches zero. A further
> effect will be that the unwashed notice the EULA.
>
> [1] or something like FreeBSD, etc.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Microsoft might adopt an
aggressive pricing scheme that would minimize the difference in
price. It's like Gillette's old scheme: give away the razors,
make money selling blades. Or, in this case, apps. And that's
where the scheme really comes apart. Unless the Linux bundles
come with a complete set of apps that are compatible with all
of Microsoft's apps, people who buy the Linux bundle will be
unable to do the cool things being done by their buddies who
toe the Microsoft line. Or, if they can, they'll be unable to
exchange any files. When word of that gets out, sales of Linux
bundles will drop to almost zero. Vendors will drop the Linux
bundle to eliminate the cost of offering something that doesn't
sell - and Microsoft's monopoly will be safe once more.
As for the EULA, who really reads it? Microsoft has its EULA,
Linux has the GPL or whatever. Either way, it's a chunk of
legalese which makes the average user's eyes glaze over - so
he ignores it. No difference, sales-wise.
toby
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article <458B68B4...@yahoo.com>, cbfal...@yahoo.com
> (CBFalconer) writes:
>
> > The bundling ban alone won't work. The unwashed want their OS
> > pre-installed and working out of the box. The ban has to be on
> > exclusive bundling. The machine supplier can then price their
> > machines accordingly, i.e. with their cost for the OS plus some
> > sort of installation fee. This will make the cheapest machines
> > Linux driven [1], because the OS cost approaches zero. A further
> > effect will be that the unwashed notice the EULA.
> >
> > [1] or something like FreeBSD, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Microsoft might adopt an
> aggressive pricing scheme that would minimize the difference in
> price. It's like Gillette's old scheme: give away the razors,
> make money selling blades. Or, in this case, apps. And that's
> where the scheme really comes apart. Unless the Linux bundles
> come with a complete set of apps that are compatible with all
> of Microsoft's apps, people who buy the Linux bundle will be
> unable to do the cool things being done by their buddies who
> toe the Microsoft line. Or, if they can, they'll be unable to
> exchange any files.
Duh. The War on ODF and the constant petitioning of Santa to ensure
software patents are upheld globally are planks of this strategy.
Holding a de facto "standard" (OOXML) and withholding interoperability
are all laying siege to the free competition. DRM/TPM are lock-in's
Final Solution, or so they hope.
> When word of that gets out, sales of Linux
> bundles will drop to almost zero. Vendors will drop the Linux
> bundle to eliminate the cost of offering something that doesn't
> sell - and Microsoft's monopoly will be safe once more.
>
> As for the EULA, who really reads it? Microsoft has its EULA,
> Linux has the GPL or whatever. Either way, it's a chunk of
> legalese which makes the average user's eyes glaze over - so
> he ignores it. No difference, sales-wise.
Programmers have learned they cannot ignore legalese, over the past
decade. I predict end users and particularly businesses are going to
pay increasing attention. For instance, how many XP users at risk of
DeActivation are rushing back to their EULAs to see what might happen
after XP's End-of-Life (which occurs 12 months after Vista general
availability)? They'll want to know if MS has given themselves the
option of terminating their O/S and forcing an "upgrade". This kind of
underhandedness is going to mean a lot more fine print gets read -
before purchase, preferably.
CBFalconer
> cbfal...@yahoo.com (CBFalconer) writes:
>
>> The bundling ban alone won't work. The unwashed want their OS
>> pre-installed and working out of the box. The ban has to be on
>> exclusive bundling. The machine supplier can then price their
>> machines accordingly, i.e. with their cost for the OS plus some
>> sort of installation fee. This will make the cheapest machines
>> Linux driven [1], because the OS cost approaches zero. A further
>> effect will be that the unwashed notice the EULA.
>>
>> [1] or something like FreeBSD, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Microsoft might adopt an
> aggressive pricing scheme that would minimize the difference in
> price. It's like Gillette's old scheme: give away the razors,
> make money selling blades. Or, in this case, apps. And that's
> where the scheme really comes apart. Unless the Linux bundles
> come with a complete set of apps that are compatible with all
> of Microsoft's apps, people who buy the Linux bundle will be
> unable to do the cool things being done by their buddies who
> toe the Microsoft line. Or, if they can, they'll be unable to
> exchange any files. When word of that gets out, sales of Linux
> bundles will drop to almost zero. Vendors will drop the Linux
> bundle to eliminate the cost of offering something that doesn't
> sell - and Microsoft's monopoly will be safe once more.
But the Linux packages DO come with a complete set of apps. A ten
dollar charge for a set of installation CDs should be an option.
If it is pointed out that this avoids a $200 to multi-thousands
charge for MS apps, the thing should fly. Open Office, Firefox,
Thunderbird, and Gnucash with possibly some music, picture, and
video apps should do it for most newbies. Also no future charges
for upgrades are the equivalent of a free maintenance contract.
The carrot for the suppliers is to sell more hardware.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <458B68B4...@yahoo.com>, cbfal...@yahoo.com
>(CBFalconer) writes:
>As for the EULA, who really reads it? Microsoft has its EULA,
>Linux has the GPL or whatever. Either way, it's a chunk of
>legalese which makes the average user's eyes glaze over - so
>he ignores it. No difference, sales-wise.
I read one version of it. It made my eyes spark with extreme
anger. One interpretation is, if your bits flow through their
comm gear, all of them are theirs and they can do whatever they
want with it. This could include all sources that are shipped
over a wire, all writeups that talk about new ideas, and all
moneies that are transferred over wires.
/BAH
toby
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <1166724118.1...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >WHAT ABOUT OS X? http://STORE.APPLE.COM/
>
> Sigh! This will not help anybody who isn't already online.
> Think, or try to look at these things from a person's point
> of view. You people are all looking at it from a bit god's
> POV.
I think not. My mother just got her first computer and is online for
the first time in her life, with OS X. Bit god, I don't think so? My
daughter loves OS X; after her school put MacBooks in their classrooms
she decided to start saving for one of her own. I don't understand your
objection. It's a UNIX based system with which ordinary mortals can
easily do whatever they want with a computer, and most importantly,
without giving their banking passwords away :)
jmfb...@aol.com
"toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <1166724118.1...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
>> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>> >...
>> >WHAT ABOUT OS X? http://STORE.APPLE.COM/
>>
>> Sigh! This will not help anybody who isn't already online.
>> Think, or try to look at these things from a person's point
>> of view. You people are all looking at it from a bit god's
>> POV.
>
>I think not. My mother just got her first computer and is online for
>the first time in her life, with OS X. Bit god, I don't think so?
Did she build the system from the bootstrap up? Or did it come
already installed and ready to boot as soon as she hit the power
switch with instructions of what to click first?
Now try to start to think from users' POV.
>My
>daughter loves OS X; after her school put MacBooks in their classrooms
>she decided to start saving for one of her own.
So she was already familiar with getting started. This is not
from a new user POV.
> I don't understand your
>objection.
It is NOT an objection. It is a statement of what work has to be
done before people have an option other than microsoft.
Roland Hutchinson
> So she was already familiar with getting started. This is not
> from a new user POV.
There are no new users left! (Well, essentially none over pre-school age in
the developed world, if you're going to get picky.)
To borrow, and possibly distort, a comparison of Papert's, that's like
looking for a new user of a pencil.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
toby
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <1166914841.0...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >> In article <1166724118.1...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >WHAT ABOUT OS X? http://STORE.APPLE.COM/
> >>
> >> Sigh! This will not help anybody who isn't already online.
> >> Think, or try to look at these things from a person's point
> >> of view. You people are all looking at it from a bit god's
> >> POV.
> >
> >I think not. My mother just got her first computer and is online for
> >the first time in her life, with OS X. Bit god, I don't think so?
>
> Did she build the system from the bootstrap up? Or did it come
> already installed and ready to boot as soon as she hit the power
> switch with instructions of what to click first?
>
> Now try to start to think from users' POV.
Err... I'm still not getting you. The system came preinstalled (like
Windows does). and the procedure for reinstalling is simple enough for
the same level of user. Can you elucidate?
>
>
> >My
> >daughter loves OS X; after her school put MacBooks in their classrooms
> >she decided to start saving for one of her own.
>
> So she was already familiar with getting started. This is not
> from a new user POV.
I know several computer-naive people move from Windows to OS X, so
again, I don't get you. Do you mean somebody who's never used a
computer, or never used OS X?
>
> > I don't understand your
> >objection.
>
> It is NOT an objection. It is a statement of what work has to be
> done before people have an option other than microsoft.
OS X is already a far better/easier/safer option. Q.E.D.
jmfb...@aol.com
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> So she was already familiar with getting started. This is not
>> from a new user POV.
>
>There are no new users left!
You do not know what you are talking about.
<snip>
That must be the stupidest thing you've ever posted.
/BAH
toby
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > - they don't think the alternatives will do what they want;
>
> When propriety software interfaces work better than official standards
> the general public is wise to stick to Microsoft.
They don't!
But a big question remains: Why -should- we have to accept third rate
anyway?
>
> We computer programmers can get on with getting international standards
> to work on initial installation. Computers and software are black boxes
> to personnel clerks, when they have to open the lid we have failed.
>
> Andrew Swallow
Charlton Wilbur
t> But a big question remains: Why -should- we have to accept
t> third rate anyway?
Because, by and large, other people do.
Barb asks all the time about the people who don't know anything about
computers, and what alternatives there are for them to learn.
What about the people who do know there are alternatives, even better
ones, and settle for mediocrity anyway?
Roland Hutchinson
Thank you. It is always edifying to have one's accomplishments recognized
by one's peers.
And a merry Christmas to you, too.
PS I stand by my previous posting, particularly the brief explanatory part
that you snipped.
toby
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> >>>>> "t" == toby <to...@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>
> t> But a big question remains: Why -should- we have to accept
> t> third rate anyway?
>
> Because, by and large, other people do.
Not my problem!
>
> Barb asks all the time about the people who don't know anything about
> computers, and what alternatives there are for them to learn.
She won't engage my suggestion - which is start with the easiest and
safest: get a Mac. That it's reliable and technically advanced
underneath is just gravy.
>
> What about the people who do know there are alternatives, even better
> ones, and settle for mediocrity anyway?
To hell with 'em.
jmfb...@aol.com
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "t" == toby <to...@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>
> t> But a big question remains: Why -should- we have to accept
> t> third rate anyway?
>
>Because, by and large, other people do.
>
>Barb asks all the time about the people who don't know anything about
>computers, and what alternatives there are for them to learn.
>
>What about the people who do know there are alternatives, even better
>ones, and settle for mediocrity anyway?
You might try to ask some of them their reasons rather than
make a blanket "they are all lusers" judgements. This is
called learning about your customers and what they need
and what they think they need.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> >>>>> "t" == toby <to...@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
>>
>> t> But a big question remains: Why -should- we have to accept
>> t> third rate anyway?
>>
>> Because, by and large, other people do.
>
>Not my problem!
>
>>
>> Barb asks all the time about the people who don't know anything about
>> computers, and what alternatives there are for them to learn.
>
>She won't engage my suggestion - which is start with the easiest and
>safest: get a Mac. That it's reliable and technically advanced
>underneath is just gravy.
We tried to get a MAC in 1994. We were ignored by the salesmen
because we weren't wearing suits. WE could not get them to
talk to us. I've looked at the single Apple machine (I have no
idea what it was so you can tell what the diplay card said)
demo in CompUSA. Everybody who know nothing about computers
are not going to buy the lone informationless system. Note
that the demo is rarely turned on.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
>> What about the people who do know there are alternatives, even better
>> ones, and settle for mediocrity anyway?
>
>To hell with 'em.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why Microsoft is
the prevalent system for sale on the shelves. You people
wipe the snot off your nose and start treating the ignorant
as highly-valued customers.
hufff.hufff...hufff.
/BAH
Charlton Wilbur
BAH> I've looked at the single Apple machine (I have no idea what
BAH> it was so you can tell what the diplay card said) demo in
BAH> CompUSA. Everybody who know nothing about computers are not
BAH> going to buy the lone informationless system. Note that the
BAH> demo is rarely turned on.
Right. And there's no info because the salesdroids are Windows users,
and chances are anybody that goes in and asks about the Macs will be
steered towards a Windows machine anyway.
I had this experience in a CompUSA. I went in to buy a Powerbook. I
told the salesman I wanted *that* Powerbook, and would he kindly go
fetch one from the back room? He tried to sell me a Toshiba. I told
him, no, I wanted *that* Powerbook. He tried to sell me an HP laptop.
I asked his manager, and his manager got me the Powerbook.
Fortunately, an Apple store has since opened up within a convenient
distance of my home, so I no longer need to take my business to that
CompUSA.
Barb, you keep on pointing out that completely ignorant people don't
know there are alternatives. There *are* alternatives; how would you
educate people about them?
toby
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> >>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> I've looked at the single Apple machine (I have no idea what
> BAH> it was so you can tell what the diplay card said) demo in
> BAH> CompUSA. Everybody who know nothing about computers are not
> BAH> going to buy the lone informationless system. Note that the
> BAH> demo is rarely turned on.
>
> Right. And there's no info because the salesdroids are Windows users,
> and chances are anybody that goes in and asks about the Macs will be
> steered towards a Windows machine anyway.
>
> I had this experience in a CompUSA. I went in to buy a Powerbook. I
> told the salesman I wanted *that* Powerbook, and would he kindly go
> fetch one from the back room? He tried to sell me a Toshiba. I told
> him, no, I wanted *that* Powerbook. He tried to sell me an HP laptop.
More monopoly effect (and likely all kinds of kickbacks and payola
too).
toby
Not so. I respect people who pay attention instead of accepting
received wisdom. You can believe I have tried with the rest before
realising it's futile.
>
> hufff.hufff...hufff.
>
> /BAH
toby
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <1167094454....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> >> >>>>> "t" == toby <to...@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >>
> >> t> But a big question remains: Why -should- we have to accept
> >> t> third rate anyway?
> >>
> >> Because, by and large, other people do.
> >
> >Not my problem!
> >
> >>
> >> Barb asks all the time about the people who don't know anything about
> >> computers, and what alternatives there are for them to learn.
> >
> >She won't engage my suggestion - which is start with the easiest and
> >safest: get a Mac. That it's reliable and technically advanced
> >underneath is just gravy.
>
> We tried to get a MAC in 1994. We were ignored by the salesmen
> because we weren't wearing suits. WE could not get them to
> talk to us. I've looked at the single Apple machine (I have no
> idea what it was so you can tell what the diplay card said)
> demo in CompUSA. Everybody who know nothing about computers
> are not going to buy the lone informationless system. Note
> that the demo is rarely turned on.
More monopoly effect. Fry's has a nice Apple aisle these days. I wonder
how long till they get leaned upon.
By the way, things have changed a lot with Apple since 1994...
jmfb...@aol.com
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "BAH" == jmfbahciv <jmfb...@aol.com> writes:
>
> BAH> I've looked at the single Apple machine (I have no idea what
> BAH> it was so you can tell what the diplay card said) demo in
> BAH> CompUSA. Everybody who know nothing about computers are not
> BAH> going to buy the lone informationless system. Note that the
> BAH> demo is rarely turned on.
>
>Right. And there's no info because the salesdroids are Windows users,
Wrong. I just repeated my story about the kid who was trying
to write his first device driver empirically.
>and chances are anybody that goes in and asks about the Macs will be
>steered towards a Windows machine anyway.
Retail shelf space is a negotiable subject. Apple is NOT interested
based on the shelf space they have agreed to have with these retailers.
>
>I had this experience in a CompUSA. I went in to buy a Powerbook. I
>told the salesman I wanted *that* Powerbook, and would he kindly go
>fetch one from the back room? He tried to sell me a Toshiba. I told
>him, no, I wanted *that* Powerbook. He tried to sell me an HP laptop.
>I asked his manager, and his manager got me the Powerbook.
Now guess which computers the poor sod was told to push.
>Fortunately, an Apple store has since opened up within a convenient
>distance of my home, so I no longer need to take my business to that
>CompUSA.
>
>Barb, you keep on pointing out that completely ignorant people don't
>know there are alternatives. There *are* alternatives; how would you
>educate people about them?
I'm trying to figure that out. Making the ones are not
ignorant aware the situation exists is always the first step.
It frosts my balls whenever an experienced person denigrates
lusers.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
That's the year we needed to buy something that would run JMF's
speech device.
I was in CompUSA to find out about Apple's products two years
ago. I don't believe Apple has changed. They do not do retail.
/BAH
Charlton Wilbur
BAH> Retail shelf space is a negotiable subject. Apple is NOT
BAH> interested based on the shelf space they have agreed to have
BAH> with these retailers.
Apple is quite interested; for a while they were paying the salary of
a full-time employee to work in every CompUSA that sold Macs. There
was, in fact, such an employee in the CompUSA I bought my Powerbook
in, but he was not in on the day I was there. Stores are open more
than 40 hours a week, you see.
Appple have tried retail in chain-stores repeatedly, with Sears, Best
Buy, and now CompUSA; they had sufficient problems with it that they
finally opened their own line of computer stores.
The problem is not merely retail shelf space, but also retail sales
staff. It doesn't do you any good to buy a lot of shelf space if the
19-year-old selling computers has never used a Mac and steers people
towards Windows machines.
>> I had this experience in a CompUSA. I went in to buy a
>> Powerbook. I told the salesman I wanted *that* Powerbook, and
>> would he kindly go fetch one from the back room? He tried to
>> sell me a Toshiba. I told him, no, I wanted *that* Powerbook.
>> He tried to sell me an HP laptop. I asked his manager, and his
>> manager got me the Powerbook.
BAH> Now guess which computers the poor sod was told to push.
Oh, I have no doubt that he was told to push the HP and Toshiba
computers. The store probably made a lot more profit on them, and he
probably got more of a kickback^Wcommission on them.
>> Barb, you keep on pointing out that completely ignorant people
>> don't know there are alternatives. There *are* alternatives;
>> how would you educate people about them?
BAH> I'm trying to figure that out. Making the ones are not
BAH> ignorant aware the situation exists is always the first step.
BAH> It frosts my balls whenever an experienced person denigrates
BAH> lusers.
Luserhood is a state beyond ignorance, though; lusers are active
participants in their own problems, and often create them. The
ignorant person who doesn't realize there are alternatives to Windows
is not a luser; the manager who "standardizes" on Windows for server
architecture despite better and cheaper products being available, over
the recommendations of his staff, may well be.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I'm trying to figure that out. Making the ones are not
>ignorant aware the situation exists is always the first step.
>It frosts my balls whenever an experienced person denigrates
>lusers.
^^^^^^
It can be subtle. You just did it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.