How to Conquer the World for Linux
John Savard
Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for $300.
It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a chip as
powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4 MB
of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
Of course, one would need a *really light* version of Linux, since
Windows 3.1 is no longer available... something like muLinux, perhaps.
Maybe it would have to be modified further and stripped down.
And it would need an efficient and light office suite - something in the
same class as Microsoft Works.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Kier
> At the store today.
>
> Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
*Ordinary* DVD players are going for daft amounts here, like 20 quid. It's
bonkers.
>
> This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for $300.
> It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a chip as
> powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
>
> But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4 MB
> of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
You could have more RAM than that, surely. My Psion Revo has 16.
>
> Of course, one would need a *really light* version of Linux, since
> Windows 3.1 is no longer available... something like muLinux, perhaps.
> Maybe it would have to be modified further and stripped down.
Now that *would* be Linux-lite :-0 But it could be done, I'm sure.
>
> And it would need an efficient and light office suite - something in the
> same class as Microsoft Works.
>
Dunno about suite, but there are a number of very light Linux word
processors available.
I'd like to have a Linux handheld with a keyboard, say like the Revo, but
with colour screen, etc. There is one model that's available but it's far
too expensive for what it is, sadly, and not easily obtained in the UK.
--
Kier
billwg
"John Savard" <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote in message
news:42b5e959...@news.usenetzone.com...
> At the store today.
>
> Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
>
> This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for $300.
> It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a chip as
> powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
>
> But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4 MB
> of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
>
> Of course, one would need a *really light* version of Linux, since
> Windows 3.1 is no longer available... something like muLinux, perhaps.
> Maybe it would have to be modified further and stripped down.
>
> And it would need an efficient and light office suite - something in the
> same class as Microsoft Works.
>
at eBay and see things like this PII 233 w/32mb RAM, 4Gb HD, etc, for under
$100. Dance the buckles off your shoes.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=42206&item=6777827452&rd=1
Larry Qualig
"John Savard" <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote in message
news:42b5e959...@news.usenetzone.com...
>
> of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
>
RAM is cheap. Processors are cheap as long as you don't want the latest and
greatest.
Two of the most expensive items in a laptop are often the display and the
battery. (A good long-life battery isn't cheap)
Quantum Leaper
> At the store today.
>
> Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
>
> This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for
> $300. It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a
> chip as powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
>
> But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4
> MB of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB
> keys.
>
http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/02/08/1432207.shtml?tid=184&tid=218 , its a
$100 being developed by MIT right now. Also it doesn't need electricity,
all you need a hand crank for power.
win_not_lin
> At the store today.
>
> Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
>
> This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for $300.
> It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a chip as
> powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
>
> But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4 MB
> of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
>
> Of course, one would need a *really light* version of Linux, since
> Windows 3.1 is no longer available... something like muLinux, perhaps.
> Maybe it would have to be modified further and stripped down.
>
> And it would need an efficient and light office suite - something in the
> same class as Microsoft Works.
Er, hello! 2005 calling! More proof that Linux nuts are thoroughly stuck
in the dark days of computing.
Kier
Sorry, what was your point? Why don't you try discussing what he proposed,
rather than insulting him?
--
Kier
GeneralPF
> At the store today.
>
> Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
>
> This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for $300.
> It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a chip as
> powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
>
> But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4 MB
> of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
>
> Of course, one would need a *really light* version of Linux, since
> Windows 3.1 is no longer available... something like muLinux, perhaps.
> Maybe it would have to be modified further and stripped down.
>
> And it would need an efficient and light office suite - something in the
> same class as Microsoft Works.
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Who's going to pay $300
for a POS laptop?
--
Linux 2.4.22-1.2199.4.legacy.nptl athlon GNU/Linux
09:15:00 up 18 days, 12:52, 2 users, load average: 0.21, 0.19, 0.12
lqu...@uku.co.uk
> Who's going to pay $300 for a POS laptop?
The problem with the laptop he describes (386, 4-Megs RAM, 32MB HDD) is
that it is pathetically weak. It would probably be "okay" in running
some of the smaller distros but starting and running apps people want
like OpenOffice would quickly bring this screaming 386 with 4-megs to
its knees.
I won't speak for everyone but I think that most people would rather
spend an extra couple $100 and get a system that's powerful enough to
be usable. It doesn't have to have the absolute latest technology but
it needs to be a decent performing system.
In related news.... Less than 2 weeks ago I bought a new laptop from
Dell. Received it last Tuesday (6 days ago). I wasn't looking for
cutting edge performance since I basically plan on doing light-duty
computing on it. Web-surfing, email, word processing, etc. I wanted
something decent but some expensive $2300 laptop.
Dell had a one-day $750 instant rebate sale. I ended up getting a new
laptop, 60-gig drive, 512 megs RAM, 1.6 Gig Pentium-M (not Celeron)
processor, 15.4" wide-screen LCD (1280x800), upgrade to the better
battery, CD/DVD with dual-layer DVD writer and built-in Centrino
wireless. Final price was $760 with free shipping.
This is a pretty nice system that has a full warranty and is more than
fast enough. Before I bought this I looked around and the closest thing
that I could find was stuff that OverStock.com had. "Reconditioned"
850Mhz systems with 14" screens, half the Ram, half the HDD, no
wireless, crappy warranty, etc. for around $550.
When you can get so much laptop for around $750 these days it's hard to
justify spending $450-$550 and getting so much less for your money.
Arkady Duntov
(<3hn9suF...@individual.net>) wrote:
> Er, hello! 2005 calling!
Er, hello! Time to dump Windows and install Free Software. Don't delay!
Windows is a limited-time offer.[1]
--
[1] See Windows EULA for partial details.
win_not_lin
> In related news.... Less than 2 weeks ago I bought a new laptop from
> Dell.
Bet that baby came with XP Home Edition.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
>> I bought a new laptop from Dell.
> Bet that baby came with XP Home Edition.
Yes and I wish that was all that it came with.
I've had good luck with Dell systems but I hate the crap they preload
the computers with. I'm not talking about the OS. I'm talking about all
the other stuff on there... free trial of AOL, 90 trial of Sonic DVD
burner, 30-day free trial of some Photo-Editor. When this system
arrived it must have had over a dozen preinstalled apps that I didn't
need or want.
So I basically nuked the hard drive, reformatted it and installed
XP-Pro. (I have a domain controller at home and XP-Home can't login
into an NT domain. I also own several XP-Pro licenses so that's not a
problem either.)
For the record; XP-Home wasn't an option. It's standard on every laptop
they sell. The higher-end laptops come with XP-Pro as standard. There
is no option to buy a laptop without an OS. Dell did allowed me to pick
any OS I wanted... as long as it was either XP-Home or XP-Pro.<g>
In all fairness I was very, very happy with the "value" I got for my
money. For $760 this is a lot of laptop. The wide-screen is crystal
clear, the sound is pretty decent for a laptop and the battery lasts a
real long time. If this very same laptop came without any OS I would
still consider it an excellent deal. Even without some of the
'extra-features' like built in wireless, extended-life battery, etc I
would still be very happy with it. Even though I know better, as far as
my value and satisfaction is concerned, the inclusion of XP-Home really
is "free" to me.
Linønut
More free money for Bill Gates and his gang of crooks.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
>> I bought a new laptop from Dell.
>> Bet that baby came with XP Home Edition.
> More free money for Bill Gates and his gang of crooks.
Fact is that you're right. My Dell laptop certainly put a few more
dollars in Msft's already bulging bank account. If you read the rest of
my post you probably saw that I had no use for XP-Home. One of the
first things I did was to reformat the drive and install XP-Pro. So I
ended up paying a hidden-cost for something that I don't even need.
The reality is that I can't find a comparable laptop for this price
anywhere. With or without Windows. Buying this system from Dell with
XP-Home was less expensive than buying a similar laptop elsewhere.
Linønut
> Fact is that you're right. My Dell laptop certainly put a few more
> dollars in Msft's already bulging bank account. If you read the rest of
> my post you probably saw that I had no use for XP-Home. One of the
> first things I did was to reformat the drive and install XP-Pro. So I
> ended up paying a hidden-cost for something that I don't even need.
>
> The reality is that I can't find a comparable laptop for this price
> anywhere. With or without Windows. Buying this system from Dell with
> XP-Home was less expensive than buying a similar laptop elsewhere.
I know. I had to do the same thing. I even got an RMA number from Dell
and sent them back all the Microsoft disks. Never got a refund.
But I went back to them for a laptop for my daughter.
That kind of stuff is just wrong.
Kelsey Bjarnason
lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
> So I basically nuked the hard drive, reformatted it and installed
> XP-Pro. (I have a domain controller at home and XP-Home can't login
> into an NT domain.
> would still be very happy with it. Even though I know better, as far as
> my value and satisfaction is concerned, the inclusion of XP-Home really
> is "free" to me.
Lessee... XP Home can't log into a domain. XP Pro is fundamentally
useless for server-type tasks, and is crippled for file sharing and
similar tasks, without additional hacks. XP doesn't come with office
tools, development tools, media production tools, rendering tools,
scientific tools, or even, last I checked, such trivial things as IRC
apps and IM apps that'll handle multiple protocols.
It doesn't do multiple virtual desktops, it has essentially crippled
multi-user support, its bundled mail and web apps are widely regarded as
being simply not safe to use.
Well, yes, for what you get, it *should* be free. Sorta like Linux,
except that a typical Linux distro *does* have all those things, and
doesn't bundle the net's most dangerous apps. And it can log into a
domain. Or be the DC for one.
billwg
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9P7ue.77148$9A2.23675@edtnps89...
>
> Well, yes, for what you get, it *should* be free. Sorta like Linux,
> except that a typical Linux distro *does* have all those things, and
> doesn't bundle the net's most dangerous apps. And it can log into a
> domain. Or be the DC for one.
Well, kelsy, you are just being stupid. XP Home is a personal computer
platform ideally suited for the vast majority of users who only have a
single computer to contend with, i.e. the "personal" computer, and are not
interested in computers as a hobby. It keeps things simple for them and
that is all that they ask. You can rant and rave as you have done and these
people will only think that you must be daft. They are just not interested
in such things. Those who are can find total satisfaction with XP Pro or
one of the server platforms tailor to various classes of needs.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9P7ue.77148$9A2.23675@edtnps89...
>
>>Well, yes, for what you get, it *should* be free. Sorta like Linux,
>>except that a typical Linux distro *does* have all those things, and
>>doesn't bundle the net's most dangerous apps. And it can log into a
>>domain. Or be the DC for one.
>
>
> Well, kelsy, you are just being stupid.
By expecting software one *pays for* to actually be useful for
something? If that's stupid, can I interest you in a whole collection
of, say, 1,000 small utilities which don't do anything, and I'll sell
you the whole lot for the bundle price of, say, $500?
> XP Home is a personal computer
> platform ideally suited for the vast majority of users who only have a
> single computer to contend with, i.e. the "personal" computer, and are not
> interested in computers as a hobby.
And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write and
edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
requisite tools, right? Whoops.
> It keeps things simple for them and that is all that they ask.
I've yet to meet *anyone* with such low expectations from their system
that a stock XP Home install would meet them.
billwg
> billwg wrote:
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9P7ue.77148$9A2.23675@edtnps89...
>>
>>>Well, yes, for what you get, it *should* be free. Sorta like Linux,
>>>except that a typical Linux distro *does* have all those things, and
>>>doesn't bundle the net's most dangerous apps. And it can log into a
>>>domain. Or be the DC for one.
>>
>>
>> Well, kelsy, you are just being stupid.
>
> By expecting software one *pays for* to actually be useful for something?
> If that's stupid, can I interest you in a whole collection of, say, 1,000
> small utilities which don't do anything, and I'll sell you the whole lot
> for the bundle price of, say, $500?
>
Home is highly useful for the functions that the computer purchaser
recognizes as needs. If you think that your own judgement is so vastly
superior to the people who make computers and so determine what goes into
them and what needs to be done to further commerce, you are being arrogant
and totally wrong at the same time.
>
>> XP Home is a personal computer platform ideally suited for the vast
>> majority of users who only have a single computer to contend with, i.e.
>> the "personal" computer, and are not interested in computers as a hobby.
>
> And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write and
> edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
> requisite tools, right? Whoops.
>
kelsey. Grow up!
>
>> It keeps things simple for them and that is all that they ask.
>
> I've yet to meet *anyone* with such low expectations from their system
> that a stock XP Home install would meet them.
You qualify the situation with the term "stock", presumably to disqualify
the myriad of add-ons that always accompany XP itself when acquired from the
major OEMs. But Works, Encarta, Money, Streets, and tons of other things
come packed on your new hard drive today. People buy the package, kelsey,
not the hair splitting arguments that you silly geese try to insist on!
amosf
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write and
>> edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
>> requisite tools, right? Whoops.
>>
> Oh find me a computer that doesn't also come with MS Works loaded for
> free,
> kelsey. Grow up!
Seems to be an extra cost here. Sure it's cheap, but margins are tight and
XP home is the only thing you can be sure of getting on the PC without
asking or paying more.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Kelsey Bjarnason
billwg wrote:
>>By expecting software one *pays for* to actually be useful for something?
>>If that's stupid, can I interest you in a whole collection of, say, 1,000
>>small utilities which don't do anything, and I'll sell you the whole lot
>>for the bundle price of, say, $500?
>>
>
> You continue to grossly overstate your position and so lose any meaning.
Really? Do tell us, then, exactly what office, financial, development
and other such tools are in the XP product? Oh, right. None. At some
point, you'll eventually get around to acknowledging that XP, despite
the price tag, is functionally useless for all but the most trivial tasks.
> XP
> Home is highly useful for the functions that the computer purchaser
> recognizes as needs.
It'll balance his checkbook? Let him create "complex" documents? Even
do something as trivial as letting him chat on IRC or create a database
of recipes? I wasn't aware it had all these features built in. Last I
checked, it didn't even bundle an HTML editor. Or even a text editor
that wasn't a steaming piece of crap. Or a spell-checker. Or even the
anti-virus tools it so desperately needs to be used remotely safely.
Or... well, you get the idea.
Let us know when "XP", as a boxed edition, comes with even a *tenth* the
functionality of a free downloadable Linux distro... then tell us about
how useful it is to the user.
> If you think that your own judgement is so vastly
> superior to the people who make computers and so determine what goes into
> them
You mean the folks who end up supporting the crippled XP by bundling a
mess of additional software, from scanning to word processing and more
and more and more, all because XP, as a product, is really only useful
for email and web browsing?
Yes, well, *they* have figured out that, as a product, XP is about as
hopelessly crippled as you can get; if it weren't, they wouldn't *need*
to bundle all that extra stuff, it would be part and parcel of the XP
product.
Sorry, did you have a point?
>>And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write and
>>edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
>>requisite tools, right? Whoops.
>>
>
> Oh find me a computer that doesn't also come with MS Works loaded for free,
> kelsey. Grow up!
Works? Oh, I see, so XP remains functionally useless, unless you add on
additional bundled products? So, let's see. I've got a blank HD
here. If I go out and buy a copy of XP Home - Future Shop is listing XP
Home, SP2, full version for $249.99 - it will include Works? And, say,
mIRC? And, say, ICQ? And, say, TextPad? Just to start?
No, of course not. For the $250, you're getting, well, XP. And
*nothing* else. As a product, it is effectively useless, until you add
on a mess of extra crap. By contrast, take something like, say, Ubuntu.
They'll ship you - free - a bundle of CDs. You can run it "live" -
something stock XP doesn't do, does it? - or install it. Either way,
you have a hell of a lot more functionality - and for a lot lower cost -
than XP offers.
Yes, yes, we get it, we really do. As a product, XP is about as useful
as tits on a bull. You need to hand-hold it through the process of
becoming useful, either by buying a new system to hopefully get an
actually *useful* bundle of software, or by spending Goat alone knows
how much time, effort and/or money to get the additional software.
Why you would willingly pay good money for a product that, in the final
analysis, doesn't really actually *do* anything, isn't clear.
> You qualify the situation with the term "stock", presumably to disqualify
> the myriad of add-ons that always accompany XP itself
Not always. Certainly not if you buy XP boxed. We were discussing
*XP*, not systems where some vendor has spent God knows how much time
overcoming XP's inherent uselessness.
A rock isn't particularly useful, but you know, give me enough manpower
and enough resources, and I can add enough extras to that rock to create
the Chrysler building. That doesn't mean the rock is suddenly magically
worth a lot, or useful. Hell, pour enough molten gold over a turd, and
it, too, becomes worth something.
Whether XP can be *made* useful isn't the question; the question is
whether XP *is* valuable. You're paying anywhere from $100 on up for it
as a product, what does it, itself, do to warrant the cost?
Answer: not a damned thing.
billwg
"amosf" <linu...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:42ba...@news.comindico.com.au...
> billwg wrote something like:
>
>>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write and
>>> edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
>>> requisite tools, right? Whoops.
>>>
>> Oh find me a computer that doesn't also come with MS Works loaded for
>> free,
>> kelsey. Grow up!
>
> Seems to be an extra cost here. Sure it's cheap, but margins are tight and
> XP home is the only thing you can be sure of getting on the PC without
> asking or paying more.
>
actually buy.
billwg
>
> Whether XP can be *made* useful isn't the question; the question is
> whether XP *is* valuable. You're paying anywhere from $100 on up for it
> as a product, what does it, itself, do to warrant the cost?
>
> Answer: not a damned thing.
Well, Kelsey, you have a jaded view of things and set definitions and
conditions favorable to your hypothesis, but it is a straw man. There may
very well be some customers who purchase a base version of XP Home in a
vacuum for a new machine that they created from raw materials and that user
may be at a cost disadvantage versus using some linux distribution. But the
200,000,000 other machines being shipped with some form of Windows are not
perceived that way.
You don't apparently have a high regard for your personal investment in time
to become familiar with an OS platform such as Windows and so you believe
that no one else does either, but you are quite wrong and the continued
sales success of Windows shows that. The time that I would have to invest
in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is worth
tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is worth
a lot to most people. Certainly it is worth more than the price of Windows
itself.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
> base version of XP Home in a vacuum for a new machine
> that they created from raw materials and that user may
> be at a cost disadvantage versus using some linux distribution.
> But the 200,000,000 other machines being shipped with some
> form of Windows are not perceived that way.
I mentioned this in another thread so I'll keep it short. When I bought
my Dell laptop 2 weeks ago I could not find another laptop with similar
features for anywhere near the price that Dell sold it for. It came
with XP-Home preinstalled. I know better but to me XP was essentially
free since this deal was better than anything else out there. I don't
believe that I would have saved $38 if Dell didn't include XP. The
extra profit would have stayed at Dell.
It's my belief that within reason people don't mind paying a little
extra for convenience and simplicity. When I bought my car it came with
a nice factory CD stereo. It wasn't an option... I had to take the
stereo. Technically I could have saved a few dollars by insisting on a
car without a stereo and then going to some stereo shop and have them
install one for me. If I were still a stereo geek I would do this but
the factory stereo works fine and it's not worth the inconvenience to
save a few dollars and replace something that works perfectly well.
Windows isn't perfect but it is more than usable for the millions of
people who use it daily. Most computer users are not as technical as
the average COLA poster. To them it's perceived as a huge benefit to
buy a pre-configured computer, plug-it-in and just have it work. All
these pre-packaged Windows systems come with all the proper drivers
installed so it's simply a matter of plugging in the computer and it's
immediately ready for use. For technical people this doesn't sound like
much but this is incredibly important for a novice who just bought
their first system.
Some percentage of the population will laugh at my "Harmon Kardon
factory stereo" and replace it with a rack of kilo-watt amplifiers that
drive a custom speaker system with 6-gauge monster cable. Some
percentage of computer users will do the software equivalent. But the
overall quality of my "factory stereo" is more than adequate for most
people and I suspect that the "factory software" is fine for most
people too.
DFS
> Some percentage of the population will laugh at my "Harmon Kardon
> factory stereo" and replace it with a rack of kilo-watt amplifiers
> that drive a custom speaker system with 6-gauge monster cable. Some
> percentage of computer users will do the software equivalent. But the
> overall quality of my "factory stereo" is more than adequate for most
> people and I suspect that the "factory software" is fine for most
> people too.
Linux is NOT a rack of "kilo-watt amplifiers that drive a custom speaker
system with 6-gauge monster cable" compared to the Windows "factory stereo."
Windows is the high-end, 100-watt, 6-speaker Bose system that comes with so
many luxury cars these days, and Linux is the AM radio with one hissing
5-watt tweeter than came in 1970s-era Ford Pintos.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
> that drive a custom speaker system with 6-gauge
> monster cable" compared to the Windows "factory
> the AM radio....
I purposely refrained from comparing OS's directly because it's not
relevant to the point I was making. The point is that for most people
the small added cost having XP pre-installed is a huge advantage. They
want to plug in the computer and have it work.
The stereo analogy points out that serious 'enthusiasts' will want to
customize things. It may be the OS, the video card, over-clocking or a
rack of amps but some percent of customers will customize. For most
everyone else, the 'stock' system is pretty darn good.
I couldn't come up with a scenario where someone replaces a factory
stereo with a 5-watt AM radio. But people do install some incredible
stereo systems. Does the upgrade imply Linux? You certainly read it
that way. When I upgraded my laptop I upgraded the stock XP-Home to
XP-Professional. Other people might upgrade a desktop system to Win2003
Server if that's what they plan on using it for.
The point is that most people won't upgrade their OS and that's because
it's already more than capable for what they need.
Linønut
> Some percentage of the population will laugh at my "Harmon Kardon
> factory stereo" and replace it with a rack of kilo-watt amplifiers that
> drive a custom speaker system with 6-gauge monster cable. Some
> percentage of computer users will do the software equivalent. But the
> overall quality of my "factory stereo" is more than adequate for most
> people and I suspect that the "factory software" is fine for most
> people too.
Except that you have a wide range of receivers and amplifiers to choose
from, and you don't see one company providing the tuners or firmware for
all of them.
Granted, most people don't care about monopolies. Its cost is absorbed
into the cost of a computer, where they can't see it.
Even then, a certain percentage would pay up anyway because they think
the Microsoft name means something like "quality", or at least
"familiarity".
And then wonder why their computers turn to sludge after a few weeks or
months.
Kelsey Bjarnason
billwg wrote:
> Well, Kelsey, you have a jaded view of things and set definitions and
> conditions favorable to your hypothesis, but it is a straw man.
It is? I've got two purchased boxed products: XP Home and, say, SuSe.
Try a feature comparison between them sometime, and let me know if you
can find XP offering even a tenth the functionality.
There may
> very well be some customers who purchase a base version of XP Home in a
> vacuum for a new machine that they created from raw materials and that user
> may be at a cost disadvantage versus using some linux distribution. But the
> 200,000,000 other machines being shipped with some form of Windows are not
> perceived that way.
So XP, by itself - by your own admission - is useless, unless some
vendor jumps through a lot of hoops to do all the hand-holding up front,
by adding on whole collections of extra apps so that the system becomes
useful for something. Yes, yes, we get that, we know that. XP remains
useless, until someone comes along and, like pouring gold on a turd,
makes it valuable.
> You don't apparently have a high regard for your personal investment in time
> to become familiar with an OS platform such as Windows
Wrong. I've got a lot of regard for my time, which is why I don't like
to see it wasted over pointless issues. Such as trying to turn
something I paid for, yet is useless, into something useful. If I paid
for it, it should damned well *do* something.
Kelsey Bjarnason
lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
> Windows isn't perfect but it is more than usable for the millions of
> people who use it daily.
You're missing the point; XP is *not* "more than usable".
You run XP, right? Okay. Try this. Go into the control panel,
add/remove programs. Remove *all* the applications. Anything that
isn't included as part of XP itself. Now try to use your computer.
Can you do email? Yup. Web browsing? Yup. MSN chat? Yup. News?
Yup. Balancing your checkbook? Nope. Development? Nope. Creation of
"complex" documents? Nope. Creating a web page? Nope, unless you know
HTML and use notepad. Spell checking? Nope. IRC? Nope. ICQ? Nope.
Instant messanging with, say, the Yahoo protocols? Nope. Run a
database? Nope. Create graphics? Sort of, but the tools are pretty
crippled. Same for media.
Of course, while you're doing this, especially email and web browsing,
can you do it *safely*? Nope, you don't have anti-hijack, anti-virus
and similar tools, which you need to do this safely.
So yeah, if all you care about is email and web browsing, and it doesn't
matter to you whether you get a virus or a worm, doesn't matter if your
system becomes a zombie, used to attack other systems, send spam and the
like, then sure, XP is indeed, "more than usable". Exactly how many
people do *you* know that are satisfied with this limited set of
functionality?
I know many folks who use XP, I know of *none* who have such low
expectations. They want, even need, additional tools, such as word
processors. XP doesn't include those. XP is *not* useful to those
people. Some application - MS Word, for example - is, but that's not
part of XP, isn't bundled with XP, XP simply will not let them do the
tasks they need to do... XP is *not* a useful product.
By comparison, "Linux", properly, is the kernel; by itself, it is
essentially useless. It needs a shell, applications, and the rest to
make it usable. The difference here is that when you buy a boxed Linux
distro, those things are included. Word processors. Databases. IM
clients. Security tools. IRC apps. Media apps. Development tools.
The list goes on and on and on. What you're buying is not a
"potentially useful" product, you're buying a useful product. With XP,
all you're getting is "potentially useful"... and that only if you're
willing to foot the effort and expense of making it so... or buying a
new system which includes it and a collection of things where someone
else has footed the time and expense to turn XP into something useful.
billwg
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message news:r7Due.1939$B_3...@fe05.lga...
administered similarly to branded unix on a RISC machine, AFAIAC.
It isn't so terrible as you suggest, I think, but it is not particularly
suited to home user use on personal machines. Everyone who actually has
some touch on that pretty much knows that to be the case and it is not very
likely that anything significant will occur on the desktop. OSS itself, I
think, is useful if only to sort of help commoditize the old stuff and keep
the software vendors hopping from place to place and bringing out new stuff
with just a little more progress and a little more convenient.
Look at the progress of things like multimedia files over the past 10 years.
They have moved from huge WAV formats to more and more compact forms with
better and better fidelity. You get a lot of video along with the audio now
in a very small file. You can pretty much get it all for free, too, even
the latest stuff from the commercial suppliers. That has a lot to do with
OSS and with Microsoft's assimilations. If a company wants to make money
for a long period of time with a new product, they have to keep hustling
since MS will soon give it away with Windows and the OSS bunch will clone it
for sure.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j3kue.71010$HI.15445@edtnps84...
>> billwg wrote:
>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9P7ue.77148$9A2.23675@edtnps89...
>>>
>>>>Well, yes, for what you get, it *should* be free. Sorta like Linux,
>>>>except that a typical Linux distro *does* have all those things, and
>>>>doesn't bundle the net's most dangerous apps. And it can log into a
>>>>domain. Or be the DC for one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, kelsy, you are just being stupid.
>>
>> By expecting software one *pays for* to actually be useful for something?
>> If that's stupid, can I interest you in a whole collection of, say, 1,000
>> small utilities which don't do anything, and I'll sell you the whole lot
>> for the bundle price of, say, $500?
>>
> You continue to grossly overstate your position and so lose any meaning. XP
> Home is highly useful for the functions that the computer purchaser
> recognizes as needs. If you think that your own judgement is so vastly
> superior to the people who make computers and so determine what goes into
> them and what needs to be done to further commerce, you are being arrogant
> and totally wrong at the same time.
No, he just realizes that "quality" has ZILCH to do with what
"people who make computers" do. This is why these same people were
helping subject the world to MS-DOS for so long.
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> news:Nqque.89527$tt5.70414@edtnps90...
>>
>> Whether XP can be *made* useful isn't the question; the question is
>> whether XP *is* valuable. You're paying anywhere from $100 on up for it
>> as a product, what does it, itself, do to warrant the cost?
>>
>> Answer: not a damned thing.
>
> Well, Kelsey, you have a jaded view of things and set definitions and
> conditions favorable to your hypothesis, but it is a straw man. There may
> very well be some customers who purchase a base version of XP Home in a
> vacuum for a new machine that they created from raw materials and that user
> may be at a cost disadvantage versus using some linux distribution. But the
> 200,000,000 other machines being shipped with some form of Windows are not
> perceived that way.
No, it is you that is playing with strawmen.
None of us have suggested anything of the sort.
>
> You don't apparently have a high regard for your personal investment in time
> to become familiar with an OS platform such as Windows and so you believe
> that no one else does either, but you are quite wrong and the continued
Isn't this the same "problem" that all of you Lemmings keep up
bringing up as reasons to avoid Linux, that "investment of time"?
> sales success of Windows shows that. The time that I would have to invest
> in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is worth
> tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is worth
> a lot to most people. Certainly it is worth more than the price of Windows
> itself.
You're simply full of yourself.
Peter Hayes
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j3kue.71010$HI.15445@edtnps84...
> > billwg wrote:
<...>
> >> XP Home is a personal computer platform ideally suited for the vast
> >> majority of users who only have a single computer to contend with, i.e.
> >> the "personal" computer, and are not interested in computers as a hobby.
> >
> > And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write and
> > edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
> > requisite tools, right? Whoops.
> >
> Oh find me a computer that doesn't also come with MS Works loaded for free,
FREE
???
Since when were all these compulsory extras that come with Windows
machines "free"?
They had to be bought and paid for somehow, whether you like it or not.
And $249.99 for XP Home SP2 Retail is daylight robbery, considering it's
next to useless without additional spending.
> >> It keeps things simple for them and that is all that they ask.
> >
> > I've yet to meet *anyone* with such low expectations from their system
> > that a stock XP Home install would meet them.
>
> You qualify the situation with the term "stock", presumably to disqualify
> the myriad of add-ons that always accompany XP itself when acquired from the
> major OEMs. But Works, Encarta, Money, Streets, and tons of other things
> come packed on your new hard drive today. People buy the package, kelsey,
> not the hair splitting arguments that you silly geese try to insist on!
Yes, "buy", they're not "free". And they're compulsory.
Just once I'd like to see an itemised price list of everything that
comes with the average computer sale, with options to delete as
required.
--
Peter
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:QaydnekDnds...@comcast.com...
are never going to change then and nothing is ever going to be different.
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>
> Isn't this the same "problem" that all of you Lemmings keep up
> bringing up as reasons to avoid Linux, that "investment of time"?
>
Well, jedidiah, what is your time worth?
>> sales success of Windows shows that. The time that I would have to
>> invest
>> in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is worth
>> tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is
>> worth
>> a lot to most people. Certainly it is worth more than the price of
>> Windows
>> itself.
>
> You're simply full of yourself.
Well, jedidiah, I am not Bill Gates and I only have my services to sell to
the world to earn my living. If I spend 50 hours learning about linux, who
is going to pay me for my lost wages? Not the OSSers, for sure.
>
billwg
"Peter Hayes" <pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gymrcr.1m81yf31d5aegwN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk...
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:j3kue.71010$HI.15445@edtnps84...
>> > billwg wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>> >> XP Home is a personal computer platform ideally suited for the vast
>> >> majority of users who only have a single computer to contend with,
>> >> i.e.
>> >> the "personal" computer, and are not interested in computers as a
>> >> hobby.
>> >
>> > And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks, write
>> > and
>> > edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home includes all the
>> > requisite tools, right? Whoops.
>> >
>> Oh find me a computer that doesn't also come with MS Works loaded for
>> free,
>
> FREE
>
> ???
>
> Since when were all these compulsory extras that come with Windows
> machines "free"?
>
package. Is there a less expensive package that does not contain them? I
have no idea, but if it isn't something that you can skip, it is part of the
base and you are just being silly expressing amazement that Windows cannot
be free. "Compulsory extras" indeed! The OEM is just trying to appeal to
some specific segment of the population that he sees as a likely customer
set for his wares. Too bad he doesn't see you like that!
> They had to be bought and paid for somehow, whether you like it or not.
>
> And $249.99 for XP Home SP2 Retail is daylight robbery, considering it's
> next to useless without additional spending.
>
If that is your feeling, you are probably not a good candidate for the sales
pitch, Peter. So what?
>> >> It keeps things simple for them and that is all that they ask.
>> >
>> > I've yet to meet *anyone* with such low expectations from their system
>> > that a stock XP Home install would meet them.
>>
>> You qualify the situation with the term "stock", presumably to disqualify
>> the myriad of add-ons that always accompany XP itself when acquired from
>> the
>> major OEMs. But Works, Encarta, Money, Streets, and tons of other things
>> come packed on your new hard drive today. People buy the package,
>> kelsey,
>> not the hair splitting arguments that you silly geese try to insist on!
>
> Yes, "buy", they're not "free". And they're compulsory.
>
And they are part of the OEM's package being offered.
> Just once I'd like to see an itemised price list of everything that
> comes with the average computer sale, with options to delete as
> required.
>
You would pay much more for the total. You can look up prices for a case,
power supply, motherboard, etc., a lot of places. Try to beat a package
price, even without including Windows. No can do. Microsoft helps you out
here by supplying the software to the OEM at a very low cost so that the
package overall is relatively inexpensive.
billwg
>
> So XP, by itself - by your own admission - is useless, unless some vendor
> jumps through a lot of hoops to do all the hand-holding up front, by
> adding on whole collections of extra apps so that the system becomes
> useful for something. Yes, yes, we get that, we know that. XP remains
> useless, until someone comes along and, like pouring gold on a turd, makes
> it valuable.
>
to the DOJ and states' AGs, it is so popular that people will not even
consider buying a computer unless it is supplied. That, say the lawyers,
gives Microsoft a virtual monopoly and so they need to be restrained in what
they are even allowed to offer to the the market since the urge on the part
of the computer buying public is so strong. You say XP is useless, yet
almost everyone wants it. You say linux distributions are so wonderful and
essentially free yet almost no one wants one. Are you starting to suspect
that you are crazy?
>> You don't apparently have a high regard for your personal investment in
>> time to become familiar with an OS platform such as Windows
>
> Wrong. I've got a lot of regard for my time, which is why I don't like to
> see it wasted over pointless issues. Such as trying to turn something I
> paid for, yet is useless, into something useful. If I paid for it, it
> should damned well *do* something.
Well how much time do you think that consumers will want to waste in
switching to some other platform that they have no experience with? What
can you offer them in compensation for that time? More of your abuse?
amosf
Nobody pays for the hours spent installing, updating or fixing malware, so
that's why linux looks good. I don't spmed as many hours with it, but even
if I did, hours of learning sound better than hours wasted trying to plug
the holes MS leaves in the software.
amosf
Must be different in the US. Some of those cheap extras cost a shitload over
here. Give me a clean machine any day. Even the wisened win users buy with
basic XP home and put decent pirate software on... I go one better and put
linux, even on the machine that came 'free' with a winders OS...
amosf
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dKDue.72700$HI.30798@edtnps84...
>>
>> So XP, by itself - by your own admission - is useless, unless some vendor
>> jumps through a lot of hoops to do all the hand-holding up front, by
>> adding on whole collections of extra apps so that the system becomes
>> useful for something. Yes, yes, we get that, we know that. XP remains
>> useless, until someone comes along and, like pouring gold on a turd,
>> makes it valuable.
>>
> XP certainly is not "useless", else why would it be so popular? According
> to the DOJ and states' AGs, it is so popular that people will not even
> consider buying a computer unless it is supplied. That, say the lawyers,
> gives Microsoft a virtual monopoly and so they need to be restrained in
> what they are even allowed to offer to the the market since the urge on
> the part
> of the computer buying public is so strong. You say XP is useless, yet
> almost everyone wants it. You say linux distributions are so wonderful
> and
> essentially free yet almost no one wants one. Are you starting to suspect
> that you are crazy?
Not everyone wants it tho. You just claim that those who don't want it don't
matter. Even those who do want it, don't want to pay for it... For the most
part, people are stuck in the monopoly rut where MS wants them. That may or
may not change. The US is getting a bad name arround the world and MS is
tarred with that brush. The rest of the world is getting to where they
don't want to be under the control of the US, or US monopolies like MS.
>>> You don't apparently have a high regard for your personal investment in
>>> time to become familiar with an OS platform such as Windows
>>
>> Wrong. I've got a lot of regard for my time, which is why I don't like
>> to
>> see it wasted over pointless issues. Such as trying to turn something I
>> paid for, yet is useless, into something useful. If I paid for it, it
>> should damned well *do* something.
>
> Well how much time do you think that consumers will want to waste in
> switching to some other platform that they have no experience with? What
> can you offer them in compensation for that time? More of your abuse?
MS has to keep up the FUD. If too many people find out the truth then they
will convert in droves. Those of us using linux know that there is no pain
in the move, only benefits. The time saved in handling malware and having a
secure stable OS is eoungh all on it's own. Plus it looks better, works
better and all the rest.
Grug
John Savard wrote:
> At the store today.
>
> Saw portable DVD players on sale there for $200. Canadian, yet.
>
> This means that it would be possible to make a laptop computer for $300.
> It wouldn't have a Pentium 4 in it; it wouldn't even have a chip as
> powerful as found in a $500 handheld organizer.
>
> But a $300 laptop with a 386-class processor ought to be possible. 4 MB
> of RAM, and, instead of an HD, 32 MB of what is used in those USB keys.
>
> Of course, one would need a *really light* version of Linux, since
> Windows 3.1 is no longer available... something like muLinux, perhaps.
> Maybe it would have to be modified further and stripped down.
>
> And it would need an efficient and light office suite - something in the
> same class as Microsoft Works.
Not sure you could make a laptop for 300 dollars that would actually be
useful...
Consider that the LCD screen and batteries are the most expensive
parts.
Also, even though a light OS could be had (XP embedded or just the raw
Linux kernal, or even the Win32 "K-API"), the software needed to do
what people want to do today would probably take up a lot more space -
which is really mostly irrelevant since more memory isn't very
expensive.
It would cost a lot more just to get a light OS with light apps.
developed than to simply take on an extra 256MB of memory (20 bux?) and
do it right the first time.
Maybe a light office package compatible with Office 2003's XML file
format (meaning totally open file formats - no binary stuff). At least
then the light office package could interact with the outside world.
XP embedded would probably be the best choice - it is proven very
reliable, can be pared down to a very small core, and runs Win32
natively which is what most apps. are already developed in (or get
translated down to).
Again, the cost of the laptop is going to be all hardware really... and
the price of the nice LCD screen is going to dominate that.
I do like your idea though... maybe think about something of a smaller
form factor with OS and apps. in ROM so it is always instant on,
instant off.
I remember the HP Journada with Window CE at the time (a full sized
laptop that was relatively cheap).
Great idea, not so good execution. And Windows CE (Pocket PC) is eons
better now. Hell, my MS mobile phone is better now lol.
-Grug
> John Savard
> http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
> _________________________________________
> Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
> More than 120,000 groups
> Unlimited download
> http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Kier
> Linux is a generic form of unix that runs on the Intel processors and is
> administered similarly to branded unix on a RISC machine, AFAIAC.
>
> It isn't so terrible as you suggest, I think, but it is not particularly
> suited to home user use on personal machines. Everyone who actually has
> some touch on that pretty much knows that to be the case and it is not very
> likely that anything significant will occur on the desktop. OSS itself, I
> think, is useful if only to sort of help commoditize the old stuff and keep
> the software vendors hopping from place to place and bringing out new stuff
> with just a little more progress and a little more convenient.
What you think is neither here nor there, since Linux is in fact emerging
onto the desktop at almost frightening speed, no matter how hard to try
to deny it. When Longhorn comes out, in it ever does, it will be way
behind, not in front.
--
Kier
amosf
Not only that, it's likely that the way various wine projects are going that
linux will support more legacy win apps that longhorn when it gets here, or
at least just as many...
Kelsey Bjarnason
billwg wrote:
> XP certainly is not "useless",
Really? What can you do with it? Not word processing, not database
work, not development, a very limited subset of internet use...
basically, it's minesweeper, solitaire, IE and OE. Hardly staggering
usability.
> else why would it be so popular?
It's not. Apart from a few who buy into the hype, and want it without
any real clue _why_ they want it, most folks, on the whole, are
completely oblivious to it. You could stick an XP logo on a Mac and as
long as they can run their apps, they'd never know the difference.
Apart from a comparatively small technically-oriented contingent, most
folks simply aren't even aware, beyond maybe knowing the name of the OS,
what the OS is, or does, nor do they differentiate between OS and apps.
"XP lets me chat on IRC". No, mIRC does that - XP has *no* capability
for doing that. To most, though, it's not mIRC and MS Office and
whatnot, it's simply "XP".
You, however, know better. You know damned well what XP is - and what
it isn't. You even admit that until someone - the user, the vendor,
whomever - adds in a mess of bundled software, XP, as a product, is
functionally limited. That Joe Sixpack happens to regard Word and mIRC
and whatever else as "part of" XP doesn't change the reality of it.
> almost everyone wants it. You say linux distributions are so wonderful and
> essentially free yet almost no one wants one.
Apart from the millions using it, the governments, schools, research
institutions, NSA, internet outfits, and more and more and more? You
mean aside from all those "no one"?
> Well how much time do you think that consumers will want to waste in
> switching to some other platform that they have no experience with?
How much time do you think is involved? Hint: not a hell of a lot.
Most desktop distros these days are pretty much plug-and-play, even to
the point of running off CD so you can try before installing. There's a
small learning curve as you figure out things like using kmail instead
of OE, Moz instead of IE, etc... but that seems to be more than
compensatd by the effort involved in getting and keeping your Windows
systems secured, the lost time due to infections, inexplicable failures
and the rest which are way too common in Windows land.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:10:11 GMT
<nODue.109167$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message news:r7Due.1939$B_3...@fe05.lga...
>> lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Some percentage of the population will laugh at my "Harmon Kardon
>>> factory stereo" and replace it with a rack of kilo-watt amplifiers
>>> that drive a custom speaker system with 6-gauge monster cable. Some
>>> percentage of computer users will do the software equivalent. But the
>>> overall quality of my "factory stereo" is more than adequate for most
>>> people and I suspect that the "factory software" is fine for most
>>> people too.
>>
>> Linux is NOT a rack of "kilo-watt amplifiers that drive a custom speaker
>> system with 6-gauge monster cable" compared to the Windows "factory
>> stereo."
>>
>> Windows is the high-end, 100-watt, 6-speaker Bose system that comes with
>> so
>> many luxury cars these days, and Linux is the AM radio with one hissing
>> 5-watt tweeter than came in 1970s-era Ford Pintos.
>>
> Linux is a generic form of unix that runs on the Intel processors and is
> administered similarly to branded unix on a RISC machine, AFAIAC.
[1] Linux is not a Unix, though this is a technical point.
[2] It does not run on Intel processors only.
[3] It is not administered similarly to branded Unix on any machine.
There are a number of differences; for example, HP/UX has something
called SAM, which among other things allows for kernel rebuilds
(the source isn't available so this is mostly a relink) and
such things as Ethernet configurations.
>
> It isn't so terrible as you suggest,
For those who are comfortable with Unix, it's wonderful. For those
who are comfortable with Windows, it has its moments but ease of
administration still has some issues to get over, mostly because
of the over 100 methods of administration (one per distro).
While a lot of distros support such things as ifconfig, Xorg.conf,
and ps on a text level, the graphical configurators are a little
less straightforward than they should be.
> I think, but it is not particularly suited to home user use on
> personal machines.
Depends on the user; I find it quite suitable. Of course I
program routinely in Java, C++, and to a lesser extent assembler,
and am familiar with such things as 'int $0x80' (though one need
not be for actually using Linux, and in fact I rarely use that
interrupt except when experimenting with some very esoteric stuff).
But this shouldn't dissuade the casual user any more than the
NASCAR driver driving a car should put off the Sunday driver.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
jab...@texeme.com
> XP certainly is not "useless", else why would it be so popular?
Saying that XP is 'popular' is like saying that door handles on your car are
popular. Nobody buys a car door handle, it's built in. If people were
offered a choice they might choose otherwise. But they're not...
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
jab...@texeme.com
> Well, jedidiah, I am not Bill Gates and I only have my services to sell to
> the world to earn my living. If I spend 50 hours learning about linux,
> who
> is going to pay me for my lost wages? Not the OSSers, for sure.
Monster.com
Search term: Linux
Found:
Jobs 1 to 50 of more than 1000
Most jobs today are adding in Linux and/or Unix experience as a
qualification.
At the very least, knowing it, will add to your job skills.
jab...@texeme.com
>> Just once I'd like to see an itemised price list of everything that
>> comes with the average computer sale, with options to delete as
>> required.
>>
> You would pay much more for the total. You can look up prices for a case,
> power supply, motherboard, etc., a lot of places. Try to beat a package
> price, even without including Windows. No can do. Microsoft helps you
> out here by supplying the software to the OEM at a very low cost so that
> the package overall is relatively inexpensive.
The goal of any monopoly is to sell the product to everyone at whatever
price the consumer will bear. That is something learned in Econ 102,
Macroeconomics. If a poor nation cannot afford it, it will charge a low
price for a "Limited Edition". If a rich corporation wants to standardize
on it, it will be charged a high cost for an "Enterprise Server".
When we talk about 'cost' I don't think we should focus on the initial cost
of the OS for a home desktop. The real cost is in the control of the
individual and the technology. Linux does not restrain people. Windows
is dedicated to doing so.
jab...@texeme.com
> It isn't so terrible as you suggest, I think, but it is not particularly
> suited to home user use on personal machines. Everyone who actually has
> some touch on that pretty much knows that to be the case and it is not
> very
No supporting evidence for the statements in this post.
Next witness!
malloc
> billwg wrote:
>> It isn't so terrible as you suggest, I think, but it is not
>> particularly suited to home user use on personal machines.
>> Everyone who actually has some touch on that pretty much knows that
>> to be the case and it is not very
> No supporting evidence for the statements in this post.
> Next witness!
I have a dual boot system set up in the office. Sometimes just for fun I
let the visiting managerial types have a go at it in Linux mode, without
mentioning anything. They browse, they word process, they print they
view images and attach USB devices, no problem. When asked if they have
ever used linux the answer is of course not it is too difficult. When it
is pointed out to them that they just did, they are generally gob smacked.
Quantum Leaper
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:j3kue.71010$HI.15445@edtnps84...
>>> billwg wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>>> XP Home is a personal computer platform ideally suited for the vast
>>>> majority of users who only have a single computer to contend with,
>>>> i.e. the "personal" computer, and are not interested in computers
>>>> as a hobby.
>>>
>>> And a lot of whom do file trading, want to balance checkbooks,
>>> write and edit documents, etc, etc, etc. Of course, XP Home
>>> includes all the requisite tools, right? Whoops.
>>>
>> Oh find me a computer that doesn't also come with MS Works loaded
>> for free,
>
> FREE
>
> ???
>
> Since when were all these compulsory extras that come with Windows
> machines "free"?
>
> They had to be bought and paid for somehow, whether you like it or
> not.
>
> And $249.99 for XP Home SP2 Retail is daylight robbery, considering it's
> next to useless without additional spending.
>
you either buy a computer, build a computer or upgrade a computer or did I
miss a 'class' of computer buyer? If you buy a computer it most likely has
MS installed, if you build a computer, you can buy an OEM copy, to
qualify, you need a new MB or HD, if you upgrade, most likely it has/had
MS installed on it, so you have the CD with is all you need for a upgrade.
The only people, I can think of that couldn't get a OEM or Upgrade price,
is someone who built or bought a computer in the past and it had Linux
preinstalled on it. The problem with that is why do they want to change if
Linux is SO great....
amosf
>> Since when were all these compulsory extras that come with Windows
>> machines "free"?
>>
>> They had to be bought and paid for somehow, whether you like it or
>> not.
>>
>> And $249.99 for XP Home SP2 Retail is daylight robbery, considering it's
>> next to useless without additional spending.
>>
> The problem is I know of no one who ever has to PAY $249 for XP Home,
> since
> you either buy a computer, build a computer or upgrade a computer or did
> I
> miss a 'class' of computer buyer? If you buy a computer it most likely
> has
> MS installed, if you build a computer, you can buy an OEM copy, to
> qualify, you need a new MB or HD, if you upgrade, most likely it
> has/had
> MS installed on it, so you have the CD with is all you need for a
> upgrade.
> The only people, I can think of that couldn't get a OEM or Upgrade price,
> is someone who built or bought a computer in the past and it had Linux
> preinstalled on it. The problem with that is why do they want to change
> if Linux is SO great....
When 95, 98, ME, XP were released the shelves were full of boxes of these
OS's to sell. People bought them generally with the hope that they would be
better than the crashing rubbish they had on their PC at the time.
Sometimes the new OS was a little better and other times it was worse. Also
some people buy a PC with OEM winders and no disks, and they are screwed
when the warrenty runs out. In all these cases people either do the 'right'
thing and buy winders, or they steal it... After buying one overpriced copy
they usually steal the next I figure...
Question. Will there be boxes of longhorn (or winders 2010) on the shelves
when it's released?
chrisv
>else why would (XP) be so popular
Idiot. Because M$ has so far successfully, often illegally, used their
monopoly power to inhibit competition, and there's obviously a
"critical mass" that an OS needs to achieve before there's widespread
application availability.
DUH. LOL.
chrisv
>The time that I would have to invest
>in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is worth
>tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is worth
>a lot to most people.
You think wrong, as usual. If Linux were pre-installed, as Windoze
usually is, performing the common tasks is very simple when using KDE,
for example. "Most people" are clueless about Windows, and they could
be equally clueless about Linux, and still get the job done.
>Certainly it is worth more than the price of Windows itself.
Don't forget the virus scanner.
chrisv
*plonk*
billwg
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.23...@tiscali.co.uk...
>
> What you think is neither here nor there, since Linux is in fact emerging
> onto the desktop at almost frightening speed, no matter how hard to try
> to deny it. When Longhorn comes out, in it ever does, it will be way
> behind, not in front.
>
I think they call it the "Tinkerbell strategy". LOL!
JEDIDIAH
> news:QaydnegDndu...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Isn't this the same "problem" that all of you Lemmings keep up
>> bringing up as reasons to avoid Linux, that "investment of time"?
>>
>
> Well, jedidiah, what is your time worth?
I am a salaried exempt employee so I have no dellusions about my
time representing some mysterious pot of gold.
>
>>> sales success of Windows shows that. The time that I would have to
>>> invest
>>> in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is worth
>>> tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is
>>> worth
>>> a lot to most people. Certainly it is worth more than the price of
>>> Windows
>>> itself.
>>
>> You're simply full of yourself.
>
> Well, jedidiah, I am not Bill Gates and I only have my services to sell to
> the world to earn my living. If I spend 50 hours learning about linux, who
> is going to pay me for my lost wages? Not the OSSers, for sure.
No, just companies like Electronic Arts, Southwest Airlines, Ebay,
Amazon, JP Morgan Chase, NYSE, IBM, Oracle, HP or any other company that
uses Linux or applications that run on it.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
JEDIDIAH
> news:dKDue.72700$HI.30798@edtnps84...
>>
>> So XP, by itself - by your own admission - is useless, unless some vendor
>> jumps through a lot of hoops to do all the hand-holding up front, by
>> adding on whole collections of extra apps so that the system becomes
>> useful for something. Yes, yes, we get that, we know that. XP remains
>> useless, until someone comes along and, like pouring gold on a turd, makes
>> it valuable.
>>
> XP certainly is not "useless", else why would it be so popular? According
In 1983, the largest proportion of computer buyers were fixated
on being MS-DOS compatable.
[deletia]
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:mmvro2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Walks, talks, quacks, etc.
> [2] It does not run on Intel processors only.
But for all practical purposes, desktops do, and who at Microsoft cares
about what runs on SPARC, or any other processor?
> [3] It is not administered similarly to branded Unix on any machine.
Same configuration file organization, same text editor tools, same settings
for configuration variables, etc.
>
billwg
<jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:j9-dnfXp_uY...@speakeasy.net...
> billwg wrote:
>
>> It isn't so terrible as you suggest, I think, but it is not particularly
>> suited to home user use on personal machines. Everyone who actually has
>> some touch on that pretty much knows that to be the case and it is not
>> very
>
> No supporting evidence for the statements in this post.
>
> Next witness!
>
the so-called Winidiots voting with their wallets for the current and future
releases of Windows. Watch for it in a store near you! LOL!!!
amosf
I think India and China are going to go MS windows in a BIG way. Real soon.
billwg
"amosf" <linu...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:42bb...@news.comindico.com.au...
> billwg wrote something like:
>
>>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dKDue.72700$HI.30798@edtnps84...
>>>
>>> So XP, by itself - by your own admission - is useless, unless some
>>> vendor
>>> jumps through a lot of hoops to do all the hand-holding up front, by
>>> adding on whole collections of extra apps so that the system becomes
>>> useful for something. Yes, yes, we get that, we know that. XP remains
>>> useless, until someone comes along and, like pouring gold on a turd,
>>> makes it valuable.
>>>
>> XP certainly is not "useless", else why would it be so popular?
>> According
>> to the DOJ and states' AGs, it is so popular that people will not even
>> consider buying a computer unless it is supplied. That, say the lawyers,
>> gives Microsoft a virtual monopoly and so they need to be restrained in
>> what they are even allowed to offer to the the market since the urge on
>> the part
>> of the computer buying public is so strong. You say XP is useless, yet
>> almost everyone wants it. You say linux distributions are so wonderful
>> and
>> essentially free yet almost no one wants one. Are you starting to
>> suspect
>> that you are crazy?
>
> Not everyone wants it tho.
Even Judge Jackson put the number at 95%, amos. Maybe that is not
"everyone" but it is close enough.
> You just claim that those who don't want it don't
> matter. Even those who do want it, don't want to pay for it... For the
> most
> part, people are stuck in the monopoly rut where MS wants them. That may
> or
> may not change. The US is getting a bad name arround the world and MS is
> tarred with that brush. The rest of the world is getting to where they
> don't want to be under the control of the US, or US monopolies like MS.
>
>>>> You don't apparently have a high regard for your personal investment in
>>>> time to become familiar with an OS platform such as Windows
>>>
>>> Wrong. I've got a lot of regard for my time, which is why I don't like
>>> to
>>> see it wasted over pointless issues. Such as trying to turn something I
>>> paid for, yet is useless, into something useful. If I paid for it, it
>>> should damned well *do* something.
>>
>> Well how much time do you think that consumers will want to waste in
>> switching to some other platform that they have no experience with? What
>> can you offer them in compensation for that time? More of your abuse?
>
> MS has to keep up the FUD. If too many people find out the truth then they
> will convert in droves. Those of us using linux know that there is no pain
> in the move, only benefits. The time saved in handling malware and having
> a
> secure stable OS is eoungh all on it's own. Plus it looks better, works
> better and all the rest.
>
Well, amos, you have to get the 95% or so to believe that. What are you
doing to make it happen? How long will it take you to make some progress
that is visible?
The answer is nothing and forever, of course, and that is story with linux.
It is too expensive to mount any consumer education campaign likely to have
an effect since there is no payback for the company making the investment in
the consumer education. The linux dog can't hunt as they say.
billwg
million PCs said to be in the worldwide installed base, 5 million running
linux would be 1%. I class that as no one. What do you call it?
>> Well how much time do you think that consumers will want to waste in
>> switching to some other platform that they have no experience with?
>
> How much time do you think is involved? Hint: not a hell of a lot. Most
> desktop distros these days are pretty much plug-and-play, even to the
> point of running off CD so you can try before installing. There's a small
> learning curve as you figure out things like using kmail instead of OE,
> Moz instead of IE, etc... but that seems to be more than compensatd by the
> effort involved in getting and keeping your Windows systems secured, the
> lost time due to infections, inexplicable failures and the rest which are
> way too common in Windows land.
You claim these as benefits, but they only exist in your mind, kelsey. You
have to look at the problem from the POV of the user. They know how to use
Windows and they do not know how to use linux. They spent a lot of time in
getting to where they are now and they suppose that it would take them just
as much to get even if they made such a big change. Plus no one will come
right out and say that all their old stuff will work just fine on the new
system and the facts are that it probably will not work at all and the
substitute will take some getting used to and may cost them some money to
obtain. Big uncertainty there regardless of what you yourself believe about
linux. Now if the user has no particular problem to solve, they are not
going to pay much attention to what you are telling them about linux. No
itch, no scratch.
You postulate that all these people are having all these problems with
Windows, but that is not really the case. It is at the heart of your
strategy to get people to switch, though, and, if it is not true, then your
strategy sucks. So ask yourself, is your strategy working?
billwg
<jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:j9-dnfzp_uY...@speakeasy.net...
> billwg wrote:
>
>
>> XP certainly is not "useless", else why would it be so popular?
>
> Saying that XP is 'popular' is like saying that door handles on your car
> are
> popular. Nobody buys a car door handle, it's built in. If people were
> offered a choice they might choose otherwise. But they're not...
>
* * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D e u s . ( d 2 0 0 5 x x , d 2 0 0 4 x x , d 2 0 0 3 x x , d 2 0 0 2 x x ) * * *
> billwg wrote:
>
>
> > XP certainly is not "useless", else why would it be so popular?
>
> Saying that XP is 'popular' is like saying that door handles on your car are
> popular. Nobody buys a car door handle, it's built in. If people were
> offered a choice they might choose otherwise. But they're not...
lie! Here we buy computers without any OS built-in. But they still
choose windos anyway!
amosf
>
> "amosf" <linu...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>> MS has to keep up the FUD. If too many people find out the truth then
>> they will convert in droves. Those of us using linux know that there is
>> no pain in the move, only benefits. The time saved in handling malware
>> and having a
>> secure stable OS is eoungh all on it's own. Plus it looks better, works
>> better and all the rest.
>>
> Well, amos, you have to get the 95% or so to believe that. What are you
> doing to make it happen? How long will it take you to make some progress
> that is visible?
I'm not sure I care about what 95% of people think. Most people still
believe in an invisible omnipotent being that magically created the
universe, but I don't go out of my way to enlighten them on that one
either. Why try and drag people out of their little comfort rut. As for
progress. It seems to happen regardless. When I started linux, nobody had
ever heard of it, now it's in all the magazines and even on MS web pages
and the guys in PC shops know what it is when I talk about it (and most
seem to use it at home).
I still remember when windows was that new fangled bloated thing that nobody
was ever going to use :)
> The answer is nothing and forever, of course, and that is story with
> linux. It is too expensive to mount any consumer education campaign likely
> to have an effect since there is no payback for the company making the
> investment in
> the consumer education. The linux dog can't hunt as they say.
And so... Well, for a start you don't have to suffer linuxophobia then, do
you. So why come here to put it down. You might as well head off and relax
and chat with your windows friends on another forum. Your work is done.
AS for advertising... Seems like a lot of people get to hear about it
anyway, even with the MS FUD. Those then lucky enough to find it can have
bliss and the rest of the poor souls at least still have windows. Tough
luck for them :)
amosf
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Apart from the millions using it, the governments, schools, research
>> institutions, NSA, internet outfits, and more and more and more? You
>> mean aside from all those "no one"?
>>
> Well, see the post to amos. I'll consider 95% as "everyone". With the
> 500 million PCs said to be in the worldwide installed base, 5 million
> running
> linux would be 1%. I class that as no one. What do you call it?
Interesting day when you class even 5 million people as nobody... Of course
it's likely that a lot more than 5 million use linux. Consider dual boot
and all the rest... There is no way to really know how many.
And of course 500million is still a few short of the likely future world
population on PC's... Once MS get's india and china buying windows they'll
be set :)
I will just say that nobody live in the US. It's under 5% of the world
population and let's face it, that's nobody at all :)
tab
>rather than insulting him?
His point, you freaking moron, is that, yes, some people may have out
houses in the barn from 200 years ago, but I think most people would
like flushing toilet.
Lets move up to date. Yeah, you can get a piece of crap machine, but
what you saved in a few bucks will cost you in lots of time and
patience in running the machine. Hope the computer is not a gift, for
it will be never used.
Using this thinking, you can rummage through the garbage can at the
nice restaurant in town, and think what a bargain you are getting. But
nobody wants it. (well, maybe it would look good to a homeless person,
and this food is better then no food).
The people that recommend this stuff is usually old people on
retirement incomes that are fixed. And I guess that is OK. It is
better then nothing. Except it is Linux, and he will have to master
old crap to keep old crap running. And lucky if it all works without
breaking lots.
Better to get an old MAC. They are nice.
William Poaster
And they pay *more* than if he was only M$ certified, in fact almost 15 -
20% more.
--
Linux runs 60% of the world's fastest
500 supercomputers. FreeBSD runs two.
Windows runs one supercomputer, & not even
listed in the fastest 500.
William Poaster
Or the hijack scanner, or the adware scanner..spyware scanner..etc..
billwg
> billwg wrote something like:
>
>>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.06.23...@tiscali.co.uk...
>>>
>>> What you think is neither here nor there, since Linux is in fact
>>> emerging
>>> onto the desktop at almost frightening speed, no matter how hard to try
>>> to deny it. When Longhorn comes out, in it ever does, it will be way
>>> behind, not in front.
>>>
>> You keep telling yourself that, Kier! It is what they want you to say!
>> I think they call it the "Tinkerbell strategy". LOL!
>
> I think India and China are going to go MS windows in a BIG way. Real
> soon.
>
Daeron
Certainly not. It's in the contract with the OEM that other handles are
excluded from the desktop .. er car.
Kelsey Bjarnason
billwg wrote:
> Well, see the post to amos. I'll consider 95% as "everyone". With the 500
> million PCs said to be in the worldwide installed base, 5 million running
> linux would be 1%. I class that as no one. What do you call it?
5 million users.
It's also interesting to note that your 5% figure is somewhat
questionable. That's based on what, sales? How do *you* account for
systems - I have three running at the moment - which have Windows
licenses, but are using freely-downloaded versions of Linux? The only
figure that is reflected in the sales is the three Windows licenses, yet
of those, one - this one - is the only one that runs Windows, and that
only on an occasional basis.
In real terms, I've got two and a half systems running Linux to a half
running Windows, but any naive examination of market figures will show
three running Windows, zero running Linux.
So where - and how - exactly did you get this 5% figure? If you're
simply copying it from someone else, don't post a URL, explain how they
account for this sort of mismeasurement. Unless you - or they - have
and use an accurate method of accounting for such misleading situations,
the 5% figure may as well be 95%, given that it is effectively just made
up in the first place.
Sinister Midget
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 at 08:48 GMT, quoth amosf <linu...@bcs4me.com>:
> Question. Will there be boxes of longhorn (or winders 2010) on the shelves
> when it's released?
That would be a good time for M$ to make more of the hardware vendors
jump into their camp. Simply make sure there's no way to restore the
original WinDOS once it's munged, and don't put any copies on shelves
for people to buy/pirate, forcing users to buy new computers when
Windoze barfs all over itself.
You're welcome to "innovate" my idea, MICROS~1. Go ahead, do it! Talk
it up to your partners in cri^H^H^H^H^H^H^H and tell them how rich
they'll be once this great idea is implemented. You'll be able to count
many more "sales" yourself, since there will be so many people buying
new computers when a driver screws something up awful.
Do it! You know you want to.
--
Linux: because it's _my_ damn computer!
Sinister Midget
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 at 15:41 GMT, quoth William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx>:
> begin OEKillFileMe.vbs It was on Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:59:06 -0500, that
> chrisv was seen to write:
>
>> billwg wrote:
>>
>>>The time that I would have to invest
>>>in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is worth
>>>tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is worth
>>>a lot to most people.
>>
>> You think wrong, as usual. If Linux were pre-installed, as Windoze
>> usually is, performing the common tasks is very simple when using KDE,
>> for example. "Most people" are clueless about Windows, and they could
>> be equally clueless about Linux, and still get the job done.
>>
>>>Certainly it is worth more than the price of Windows itself.
>>
>> Don't forget the virus scanner.
>
> Or the hijack scanner, or the adware scanner..spyware scanner..etc..
Firewall, trip to the fix-it shop, defrag, restoring old restore
points, deleting restore points that have been infected, uninstalling/
reinstalling stuff that breaks, uninstalling/reinstalling stuff that
breaks other stuff..........
--
C:\WINDOWS\RUN C:\WINDOWS\CRASH C:\ME\FDISK
billwg
"Daeron" <doug.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119629118.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
good news?
billwg
what the DOJ came up with during the MSFT trials. The only thing that
anyone cares about is the money anyway. If linux were really sold at a zero
price, that would give it zero percent of any market. The only thing that
would be of concern would be that the OS market would obviously be smaller
by whatever fraction linux managed to serve.
You COLA folk are constantly confusing market share with some popularity
contest. Unless they buy something, it is not very interesting to count how
many dweebs can get along without Windows or who have ceased using a
paid-for copy of Windows. No skin off Mr. Bill's butt either way.
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> On 2005-06-23, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:QaydnegDndu...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> Isn't this the same "problem" that all of you Lemmings keep up
>>> bringing up as reasons to avoid Linux, that "investment of time"?
>>>
>>
>> Well, jedidiah, what is your time worth?
>
> I am a salaried exempt employee so I have no dellusions about my
> time representing some mysterious pot of gold.
>
They must let you go home now and then. Do you live in the USA? There are
laws that regulate this.
If you do get to go home, what is the value that you might place on your
personal time?
>>
>>>> sales success of Windows shows that. The time that I would have to
>>>> invest
>>>> in becoming as familiar with linux as I am familiar with Windows is
>>>> worth
>>>> tens of thousands of dollars to me and I think that amount of time is
>>>> worth
>>>> a lot to most people. Certainly it is worth more than the price of
>>>> Windows
>>>> itself.
>>>
>>> You're simply full of yourself.
>>
>> Well, jedidiah, I am not Bill Gates and I only have my services to sell
>> to
>> the world to earn my living. If I spend 50 hours learning about linux,
>> who
>> is going to pay me for my lost wages? Not the OSSers, for sure.
>
> No, just companies like Electronic Arts, Southwest Airlines, Ebay,
> Amazon, JP Morgan Chase, NYSE, IBM, Oracle, HP or any other company that
> uses Linux or applications that run on it.
>
So If I spend a day loading linux on a computer you are saying that these
companies will pay me? Well that's a better deal than I get from Microsoft
for posting here! What are the details?
billwg
"Sinister Midget" <sini...@stinkfoot.biz> wrote in message
news:slrndbnutu....@laptop.harry.net...
> begin KillFileMe.vbs
Ain't you heard the word, midget? Your fly is open. LOL!!!
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ea0ob1hqc9eb6dlha...@4ax.com...
> billwg wrote:
>
>>else why would (XP) be so popular
>
> Idiot. Because M$ has so far successfully, often illegally, used their
> monopoly power to inhibit competition, and there's obviously a
> "critical mass" that an OS needs to achieve before there's widespread
> application availability.
>
> DUH. LOL.
>
Well, chris, I can see where the DUH is appropriate to your ideas, but you
really want to laugh at yourself? Perhaps you intended this to come out
some other way!
Of course your original premise is false and years of scrutiny by the courts
has shown that the reason that you are losers is not that Microsoft has
unfairly beaten you, but rather that Microsoft has fairly beaten you.
Critical mass pertains to nuclear reactions, but not so much to shopping
goods. Surely you could convince someone to buy your product if it were
truly superior. If you cannot prove that, then you should reexamine your
premise. If the person is not convinced, you should reexamine your
argument. Either way, it is your own damn fault, not Microsoft's.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> You think wrong, as usual. If Linux were pre-installed...
I once heard the saying, "If ifs and ands were pots and pans, tinkers would
be king.". I think it means "Don't hold your breath!", chris. If I had
Bill Gates' money, I would laugh at you silly penguinistas. Come to think
of it, LOL!!! anyway.
Kelsey Bjarnason
billwg wrote:
> Well make up whatever figure you want to make instead, kelsey. The 95% was
> what the DOJ came up with during the MSFT trials. The only thing that
> anyone cares about is the money anyway.
That's just it - that's *not* all anyone cares about. Some of us care
about a lot of other things. *You* may only care about the money, but
don't presume that everyone views things the way you do.
> If linux were really sold at a zero
> price, that would give it zero percent of any market.
Unless it also sold for a non-zero cost, such as, say, almost any of the
major distros in their boxed sets, server editions, etc, etc, etc.
> You COLA folk are constantly confusing market share with some popularity
> contest.
Actually, that's a Wintroll tactic; they presume that because Windows
_sells_ more units, or more dollars, that it is in use more. While it
may in fact be in use more, their assumptions are wrong.
As a simple example of this, compare, say, gasoline sales and sales of
air. Gasoline is generally only available for purchase, while air can
be had for free _or_ for a cost. The vast majority of air consumers do
not pay a penny for their air, whilst every gasoline consumer, bar a few
odd exceptions, pays for gas.
Thus, if we look at the sales revenues, we can conclude that there are
perhaps a billion people who use gas, and only a virtually non-existent
number who use air. Apparently, six billion of us have, one way or
another, stopped breathing, since the sales figures tell us we're not
buying air.
Obviously, we are breathing. Obviously, we are using air. We're just
not *buying* it, so examining the sales figures, in order to draw any
conclusion about usage, is silly if the product is generally available
free of charge.
Indeed, by the typical tactic of ignoring the free distribution of a
product, we can safely conclude that there are something like 100
million gas consumers to every air consumer, which is obviously wrong,
but it is the conclusion supported by the sales figures.
Now, for the sake of argument, please tell us how, exactly, the
percentages of desktop usage of various operating systems is determined,
making sure that whatever method is being used _accounts for the free
products_. Also, it should account for paid licenses which are no
longer used, as well; if I own three licensed versions of Windows, but
only use one of them, that's three items reflected in sales figures, but
only one actually being used, so you'll have to avoid overinflating
usage of the for-sale products, as well.
Feel free to give us the methods you used to arrive at your numbers, and
do remember to demonstrate that they account for both of these problems
in determining usage.
Kier
<cue loud clapping> Nice one, amosf :-) Cheers!
--
Kier
billwg
> course
> it's likely that a lot more than 5 million use linux. Consider dual boot
> and all the rest... There is no way to really know how many.
>
that is where the money is.
> And of course 500million is still a few short of the likely future world
> population on PC's... Once MS get's india and china buying windows they'll
> be set :)
>
You must have been an investor in the .COM companies of a few years back,
amos! That idea kind of went away with the coming of the dawn. It is no
longer chic to just have a lot of names on your list. You must get them to
pay. A short list of payees is preferable to a longer list of freeloaders.
Now you may not agree, but then so what?
> I will just say that nobody live in the US. It's under 5% of the world
> population and let's face it, that's nobody at all :)
>
You suggest that you might live in Australia, and that is dinky-di wonderful
and fair dinkum OK with me! You stay there!
If I could pick, I would manage it so that there were even less in the US of
A, too. The USA is what is known as a specialty market and we are not out
for the max numbers title. It is just as well that India and China vie for
that honor! LOL!!!
Larry Qualig
"billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VM1ve.114245$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> I will just say that nobody live in the US. It's under 5% of the world
>> population and let's face it, that's nobody at all :)
>>
> You suggest that you might live in Australia, and that is dinky-di
> wonderful and fair dinkum OK with me! You stay there!
>
> If I could pick, I would manage it so that there were even less in the US
> of A, too. The USA is what is known as a specialty market and we are not
> out for the max numbers title. It is just as well that India and China
> vie for that honor! LOL!!!
This figure may have changed but a few years ago the US accounted for close
to 50% of all software sales. Not just for US companies like Microsoft and
Oracle but for international companies as well.
If we are talking only talking about population then the US is only a small
fraction of the world. But if you look at the population and filter based on
people who own computers the US is the world powerhouse. When viewed that
way it really doesn't matter how many pigmy bushmen live in the jungles of
Mozambique. They won't be buying computers anytime soon.
billwg
> [snips]
>
> billwg wrote:
>
>> Well make up whatever figure you want to make instead, kelsey. The 95%
>> was what the DOJ came up with during the MSFT trials. The only thing
>> that anyone cares about is the money anyway.
>
> That's just it - that's *not* all anyone cares about. Some of us care
> about a lot of other things. *You* may only care about the money, but
> don't presume that everyone views things the way you do.
>
about markets, you are talking about money. If you are not talking about
money, you are not talking about markets at all. You are just flapping your
lips.
>> If linux were really sold at a zero price, that would give it zero
>> percent of any market.
>
> Unless it also sold for a non-zero cost, such as, say, almost any of the
> major distros in their boxed sets, server editions, etc, etc, etc.
>
Go back and re-write that so that it makes some sense.
>> You COLA folk are constantly confusing market share with some popularity
>> contest.
>
> Actually, that's a Wintroll tactic; they presume that because Windows
> _sells_ more units, or more dollars, that it is in use more. While it may
> in fact be in use more, their assumptions are wrong.
>
> As a simple example of this, compare, say, gasoline sales and sales of
> air. Gasoline is generally only available for purchase, while air can be
> had for free _or_ for a cost. The vast majority of air consumers do not
> pay a penny for their air, whilst every gasoline consumer, bar a few odd
> exceptions, pays for gas.
>
> Thus, if we look at the sales revenues, we can conclude that there are
> perhaps a billion people who use gas, and only a virtually non-existent
> number who use air. Apparently, six billion of us have, one way or
> another, stopped breathing, since the sales figures tell us we're not
> buying air.
>
> Obviously, we are breathing. Obviously, we are using air. We're just not
> *buying* it, so examining the sales figures, in order to draw any
> conclusion about usage, is silly if the product is generally available
> free of charge.
>
Well, you are obviously using air, kelsey, but you are doing it without
thinking much.
> Indeed, by the typical tactic of ignoring the free distribution of a
> product, we can safely conclude that there are something like 100 million
> gas consumers to every air consumer, which is obviously wrong, but it is
> the conclusion supported by the sales figures.
>
Now you are heating up the air, but still not making any sense! LOL!!!
> Now, for the sake of argument, please tell us how, exactly, the
> percentages of desktop usage of various operating systems is determined,
> making sure that whatever method is being used _accounts for the free
> products_. Also, it should account for paid licenses which are no longer
> used, as well; if I own three licensed versions of Windows, but only use
> one of them, that's three items reflected in sales figures, but only one
> actually being used, so you'll have to avoid overinflating usage of the
> for-sale products, as well.
>
What difference does it make how many people are using things? It only
matters what they are paying for them. The desktop OS platform software
market is close to 100% Windows by dollar volume and that is enough of a
picture for a product marketer to decide that there is no pupose in making
any kind of business move that is designed to protect market share. There
is simply no threat.
Rather the trick is to grow the market itself since that is the only way
that MS is going to get more revenue in the future. Linux serves only to
limit the rate that the Windows market will grow in the future. I am sure
that Microsoft understands this.
> Feel free to give us the methods you used to arrive at your numbers, and
> do remember to demonstrate that they account for both of these problems in
> determining usage.
Your problem is in not understanding that the answer has no value.
amosf
>
> "amosf" <linu...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>> And of course 500million is still a few short of the likely future world
>> population on PC's... Once MS get's india and china buying windows
>> they'll be set :)
>>
>
> You must have been an investor in the .COM companies of a few years back,
> amos! That idea kind of went away with the coming of the dawn. It is no
> longer chic to just have a lot of names on your list. You must get them
> to
> pay. A short list of payees is preferable to a longer list of
> freeloaders. Now you may not agree, but then so what?
Doesn't really mean much with linux tho.
>> I will just say that nobody live in the US. It's under 5% of the world
>> population and let's face it, that's nobody at all :)
>>
> You suggest that you might live in Australia, and that is dinky-di
> wonderful
> and fair dinkum OK with me! You stay there!
Yeah, but my nationality is still a bit up in the air. I may be an american,
but I'm trying to get out of that. I have managed to get myself an
australian birth certificate to go with my US one, which is kinda
interesting. BTW I don't think I've ever heard an Ozzy say dinky-di, tho a
very few may use fair dinkum. I don't have a lot to do with the ones that
do say it tho. I also hardly ever wear shoes and do say g'day, tho a low
key short g'day rather than the one you may see on TV, Maaaate. Snakes do
live in the house, but no kangaroos as they tend to give the dogs the
shits.
> If I could pick, I would manage it so that there were even less in the US
> of
> A, too. The USA is what is known as a specialty market and we are not out
> for the max numbers title. It is just as well that India and China vie
> for
> that honor! LOL!!!
You can't have it both ways, tho. Linux could be seen as a specialty market
that is not out for max numbers. Sometimes the good stuff, like australia
and linux, involves small numbers. So is a minority a good thing or nobody?
amosf
> If we are talking only talking about population then the US is only a
> small fraction of the world. But if you look at the population and filter
> based on people who own computers the US is the world powerhouse. When
> viewed that way it really doesn't matter how many pigmy bushmen live in
> the jungles of Mozambique. They won't be buying computers anytime soon.
The point was only that the US could be seen as a insignificant minority in
world populationg, and it probably is if you live in the middle of china.
Nothing to do with PC's, just comparing relative minorities.
Kelsey Bjarnason
amosf wrote:
> Interesting day when you class even 5 million people as nobody...
If I could stop here a moment, and ask that nobody send me $1? Since 5
million people is nobody, I could, by his warped view of the universe,
become an overnight multi millionaire without ever getting a cent from
anybody.
Go figger. So, again, please, nobody send me a dollar - I'd like to be
rich. :)
Ralph
You really need to re-read what he said. He was making a point that 5
million people != nobody. Geez, no wonder windows users need an OS that
involves nothing more than clicking on the pretty pictures.
Quantum Leaper
> Quantum Leaper wrote something like:
>
>>> Since when were all these compulsory extras that come with Windows
>>> machines "free"?
>>>
>>> They had to be bought and paid for somehow, whether you like it or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> And $249.99 for XP Home SP2 Retail is daylight robbery, considering
>>> it's next to useless without additional spending.
>>>
>> The problem is I know of no one who ever has to PAY $249 for XP Home,
>> since
>> you either buy a computer, build a computer or upgrade a computer
>> or did I
>> miss a 'class' of computer buyer? If you buy a computer it most
>> likely has
>> MS installed, if you build a computer, you can buy an OEM copy, to
>> qualify, you need a new MB or HD, if you upgrade, most likely it
>> has/had
>> MS installed on it, so you have the CD with is all you need for a
>> upgrade.
>> The only people, I can think of that couldn't get a OEM or Upgrade
>> price, is someone who built or bought a computer in the past and it
>> had Linux preinstalled on it. The problem with that is why do they
>> want to change if Linux is SO great....
>
> When 95, 98, ME, XP were released the shelves were full of boxes of
> these OS's to sell. People bought them generally with the hope that
> they would be better than the crashing rubbish they had on their PC
> at the time. Sometimes the new OS was a little better and other times
> it was worse. Also some people buy a PC with OEM winders and no
> disks, and they are screwed when the warrenty runs out. In all these
> cases people either do the 'right' thing and buy winders, or they
> steal it... After buying one overpriced copy they usually steal the
> next I figure...
>
95, 98 and ME could all be upgraded from Win3.11, and we all know MS had
Windows install on just about EVERY computer, so just about anyone who had
a computer would qualify for an Upgrade version of those three. XPs
upgrades were everything except Win3.11, but how many Win3.11 computers
could run XP, I would guess its almost less then zero. You do realize
that almost no one ever upgrades there OS, because they believe it good
enough. I know alot of people still using what came on their computer when
they bought it at the store, and less then a handful who upgraded their
Windows OS to a different version.
The thing is with an Upgrade you need the CD or Windows install on the
harddrive to install, so it should be a problem when you upgrade. If the
OEM doesn't send you a disk and your system fails, most people, I know
would call them up and bitch about it. I know because it happened to a
friend of mine with his new computer last year. They tend to send out a
disk then, like I said they don't go out an BUY a RETAIL copy of Windows,
unless they are REALLY stupid.
> Question. Will there be boxes of longhorn (or winders 2010) on the
> shelves when it's released?
The real question will Microsoft still be a monoply by then, if Linux keeps
winning the war, and then what will MS do once they have the gloves off?
billwg
"amosf" <am...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:42bc...@news.comindico.com.au...
> BTW I don't think I've ever heard an Ozzy say dinky-di, tho a
> very few may use fair dinkum.
Well, my experience is very dated, amos, I will admit. I guess those things
pass out of favor, but the Aussies in the 70s used the terms a fair amount.
billwg
Your logic is flawed, kelsey. You would have to contact even this small
group in order to obtain some recognition. Else, like linux, no one will
ever know! LOL!!!
amosf
Some still do, but they are mostly wankers. :)
There was a newspaper report recently that attempted to claim that Ozzies
were more sophisticated these days and didn't use terms like g'day and
'mate' and go without shoes or wear thongs and all sort of tripe... I think
the chick that wrote it was from some other planet tho - maybe the planet
Sydney. Ozzies are still pretty laid back with the 'she'll be right'
attitude. At least in the more real parts of Australia...
But no worries mate, I'll stay here down under and throw some more prawns on
the barbie... Oh, hold on. Prawns are shit on a barbie... Wankers.
Sinister Midget
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 at 01:24 GMT, quoth Quantum Leaper <lea...@bigfoot.com>:
> 95, 98 and ME could all be upgraded from Win3.11, and we all know MS had
> Windows install on just about EVERY computer, so just about anyone who had
> a computer would qualify for an Upgrade version of those three. XPs
> upgrades were everything except Win3.11,
And 95. And NT 3.51. And others, depending on whether you waste your
money on Pro (ha ha ha) or Home.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/matrix.mspx
--
"[Microsoft's] products just aren't engineered for security."
-- Brian Valentine
Senior Vice President, Windows Development
Microsoft Corporation
Kier
Ralph, since when was Kelsey a Windows user?
And whuile you're at it, for goodness sake sstart using your brain before
you post nonsense.
--
Kier
chrisv
It's better to be silly than it is to be a stupid, lying troll...
LOL
Quantum Leaper
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 at 01:24 GMT, quoth Quantum Leaper <lea...@bigfoot.com>:
> > 95, 98 and ME could all be upgraded from Win3.11, and we all know MS
had
> >Windows install on just about EVERY computer, so just about anyone who
had
> > a computer would qualify for an Upgrade version of those three. XPs
> > upgrades were everything except Win3.11,
> And 95. And NT 3.51. And others, depending on whether you waste your
> money on Pro (ha ha ha) or Home.
My point is unless you have Linux preinstalled, you never need to spend
the FULL retail price for XP, home or Pro. I doubt a 95 or NT3.51 machine
could handle XP either so the my point still is valid. It had nothing to do
with the choice of OSs, but I guess any loser who used the begin bug,
wouldn't understand at damn thing.
One more thing, if you losers who exploit bugs in other peoples program
would put a disclaimer at the top, saying 'this lack of message bought you
by MS', you might get people to understand, but like I said you losers
are to dumb to do something like that.....
Kelsey Bjarnason
Kier presented the following explanation :
> Ralph, since when was Kelsey a Windows user?
Occasionally. Last week or so I've been using it almost exclusively,
because I've been doing some Windows coding. On the other hand, while
I'm an occasional Windows _user_, I'm a lousy Windows _advocate_,
because I just don't like using it. :)
--
This is an automatic signature of MesNews.
Site : http://www.mesnews.net
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
thinks differently is a troll or liar or both! How can you continue to be so
lame?